Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 3

< 2 July	4 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 no consensus. This discussion reveals many editors with doubts about the notability of this song; but there is no overall consensus to do anything in particular with it, and definitely no consensus to delete. A merge to Confessions of a Shopaholic (film)#Soundtrack does seem a reasonable way forward, but I can't really pull a consensus to do so out of this discussion. ~ mazca ^talk 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion (Heidi Montag/Lady Gaga song)

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Never released as a single and no notability outside its album. Not a lot else to say really. DJ 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. MS (Talk|Contributions) 09:42, 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, DJ 17:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given, no non-trivial media coverage--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 04:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Confessions of a Shopaholic#Soundtrack KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable. Recorded by two major pop figures. Included on soundtracks to major shows. Definitely worth including. Plenty of coverage here [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 articles. All trivial mentions. DJ 17:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is about a subject, it is by definition more than a trivial mention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney. Read WP:RS. DJ 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First you argued that the mentions were trivial, now you're arguing that the sources aren't reliable? You're welcome to take MTV News and Access Hollywood to the RS noticeboard. I'm confident that when it comes to pop music they are very appropriate to use. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Confessions of a Shopaholic (film)#Soundtrack. This song fails WP:MUSIC: it hasn't charted, there's no reviews, and the given sources don't cover the song deeply. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Confessions of a Shopaholic (film)#Soundtrack. The song was sung by two well known recording artists and features on very well known television and movie soundtracks. It was also released as a single.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Delete per nomination. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song has been performed independently by two notable artists and thus passes WP:MUSIC. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 11:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually read that notability guideline? Simply being performed by notables doesn't make the song notable. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:MUSIC, being indepedently performed by several notable artists - which this song is - automatically makes it notable. Maybe you need to read into policies a little better... --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The song is still not notable, as not received by third party critics or charting in any charts. Hence fails badly. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:MUSIC states, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." So the fact that neither version has charted is irrelevant. And being received by third-party critics is not a requirement. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 22:06, 10 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. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Hazmat Life Support

This is a contested PROD. It was declined as needing cleanup but I am not sure if that can lead to an acceptable article as I have doubts about the subject itself. The article is about a training organisation and the training it provides. There is no demonstration of notability and no secondary sources. The subject does get hits in Google News and Google Scholar but I am not sure it they amount to significant coverage. We do not normally have articles about training courses except those leading to official qualifications or recognised certifications. I am not sure that these do, although they do seem to be recognised as providing "Continuing Education credits"[2]. I think we should look at whether this subject is appropriate before somebody spends a lot of time cleaning it up. DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me the coverage mentioned in the nom if sufficient reason to keep. (There are also a number of GNews hits). Based on the coverage, it appears that this University of Arizona program is recognized as important by a variety of sources and is also unique. Thus, it is notable and worthy of inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good sources exist; I'm adding some. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 6 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 per WP:A7 by User:SarekOfVulcan --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

PLATE-MATE

Contested prod. Article about a brand of kitchen racks. Its notability is not established, and the only attempt at inserting third-party reliable sources so far has been by producing catalogs of resellers. When I pointed out to the creator that resellers cannot be regarded as third parties in this case, he asked why we have an article on Tupperware. Delete unless actual third-party sources can be found. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A7. No assertion of actual notability for the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no indication of notability. Looks like spam. I42 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per both above - non-notable spam. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to being called a spammer. I would like an answer to my question regarding the article on Tupperware. I ask that the Tupperware article be deleted if my article is to be deleted.Standard84 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was answered on the article's talk page. Comparison with another article is never an appropriate argument to use at AfD even if it does seem the comparison is appropriate. But in this case it is clear that Tupperware is a brand with obvious notability - whereas no evidence has so far been presented to demonstrate that PLATE-MATE is notable, and if its not notable the article will be deleted. If you feel Tupperware is non-notable (as you state on the talk page) then you would, of course, be entitled to nominate that article for deletion - but I advise you read WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before considering doing so. I42 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:Per WP:G7--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:52, 7 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 article has been substantially updated since the AfD was placed and it now meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards thanks to input from User:Theleftorium. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Fronda

Delete: Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY [email protected] (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:AFD withdrawn.

Went from a crappy, vanity stub to a good article thanks to The leftorium, who should have contacted me so that I could withdraw the AFD. I recommend other delete voters (thanks, btw) check it out. [email protected] (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just simply a vanity page.Parkerparked (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not speedy delete. There appears to be coverage in reliable sources found by a Google News search, but I'm not in the mood at the moment to try to get my head round Swedish. Hopefully a Swedish-reading editor will be able to evaluate those search results.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm Swedish and this artist is well-known here. Fronda does not fails WP:MUSICBIO as one of his singles has charted on Sverigetopplistan (at #11). He has also been a contestant in Melodifestivalen, and most of the sources listed [3] are reliable. I will add them as soon as I can. The leftorium 19:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Theleftorium's confirmation of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to good work from Theleftorium. Has had a charted single on a national music chart, so meets notability guidelines.--Beloved Freak 20:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The overall consensus seems to conclude that there simply has not been enough reliable-source coverage to warrant an article at this time. The various online reviews do not meet WP:RS, leading to the article as a whole failing all criteria of WP:BK. ~ mazca ^talk 00:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (mini series)

This article about a series of books does not indicate how the subject is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. The only references given are to the publisher's website and various booksellers. I've searched for reviews or mentions in reliable sources, but am unable to find anything. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has a detailed reference section and is notable due to the five or six reviews that are linked to via the reference section. I believe that the article meets the criteria that Wikipedia presents and therefore should not be deleted. If there is one or two major problems with the page that you would like to point out, please do and I will attempt to sort these out. The series has been noted as one of the better erotic series and therefore I think it should be noted on Wikipedia. Further development should occur to the article if left 'un-deleted'. Dogman29 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC) — Dogman29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:BK. The only semi-substantive sources cited are nonindependent (the publisher's site), sites selling the books, and customer reviews at the foregoing. I can find no reliable sources discussing any of the works treated here. (Note: An article on this topic was prodded and deleted last year.) Deor (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News comes up with nothing for any of the book titles: [4]. Any notable book published in the current millennium in the UK would certainly have some reviews in publications indexed by Google News. Worldcat lists a combined grand total of five library holdings in their home country for the four books: [5][6][7][8]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A good article in many ways. It has many references in both the specific and general sections which do link to websites. Reviews on independent websites are linked to (there are around five/six) on Amazon/the publisher's website. These shouldn't be ignored as they are still reviews. The books are listed on sites such as Worldcat so why shouldn't they be listed on Wikipedia? I believe that this article is perfectly legit and therefore should remain on the encyclopedia. Deleting such an article would be ridiculous as it is a referenced article that looks tidy and is a credit to the site. Do not delete.E-mailed Monkey (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that three of the four "Keep" comments above have used the term "valid" in reference to the article under discussion. One of the comments comes from an IP and another from a single-purpose account. This is very interesting. If there is sockpuppeting occurring here please keep in mind that this will be taken into consideration when the closing decision is made. (A check-user can be performed to determine whether edits are likely made by the same individual under different names.) ... discospinster _talk 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the word "valid" has disappeared, and one of the "Keep" comments has been removed. ... discospinster _talk 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two have been removed, actually—the edit summary of the second removal being a tacit admission of double !voting. Deor (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can we possibly review the page as it currently stands. It has links to around eleven reviews between Google, Amazon and the publisher's website. Should we all review the article as it is today - at this moment in time? Rather than what was put up to be deleted. E-mailed Monkey (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:BK specifies that "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" (my emphasis). User reviews at sites like Amazon and Google Books are not sufficient to establish notability; nor are they reliable sources for the content in articles. Deor (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are probably some real reviews to be found by now, but until someone finds them, I do not see how we can have this article. DGG (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delete then - If we are all so convinced that this article should be deleted then you might as well. It doesn't meet guidelines and therefore you're right. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogman29 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - IP addresses don't necessarily represent an individual. In a democracy everyone has a vote. I concede disco spinster. It is corporeal and sacrilegious. PF. E-mailed Monkey (talk) 09:49, 6 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffanie McKie

Seems non-notable no significant coverage in reliable sources, a vanity piece most likely. Polly (Parrot) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page, load of content of which none is referenced. No sources, no notability. Parkerparked (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total vanity page. "Look mom, I'm in wikipedia"Niteshift36 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Unreferenced, not notable. A7 candidate. I42 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Iowateen (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 9 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} 09:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gem paul

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Reads like an obituary. Google doesn't turn up anything substantial. Appears to fail WP:BIO. PRODed; PROD stayed up until an IP removed it on 23 June. t'shael^chat 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As a journalist, fails WP:CREATIVE as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It honestly breaks my heart to learn about a person who dies so young. Nevertheless, the "NOTMEMORIAL" clause applies. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WPISNOTMEMORIAL. Just look at it's discussion page (I'm not an admin, should I be here?) Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 13:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, anyone is welcome to participate in deletion discussions. -t'shael^chat 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. Can you imagine the mess if only we admins had to decide on these things? Whoa. Seriously, you are more than welcome to participate. Your opinion is more than appreciated. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just write this so you know I've read the above. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 18:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Salih (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL & WP:BIO. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial. Iowateen (talk) 06:31, 6 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. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy bombing

Non-notable neologism. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Sancho 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP, WP:N. I42 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 22:01, 7 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snippeting

Appears to be a protologism. Unreferenced, could not find reliable sources to convey notability. —LedgendGamer 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete, per the lack of clear context and the lack of references noted above. Even the website furnished in the article doesn't resolve. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom + as the article appears to be advertising a website (albeit not yet up and running), speedy A7 / G11 apply. I42 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be original research or advertising (although the website doesn't exist). Redirect to Snippet. snigbrook (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:NEO and WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR, no clear context, no notability. -t'shael^chat 01:27, 4 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 Andy Murray. Many of the keep !votes are not based on policy. Discounting those, there is not much of an argument for keeping the article. The decision will be to merge since there is more support to merge than to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sears

Nominated as her notability seems to stem purely from being Andy Murray's Girlfriend. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have campaigned once before and I am going to campaign again to keep this page on Wikipedia. Check your talk page. Randomer789 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should probably cite your reasons for keep here because as it stands there is nothing in your rationale that supports keep, other than you would like it to be kept. I42 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She may well have come to prominence because of her association with Andy Murray but there are articles such as this which feature her independently. I42 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the point I42. As she becomes more famous she will did things for herself that make her notable, and it is a waste of time to delete the article and make it again. Randomer789 (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we can't have articles for people that MIGHT become famous, she needs to be notable now for the article to pass WP:Bio, the above article doesn't demonstrate her notability anymore then Page Three would Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Media coverage confirms notability. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when I first came upon this page, I thought this page was probably WP:NOTINHERITED, but I had a poke around, and came up with loads of sources about her, not Murray. The ones which I thought most significant are the five used for references. These numerous sources are why I think the subject is notable. It doesn't matter where her notability came from, as long as she is notable (is every mention of her was in passing, while the subject of the source was Murray, then I would vote delete, but they aren't). Passes WP:NN - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Andy Murray. Article is short enough that a separate page for his girlfriend is not necessary. 174.153.97.210 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC) — 174.153.97.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep She is notable enough and will probably continue to become even more so. TV commentators constantly reference her and her father during matches as well. So the page may prove useful.Parkerparked (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Andy Murray. Notability is not temporary, nor inherited, and her media coverage stems solely from the man she dates --Saalstin (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one of those articles with the trivial coverage of her would have been written if she wasn't dating Murray. Even this article we are discussing is barely about her. It contains 5 sentences. 3 of the 5 mention Murray. 1 of the 5 talks about her father, only 1 doesn't mention someone more notable than she is. Even the sentence about her going to school worked in a mention of Murray. For those advocating keep, I ask one question: What has she actually done of note? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article which starts off mainly about her. It doesn't matter if the sources only exist because she is Murray's girlfriend, as long as they exist, thanks to the large number of sources about her (not Murray), she is notable. WP:ITSA only applies when the subject is not notable, but someone the subject is related to is, in this case the subject is notable per WP:BIO. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Notability isn;t there to me. Again I ask, what has she done, seperate from sleeping with Murray, that makes her notable? I'm willing to be that if Murray dropped dead tomorrow, in 2 weeks, only her family would remember her name. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does she have to have done something to be notable? Well according to WP:BIO she doesn't have to have. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll rephrase in light of the pedantic reading of my point. What notability has she achieved on her own, without Murray? Can you show me a reliable source from before the time she started dating Murray? Can you show me a reliable source covering her without mentioning Murray? Or is every bit of her "notability" tied to the fact that she is sleeping with him? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. But this doesn't matter, since I can find sources which have her as the subject (not Murray). Just because it's mentioned that in every source that she is Murray's girlfriend doesn't make her non-notable. It would be like saying that the Queen of England is non notable because, "can you find any sources which don't mention that she is the Queen? Or is every bit of her 'notability' tied to the fact that she is the queen?" this is clearly crooked logic. Anyway, can you find any sources which explicitly say she is sleeping with him? If not, she's clearly notable for something else. ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But being the monarch of a soveriegn nation IS inherently notable. Being the current lay of the #3 tennis player is not. Her notability stems from being "friends" with someone notable. What's next? Articles about every member of some two-bit rappers "posse"? This is surreal to me. You are arguing to keep someone who has done nothing, accomplished noting and struggles to have a notable identity without her boyfriend, yet there are current AfD's for people like Stephen Trujillo, who has spent his life in service to his country and performed far above the call of duty, with actual accomplishments of his own and I don't see you there trying save that article. It's pop culture nonsense like this that make Paris Hilton a household name and relegate the Lenny Skutnik's of the world to being a footnote in history. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like it either, but she is getting independent coverage and thus has independent notability according to WP guidelines. I42 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that notability independent? Or is it merely a by-product of her association with someone notable.? I'm fighting the exact opposite battle in the AfD for Lisa Niemi. She is an actress, director and producer in her own right, but since much of her work is with her more famous husband (Patrick Swayze), some want to make her a footnote in his article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not because of her association with Murray, but I am saying that it doesn't matter if it is. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a redirect to Andy Murray. A 2 paragraph article wouldn't make the Andy Murray article all that much longer than it is already. 68.244.33.210 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — 68.244.33.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Kingpin,I wonder how often what gets labelled as a "SPA" is an editor who just forgot to sign in. I recently ran into this on another article where the editor didn't even realize he was posting under both his IP and registered account. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That did occur to me, but twice in one AfD seemed funny, even if they are in disagreement with each other, and it seems unfair to go badgering them, as they may want to keep their IP addresses' private. Besides which, it's not like the tag does any harm, I'll happily remove them if anyone requests - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mention it (aside from my recent encounter with an editor I mentioned), was that I looked at the editors other contribution, done very a few minutes before his/her vote here and it was a spelling correction in a fairly mundane article totally unrelated to anything even remotely connected to this article. That's why I immediately considered that it might be a person who simply forgot to log in or whose cookie had expired. The first one is a toss up, but given it only had one edit, I can see why you'd tag it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of articles on the internet are talking about her, mentioning Murray but the topics are not about what Murray has done. SuperTeacher123 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, while there are indeed sources about her, she simply hasn't done anything notable beyond being Andy Murray's girlfriend. There's nothing to say in the article that wouldn't better be said as a paragraph in Andy Murray. To me, this is a classic case of "notability is not inherited" . ~ mazca ^talk 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that a person must have done something to be notable/pass WP:BIO? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia article isn't a prize for meeting an arbitrary standard of coverage. It is a means of portraying information to a reader; if there is no useful information to portray beyond that which would be best covered in the context of someone else, then an independent article is not the way to go. ~ mazca ^talk 09:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can only agree with the claim that notability is not inherited in this case, and disagree that there is enough coverage for Ms Sears to qualify on her own. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All of the sources cited above are connected with Andy Murray. The titles of the articles are The girl who tamed Andy Murray's temper and turned him into a winner, Andy Murray's girl Kim Sears keeps cool at Wimbledon, Hair-raising: Andy Murray's girlfriend and the Farrah Fawcett look, etc. None of the articles discuss Kim Sears independently of Andy Murray, so this article should be merged. Cunard (talk) 20:02, 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 GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul and GSV Lasting Damage into List of ships (The Culture) and no consensus on GSV Sleeper Service. There is pretty much no support for keeping the first two articles. There is more support for merging those two than deleting them. For the Sleeper Service, Ingolfson makes a good point about the references. Since no one specifically contested this claim, it will be a no consensus, without prejudice against renomination of this particular article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul

GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable fictional ship; unreferenced, and can find no out-of-universe references. Any possible salvageable info can be stored at List of ships (The Culture) or Ship types (The Culture). I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article would in my opinion be of specific interest to fans of the Culture series of novels by Iain M Banks. The book this ship is taken from, Consider Phlebas, was the first Culture novel and whilst unnamed for the bulk of the book, the Mind involved is a crucial part of the storyline.

I don't accept your reason for deletion of any of these articles - you say they are unreferenced but they are prominent characters from popular books with their own pages in Wikipedia, with all the information on the ships coming from those same books. You say they are non-notable but that is surley only your opinion - they play important parts in the stories they are involved in. By the same argument, you could also nominate for deletion pages relating to other characters and technologies from this series just because they aren't part of more populist works such as Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica. I fear they are being targetted fore deletion only because you may be unfamilair with the fiction concerned.

-User talk:Billydevil|talk page) 23.05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose deletion - Nominating user obviously ignores the fact that GSV Sleeper Service service has third-party references. He just chucked it in because he feels its all fancruft. Every article has to be discussed on its merits. And Wikipedia is not paper. Ingolfson (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No real world notability shown. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That only applies to two out of three articles. If the AfD submitter had done the right thing and nominated them separately, I would even agree with you. Ingolfson (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Ship Types or List of Ships. Trying to make articles to this degree of details is inappropriate, except for the most famous of works, unless there is really substantial published discussion. DGG (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, did you get the part that this is a fictional ship? Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a dictionary for science fiction fans. Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me where you base this on? Wikipedia is not paper - references and notability are key, not your fear that it might be used as "a dictionary by science fiction fans". Also look up dictionary. These are entries for the characters of novels. Ingolfson (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. IMO, the problem seems to be that the entry can't decide if it's about the novel or the ship. There are a significant amount of quality Wikipedia articles on fictional spacecraft (and very few rise to Starship Enterprise or Millennium Falcon levels of notability). BUT If there's not enough information and sources for the ship to stand in an article by itself (I'm guessing this is the case), then it should be merged into The Culture.--Junius49 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the plot details to the relevant novels, with section links on List of ships (The Culture). I do not have access to A Companion to Science Fiction at the moment, but as the reference is currently used it appears not to treat the ship in sufficient detail that an article may be based on it; even if this is not the case, Excession is only 12 kB and could easily accomodate the sourced merge. Closing administrator - I think all my books are in storage or on loan, but I should be fresh enough on the plots to put the ships in context; drop a line at my talk if you would like me to perform any merge. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And redirect the ship names to List of ships (The Culture). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ships (The Culture) - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found further third-party references for the notability of GSV Sleeper Service. For those who haven't got the books I reference, feel free to use Google Books to confirm that the literary analysis I cite exists. As I said above, I understand and do not really (except on a gut level) oppose the merge/deletion of the two other articles. However, I'd ask for editors to recognise that this third article is well-referenced and relevant, and that Wikipedia would lose out if it was removed. Ingolfson (talk) 23:04, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Summoning (film)

Future film without significant coverage in reliable sources. (probable coi issues) Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent references supplied or found, so no aparrent notability. WP:NFF is clear that films do not need to merely exist in order to be included. I42 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Parkerparked (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. Zero results on Google News, no apparent WP:RS results on Google Web. — Rankiri (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Principle filming has begun, but there is not enough yet in reliable sources to meet WP:NFF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as is always the case, once NFF has been met, then someone uninvolved with the production can recreate it. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:22, 5 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough Athletic F.C. season 2008–09

An article about a season for club playing in the 10th level of English football, which I do not believe is necessary (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cray Wanderers F.C. season 2009-10). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnecessary page, seems to just be a hobbyist article. Parkerparked (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creator should buy some webspace Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably admissible only on Scarborough Athletic's own wiki. – Pee Jay 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. No objection to linking to Scarborough Athletic's wiki from the main Scarborough FC article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say that I only mentioned that Scarborough Athletic wiki as a hypothetical situation :-) – Pee Jay 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 05:41, 5 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. Should he meet it in the future, let me know and I will restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Thorne (footballer)

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE; insufficient material to pass WP:N Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary vanity page, not notable enough to warrant an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkerparked (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he plays fully professionally. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 05:40, 5 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. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. & Subsidiaries

Legal company of uncertain notability. Speedy tag removed by creator (who is also owner of a franchise of said company). Oscarthecat (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not noteworthy, most of the statements require references for which there are no sources. Just seems to be a vanity page, if the company does anything exceptional, an independent contributor will create an article. Until then, delete.Parkerparked (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~G11~~. Regardless of sourcing this is too highly promotional, and would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Easier to start from scratch, and I'm frankly sick and tired of blatant marketing hype being injected into this encyclopaedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this gets deleted, could the closer please also remove Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. It's traded on the NYSE, and all such firms should be considered notable. The article could if necessary be reduced to its first paragraph. The NYT article is good additional documentation and indicates the way to find a good deal else. The present article, based on the information there, is to a considerable extent a PR whitewash. Editing is what is appropriate; thiswill preserve the history of what the original article looked like, which is in fact of some interest. DGG (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix -- per DGG's reasoning, but under the proper name, not the bizarre one to which the COI editor moved the article (I've reverted all that stuff). Stub it as far down as needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix, in a change of heart. (Orange Mike and I have both been through it with an axe, and it's looking more like a Wikipedia article now.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It seems a prominent, albeit sleezy, NYSE company.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is too much on the article to be edited to get away from advert and blatant COI.--TRL (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a massive pruning of self-promotional spam takes place. The original editor is also in the process of creating a new entry for every subsidiary for what seems like all 50 states. I have marked them all for speedy deletion under A7 as they only mention that they are a subsidiary of the main company; clearly not an assertion of notability. Wperdue (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad Communum

This terms appears to be a neologism on the pattern of Reductio ad Hitlerum, but with no evidence whatsoever of any actual external usage. Moreover, the text of the article is just copy-and-pasted from the RaH article, with just the term itself changed (and removal of the pedigree of the actually used term; i.e. "coined by Leo Strauss". LotLE×talk 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable/non-notable neologism. snigbrook (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can add evidence of actual usage to the article. LotLE×talk 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without any doubt. In this forum post [9] the author admits that he/she made up the term and wrote the Wikipedia article to go with it. For further confirmation this post is the only Google hit for "Reductio ad Communum" which is not either a Wikipedia page or a web page quoting Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 4 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. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hopkins

Unsourced, doesn't seem to meet the criteria for notability. CarbonX (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page, with unverifiable and unsourced material. Definitely does not meet notability guidelines.Parkerparked (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can verify that he is a working video game music composer. However, I cannot find any coverage about him that would establish his notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 9 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. WP:SNOW J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mumford, Texas

Unnotable unincorporated community. Completely unsourced, however text appears to primarily be copy/pasted with minor variations from the Handbook of Texas[10]. Deprodded by User:TheCatalyst31 under the claim that "deprod, unincorporated communities are considered notable" without pointing to an actual official guideline or policy to support this. Wikipedia is not a mirror and simply existing is not a notable criteria in any topical area, including little communities with less than 200 residents. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable as it's a place. It does, however, need substantial work. It'd be better as a stub for now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "clearly notable"? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a place which clearly meets WP:GNG as it has reliable, verifiable third party sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires significant coverage in those sources, not just sources showing it exists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this any different from the dozens of other unincorporated communities that have been kept at AFD? Even if longstanding AFD precedent isn't sufficient, consider the state of the article now. As you note, it was a copyvio of the Handbook of Texas, but not now — I've completely rewritten and added six reliable sources, including the Handbook used properly. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zipcode.info is not a reliable source, and, again, its having a zipcode doesn't make it notable. None of the sources discuss the community in significant detail beyond the Handbook of Texas, they simply source that something exists there. Again, where is the significant, third-party coverage of this community which is the only valid notability guideline that actually matters, not people continuing to perpetuate the mistaken idea that because a community exists it is notable (which has never been a valid guideline here). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). Also, this article is now apparently properly sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long-standing precedent states that unincorporated communities are considered notable, especially ones with a post office and school district, not to mention six sources. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "long-standing precedent". The page continually being referred to clearly states that it itself is NOT a valid argument to use in a deletion argument. Only two of the sources actually discuss Mumford, Texas beyond just "yep, this exists there". And those two are tertiary sources, other encyclopedias. Its having a school district is actually a better indicator of notability, than any of the non-arguments thrown out so far, but does it have any actual coverage anywhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is precedent for this. I think it's because they always turn out to be notable if you look hard enough. Probably have to use books. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom obviously knows our practices with these articles, but disagrees with them. A nom like this is getting close to being disruptive, requiring people to spend time defending what will certainly be accepted, when they could be improving articles. Policy is made in two ways: one is by trying to write down what we do. That we can agree 90% on what to do but still a few people can prevent it being written down is a defect in our procedures. There is a practical guideline here. DGG (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing disruptive about it, so please don't go throwing around bad-faith remarks. It does not reflect well on an admin. Why is it no one seems capable of defending this place as notable other than attacking the nomination, the nominator, or just claiming "because precedence says so", despite said "precedence" noting it is NOT a valid keep reason and being based on a community rejected proposed notability guideline? Consensus can change, and no, 90% do not agree on "what to do" otherwise the proposed guideline would have passed. Obviously enough people do agree that these little communities are NOT notable unless they meet WP:GNG to warrant continued discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And at least a large enough percentage of Editors are in the opposite camp, believing that places, that can be verified to exist, do have a place within the Encyclopedia, using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes as a good indicator of past outcomes. Consensus is unsettled at this time. Although the occasional AFD like this is a good test bed to see if consensus has changed, it should not be overused. Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a sourced article about a verifiably real settlement, meaning that even without the significant coverage this has it would merit inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well-sourced, and as per longstanding concensus, real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edward321 beat me to it -- the article meets WP:RS standards and verifiable towns are inherently notable. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real place=gets kept. I think that the community has spoken often on this, and even if it isn't codified, trying to thwart community consensus is very disruptive - we should be building the encyclopedia rather than wasting energy on people's ill-conceived attempts to tear it down. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can this now be snowballed? Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 4 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} 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elctrikchair

Non-notable band. No write up in independent reliable sources and no other sources provided which might try to establish notability. Fails WP:MUSIC Astronaut (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real indication of notability, Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (note Article creator has repeatedly removed afd notice and has suggested legal action saying Rxxx Fxxx, "a 15 year old in Topeka, KS, continues to maliciously post deletion tags. Legal action against parents may be necessary") Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has been blocked indefinitely for "making legal threats and attempting to out another user". Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one nefarious IP at work--see this AfD's history, for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a band's personal website. No significant coverage from independent sources, no real assertations of notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yahoo turns up 10,000 hits--but none of them are very good. Blueboy 96 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:RS, WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:V. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace. Band is NN and fails WP:MUSIC spectacularly. Article reads like a press release. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (while I'm here) for being an entirely non-notable MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 6 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelock, Texas

Unnotable unincorporated community. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Decline prod (like any other community)"; minor mention in a single regional website and its existence alone are not valid reasons to have an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - google maps view suggests it's a big enough settlement to support an article. Yes, it needs more work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's consider this like other unincorporated communities at AFD: regardless of your claims, it's notable per being a populated community. Aside from that we already have two reliable sources, thus passing the GNG aside from anything else. Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no real notability guideline that backs up this claim, and tertiary sources alone cannot prove notability. The two reliable sources are directories/encyclopedias themselves. Wikipedia is not here to mirror the Handbook of Texas. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). Also, article is apparently properly sourced and thus crosses the notability threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Precedent indicates that unincorporated communities are considered notable, and sources can be found for them; for example, this substantial entry for Wheelock in the Handbook of Texas. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Said precedent is not a valid keep reason by its own page, and a single entry in the Handbook of Texas, a tertiary source, is not enough to establish notability. Wikipedia does not exist to be nothing but a mirror of other sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit, and according to the Handbook of Texas, Wheelock was one of the best-known towns in Central Texas in the 1840s. It was also considered as the site for the Texas state capital and the University of Texas, and it was once the county seat of Robertson County. All of those facts are pretty strong indicators of Wheelock's notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in a print encyclopedia (which the Handbook of Texas is) is certainly enough for inclusion. --NE2 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as with Mumford Texas, above. Had Nyttend not removed the prod, probably every admin here, other than the nominator, would have done so. Our practice is quite clear abou tit, and its a de facto guideline, much stronger & with more consensus than a lot of the things we call formal guidelines, DGG (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A sourced article about a real place with significant coverage in reliable sources is more than notable enough. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obvious claims of notability, well-sourced. 00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable towns are inherently notable and the article passes WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Towns/population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. Sources already in the article indicate verification. According to this book, it was even a county seat.--Oakshade (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place=gets kept - deleting former county seats now, this is a ridiculous and WP:POINTY nomination and is disruptive. What effort did the nominee undertake before nominating this? Whatever it was, it was insufficient. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 4 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge, Robertson County, Texas

Unnotable unincorporated community. Its article is nothing but a one line statement that gives no more information than Bryan-College Station metropolitan area's listing it as an unincorporated community does. WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid reason for having an article. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Like any other community"). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place is notable. Nomination of these is disruptive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to an actual official guideline or policy stating that any place that exists is notable. Nothing in WP:N states that, which is the only actual guideline for places. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a pretty strong precedent that all communities, including unincorporated communities, are considered notable. Like most unincorporated communities, sources do exist for this one; for example, The Handbook of Texas, which states that Ridge once had a post office and was the site of a railway switch, both signs of a significant unincorporated community. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please point to actual consensus based notability guidelines, not "precedence" as other communities have been deleted before. Also, the Handbook of Texas is not really a third party source, its a state reference that includes pretty much everything under the sun, including other people/places/topics that are not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places; "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source" (in this case, the GNIS and the Handbook of Texas). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a city nor a village. Nor does that, in and of itself, prevent any such places from being AfD nor is it really a valid reason to oppose by itself considering everything it points to are personal essays and dead proposals, not actual valid guidelines. As that page itself says, consensus can change and "Precedents defined here should be used with caution — using this essay as the sole argument in an AfD is disputed at best, as there can be conflicts with extant policies or guidelines" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the US doesn't have villages. Your nomination notice to me says: "Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised". If, as you contend, the place is not notable, no amount of improvement could address that issues. Both the USGS and the USPS (which assigns the place a ZIP Code) think the place is sufficiently notable, what evidence do you have short of your unsupported allegation that the place is NOT notable and why should we believe you over official US government sources? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to disprove notability, one has to prove it. And it seems clear that no one is actually capable of doing it as thus far every keep argument is purely versions of "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" and falsely claiming that old "precedents" are good enough to trump actual guidelines and policies. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep because it's a place that's big enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). - Dravecky (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, contrary to your arguments, there's every reason to trust precedent when there's nothing different between this article and ones that have been kept before. Anyway, what's wrong with the Handbook? So what if it includes topics that aren't notable? It's a detailed treatment (from a university, too) of various Texas topics, and its coverage of Ridge is a great example of in-depth coverage from an independent source. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reason is there to trust a dated precedent that has not been updated in a long time and that, it self, clearly indicates it should NOT be used as a "keep" argument in a deletion debate by itself. The Handbook of Texas is a reliable source but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be its mirror, clearly violating WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a verifiable place and thus notable. Tavix | Talk 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto. To do a considerable number when you know they haven't a chance is clearly POINTY DGG (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A considerable number"? And again you are throwing out bad-faith accusations and remarks. Its a related group of articles that were all being added to the same article. Nothing more. And sorry, but I thought people actually still followed WP:N in AfD discussions rather than some claimed "precedence" with no actual backing by any guideline or policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A sourced article about a verifiably real settlement meets my standard for inclusion, and this article goes further than that by demonstrating significant coverage in at least one reliable source Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. Article is well-sourced, and long-standing concensus is that all real places are notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS standards. The nominator may wish to consider withdrawing this AfD. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all except nom. Passes WP:N. Towns/population centers are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 14:57, 4 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wellborn, Texas

Unnotable unincorporated community. A few minor mentions in local sources (which are therefore non-thirdparty) is not enough to meet WP:N, and its lack of status as a city or town does not make it "automatically" notable. Its having a zipcode also does not make it notable, many unincorporated communities and suburbs do. Failed PROD with prod removed by User:Nyttend with reason of "Like any other community") -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With as many unreferenced, unincorporated community articles are on Wikipedia, I dont understand how this one is being put up for deletion. The sources I used are frequently used for Texas-related articles and aren't minor mentions, they provide a detailed history of the community. While I strongly believe that there is absolutely no reason this article should be deleted, I get tired having well-referenced articles that I have created be put up for deletion when other, less credible, poorly-referenced articles are untouched. --Acntx (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Clear Keep because it's a place with enough size... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing precedent, as discussed at WP:Notability (geography). - Dravecky (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official notability guideline, it is a personal essay written by a single editor that has no community support and does not reflect actual consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was rejected as a notability guideline, showing that there is NO consensus for the continued claim that places existing is enough to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can something with references to six different pages from four independent reliable sources (as well as the obvious print coverage) be unnotable? How can anything, even if it isn't something considered (by the majority of us) automatically notable? Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References that do not give significant coverage do not establish notability. Anyone can throw in references to show something exists. That does not meet WP:N. And a small group of editors who quickly pounce on every location AfD and flood it with kepes by pointing to a single person's personal essay, a proposed guideline rejected by actual consensus, and an outdated list of "precedents" that itself states is not a valid argument in a deletion argument shows to me that the issue isn't that these items are automatically notable, but that they are being kept purely through sheer numbers and "majority" despite Wikipedia not being a democracy. No one has yet to actually provide a single source beyond the Handbook that actually gives the place significant coverage itself, not just "yep, its there" type sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maps are considered reliable secondary sources. They can have errors, but so can everything else. When it's confirmed in the official state handbook, and when even the nom says that the Handbook gives substantial coverage, it seems quixotic to pursue such a nomination. DGG (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per long-standing precedent, unincorporated communities are considered notable. Besides, the article is well-sourced at any rate. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All real settlements with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources are automatically notable per precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My neighborhood is a real place, so that means its notable enough for an article? What about my house? Also a real place. Just saying "real places are notable" pretty much means anything and everything that exists and is a "place" can have an article, which clearly goes against WP:N and WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actual population center which are inherently notable. Towns don't magically become un-notable simply because they're "unincorporated." Sources already in the article indicate passing the letter of WP:N. And what's with this "A few minor mentions in local sources (which are therefore non-thirdparty)"? So the article for New York City Council majority leader Joel Rivera should be deleted because he's covered by only New York City sources, "which are therefore non-thirdparty"? For the record, WP:N does not "ban" local sources as indications of notability and certainly does not label them "non-thirdparty."--Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place=gets kept, and what exactly do we have against Texas this week? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:08, 4 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z80182

Non-notable product. A merge back to Z180 would be possible, but that article already contains the relevant material from this one. And that target article is probably deletable, as well. Mikeblas (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:NOTABILITY. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The article contains considerably more information than the line in the merged table. (and they contradict each other about the presence of timers, so that needs to be checked) Each of the variants was a very important product in their time. This is individually discussed in a standard textbook of the period Milman's electronics, a/c Google books [11]. there should be a good deal of material in the computer & hobbyist magazines of the period. DGG (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete as the nominator offers a good alternative such as merger to Z180. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you used a modem (amongst other things) made sometime between the mid 1990s and 2001 or so (and I'm not talking about one of those winmodem things), you likely used one of these chips. An argument of "Non-notable product" for this particular component has to be one of the silliest "notability" arguments I've ever heard. Heck, I can't even fathom why the nom would also claim that the Zilog Z180 article "is probably deletable, as well". Now, if the real issue is that the datasheets are not being cited in either of these articles, that can certainly be fixed without too much trouble but an editorial issue such as that would not be a proper reason to bring this article to AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:44, 10 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} 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clayton (footballer)

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in a professional first team match. No sources provided to establish noteworthiness for other reasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete make when he becomes notable Spiderone (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual, remake when he plays... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:ATHLETE for not playing a professional match. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 05:37, 5 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. Non-admin closure: strong consensus, the nominator withdrew. — Rankiri (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-cola Bottling Company Building

Badly written list of coke buildings. Oscarthecat (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - AfD raised in error. Apologies. --Oscarthecat (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Under what policy is this disambiguation page (not a list per se) being nominated for deletion? If being poorly written was a criterion for deletion I can guarantee wikipedia wouldn't have nearly 3 million articles. The page has proven worth as a dab page for several notable sites. Nev1 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The creator of the article labeled the page to reflect that he was making a dab page. He included a descriptive clean up tag. Based on his prior work in the area and my familiarity with the need for dab pages for histoical building, I assume that this page will met inclusion criteria when completed FloNight♥♥♥ 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest a speedy keep, now, since the disambiguation page is done and looks completely appropriate. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: needed disambig; useful to readers. Jonathunder (talk) 15:21, 3 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 G7 Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phace designs

Non-notable graphic design company. No notability asserted. Oscarthecat (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 (apparent author request). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:53, 3 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. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of coeducation at Johns Hopkins University

This article should be deleted as opposed to being merged as the title is an unlikely search term. The references do not verify the information in the article, they are dead ends. Furthermore, it is written like a personal essay. Drawn Some (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a really weird content fork. Any sourced content can be added to the main article, but a merge definitely doesn't make sense as it's difficult to figure out what's sourced and what's not, and the resulting redirect would just be absurd. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that'd be a very clear delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear content fork. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not suitable as a separate article, but there is content here that is mergable., I agree the redirect would be a problem, but I do not see how to avoid it. DGG (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needless fork. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 4 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. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BerkeleyLive.Net

Non-notable forum, absolutely fails the criteria at WP:WEB. Drawn Some (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree per nomination. Might warrant a brief mention on the university's article but certainly not its own article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no more notable than its counterparts at a myriad campuses around the planet. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article.DGG (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web forum. WWGB (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder why every single aspect/entity of a University is considered a good topic for an encyclopedia article? What's next, articles on autoclave systems? The footbridges of University of Wisconsin-Madison? Abductive (talk) 20:38, 8 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chamberlain (artist)

Non-notable artist per WP:ARTIST. Drawn Some (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a vanity page, no real references despite the list of exhibitions. Delete as not notable.Parkerparked (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article, highly promotional tone, no actual notability displayed.
Delete – for lack of notability. Clear vanity page. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 20:17, 8 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. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mendonca

Freelance journalist with no apparent sign that he meets WP:N. The claim to fame seems to be that he has interviewed famous people, which is not enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria. Mosmof (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Unreferenced; Google News, Google Books show no relevant results. — Rankiri (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of the people he interviewed doesn't rub off. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 4 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. Copyvio of http://www.publishersglobal.com/directory/publisher.asp?publisherid=19608 Ged UK 21:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-India Publications

Company does not appear to meet notability standards. No references at all (tagged for seven months). Google hits are apparently only in bibliography entries or articles that are exact or near copies of this article. No articles from independent sources found about the company. (Contested speedy and prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry about that. Twinkle does that sometimes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnecessary page, seems to just be a vanity article. Completely unsourced and not notable. Parkerparked (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G12 tagged as such. Also, NN company, and the claim is a bit absurd - one of the oldest publishers in India, and in existence for 30 years. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:08, 3 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 Early flight. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of early flying machines

Considerable overlap with Early flight and First flying machine, all of which suffer from an unclear definition of what a "flying machine" is. This gives them particularly in their early, pre-18/19th century parts rather the character of a dump area for poorly justified claims. I nominated the list for deletion as the lists in the other two articles (Early flight#Table of flying machines and First flying machine#Claims to first piloted flight by date (19th century)) appear to be more competently written, but a merge may be ultimately a better idea. In any case, without a proper and well-referenced definition of what a flying machine is, none of the articles has a raison d'etre here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Early flight. There appear to be numerous overlaps between the lists in List of early flying machines and Early flight already, so a "Merge" is, to some degree, already in place. Both articles have almost zero citations for their claims, however the articles on each specific "aviator" generally have some citations. Many of these are, however, dubious. In any case, the Early flight#Table of Flying Machines section already does what List of early flying machines attempts to do, but as a part of a better written and more extensive article. I would personally say that List of early flying machines should be deleted because of similarities/overlap with Early flight and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if a Merge is to be undertaken, I believe that only list entries that satisfy one of two requirements be added to Early flight. A: The list entry has reliable citations; or B: it has its own Wikipedia article, and that article has reliable citations. Currently, List of early flying machines contains numerous entries which are red links and have no citations, and these do not need to be kept in the event of a Merge. Neil Clancy 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Neil Clancy's reasoning. Uncited redlinks should not be merged. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the table from the article into here. This one does it better, and the other can then be a longer discussion in general. The refs are in the original articles, and can either be considered adequate enough, or copied. DGG (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Neil Clancy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The table in Early flight appears fuller, but has become rather too complicated. I wonder whether the answer might be to merge a simplification of that table here. The redlinks for articles on the machine are often accompanied by a blue link on the inventor. In most cases the inventor is probably not notable for much else; accordingly, separate articles on the machines are probably not needed and should be de-linked. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We certainly don't need all three articles ("List," "First" and "Early"). I worked a lot on the table for "Early Flight," but I now prefer the simplified table in either "First Flying Machine" or "List of..." (although some of the latter's entries--Whitehead, Wright--are much too long). I would support a single article (eliminating the other two) in the format of "List..." (my preferred title) or "First...", preferably with at least one reference for each entry. Photos/illustrations from "First Flying Machine" could be retained in the merged article. I also prefer that the long, unreferenced narrative of "Early Flight" be eliminated, leaving just a brief introduction and the list. The early literature list could be included or split off into its own article with a link from the main article. DonFB (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Early flight is the best of all three lists. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above comments. I agree with Thryduulf that we should not merge the uncited redlinks. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:10, 8 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. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy's Outside Court Golden Ticket

Non-notable event/web happening. Was initially PRODded, but this was contested. There is no indication that this small segment is notable. It's only existed this year, it only covers a two week period, and there is no indication that it is the cult the article claims it to be. That it exists isn't in doubt, that it exists on a major sports website isn't in doubt. However, there are no third party reliable sources that discuss it that I can find, thus fails the general notability guideline. There is enough of an assertion of notability to pass db-web, but is it notable? Wikipedia, over to you. Ged UK 11:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and per WP:NEO. Astronaut (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Short-lived event involving a non-notable sports commentator. Although the BBC website is obviously notable, the section concerning this matter is just a "live blog" of little note. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although my initial thought was "it's on the BBC, it must be notable", I can find no references to assert notability other than the odd, inadmissable, blog entry. Therefore it does indeed fail notability criteria. I42 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N and WP:NEO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:10, 5 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. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amethyst NiL

An Iranian metal band. The article is unreferenced, Google Search result for "Amethyst NiL" is here. I can't find anything substantial. The only contributor is User:NiL-McR. Possible conflict of interests? --Vejvančický (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (CSD A7).--Canniba loki 17:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no notability. I actually suspect a hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 4 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. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lively

Notability issues, and possible lingering copyright vio. The de-csd suggested the copyright vio was solved, but I don't see any removal of suspect material. In addition, no indication of notability. I don't see reliable source returns on google Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a vanity page with no possible way of sourcing any material. Parkerparked (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article in Survival magazine won't get him past notability. 1 of the The mentions in Blades magazine is merely a mention. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 4 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JK Reviews

This supposed 38 year old magazine is unsourced and gets zero google hits. Google books and google scholar also reveal nothing. freshacconci talktalk 10:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely a hoax. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and content is unverifiable even after Google searching the creators of said magazine (zero Google hits). I would expect that a 38 year old magazine with 125,000 subscribers would at least turn up a few blog results and entertainment sites but yet there was nothing. So I'm suspecting this is a hoax article. AngelOfSadness talk 12:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be completely fictitious Parkerparked (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and a hoax most likely.Gosox5555 (talk) 14:33, 4 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. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Genocide

Content fork. The article is about a subject which is not generally known as such in English (380 Google-hits, mostly from forums and blogs), and consists of two halves. The first half is also discussed in History of early Ottoman Bulgaria (some of the content may be moved there), while the second half is a copy-paste of Batak massacre. The version on the Bulgarian Wikipedia ~~no longer~~ doesn't exist, while the Japanese version has been created by someone with the same IP address as the creator of the English version (220.43.242.23) ~~is a translation of the Bulgarian one~~. Preslav (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Balkan Fever 08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Preslav. The name is inappropriate, the grouping of the April Uprising massacres and the 1913 events in Thrace is not based on any logic, and the general tone is extremely biased. Todor →Bozhinov 12:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is nonsence. Jingby (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello. I don't know how you got those 380 hits. I just used Google and 'bulgarian.genocide' got 111,000 hits. The search for a greek.genocide got 352,000 hits. For comparison 'armenian.genocide' got 1,170,000 hits, which is overwhelmingly bigger result than both greek and bulgarian genocides. I just wonder does just the Google ranking matter? You say that the 'article is about a subject which is not generally known as such in English'. I am sorry but I really beg to differ with that statement. Both Irish political activist and journalist James David Bourchier and American journalist Januarius MacGahan write in english and describe the as a genocide. They both write in great detail and if somebody, like yourself isn't acquainted with their oeuvre doesn't mean that the subject 'is not known as such in english'. The Battak Massacre, the April uprising and other events are not unrelated to each other. They are part of the Bulgarian Genocide, recognized by many renowned historians, intellectuals and recently politicians. There is original research on the subject by such world renown dignitaries as the director of the Bulgarian National Museum professor Bojidar Dimitrov, the world's leading Thrace scholar the late professor Alexander Fol, professor Georgi Bakalov and others. I just wonder wether you could state a real reason, or a real breach of wikipedia policies, implying that the world doesn't need such an article. For instance the Greek Genocide describes events in the period 1914-1923.It encompasses the whole of the First World War. But you don't say that these are unrelated events. Well, why not merge the Batak massacre, the April uprising and other events into the Bulgarian Genocide article. I just can't help but see an unwillingness to recognize a 'Bulgarian Genocide' whatever the reasoning supporting it. Kansai mikan (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I Googled "Bulgarian Genocide" (between quotes) to demonstrated that the term does not occur very frequently in English, that it is therefore not a suitable title for the subject of the article, and that not even a redirect to a more suitably titled article is needed. The journalists you mention describe the events as massacres; the term genocide wasn't invented until decades after they died. I do not deny that atrocities took place, but I think they are best described at the individual articles describing them (Batak massacre being one of them), or, if the event is less notable, in History of early Ottoman Bulgaria. I hope you will join us in doing so. If all events together can be described as genocide according to the definition is another matter, but this is not what we are discussing here. Preslav (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not systematic, based on few unrelated events, to sum it up - does not fall into the genocide category; basically no English language usage as demonstrated by Preslav; material is just copy-pasted from other articles. --Laveol ^T 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – POV-pushing nightmare, and unsalvagable because the very definition of the topic contains a highly tendentious OR assumption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure OR. Jd2718 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the good reasons already listed. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research. In Japanese Wikipedia, a user with user name (ja:User:Kansai mikan) had posted very biased discription against the Independence of Kosovo, although the relationship between that case and this case is still unknown.--Peccafly-talk-hist 14:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsentic.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The events that overtook the Bulgarians during the five centuries of slavery are usually called "massacres." However more and more historians describe the events as possessing genocidal intent. The "stable" element of the genocide was Bulgarian nationality and language. Christianity represented both a stable and unstable element, as some Bulgarians /the Pomaks/ were allowed to live if they accepted Islam.

What user Peccafly is referring to are at best insinuations, although it might be described as outright lying. Never did I make ‘biased description against’ anybody. Peccafly is a self-declared supporter of the independence of Kosovo’s albanians, so he might not have liked the reference to Kosovo Liberation Army’s roots as a terrorist organization. However these are not ‘bias’ but facts as witnessed by many sources, including American and German ones that I referenced. In fact the Japanese article on Kosovo was extremely biased and pro-albanian, stating that albanians populated the area since the Neolithic Age, and full with anti-serbian propaganda and other nonsense. It badly needed a clean-up, and I effectively brought it to life, by writing very balanced and informative content. I guess nobody here could understand what he means by ‘the relationship between that case and this case is still unknown’. I'll decypher it for you. Peccafly is a supporter of ‘Free Tibet’, ‘Free Taiwan’, ‘Free Kosovo’, but NOT of a FREE South Ossetia. It is easy to guess why. He echoes the American propaganda of the day and the propaganda of the present Japanese government. So as the ‘Bulgarian Genocide’ is not a news story and the Japanese mass media didn’t input in his head what to think on the matter, he perhaps wanders what the ‘politically correct’ stance would be. I guess he went with the ‘delete’ lot, as they are majority here. Indeed, Peccafly, the most difficult thing is to use your head and think for yourself, when there is not NHK to tell you what to think.Kansai mikan (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Keighran

I think complety biographyical and lack of info. Rabbit67890 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - has lots of articles in many business journals, passes WP:BIO requirements. --Triwbe (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep. Significant RS coverage. Nom would do well to read WP:BEFORE. It took just 20 seconds to see some of the Ghits, not much of an addition to the 120 seconds from page creation that it took to nominate the article for deletion. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to argue for merge with Bluepulse, but it looks like that article was deleted twice via proposed deletion due to some notability concerns. The vast majority of the business journals I saw were in reference to his involvement with Bluepulse. Mr. Keighran doesn't seem to establish notability as an individual distinct from his company, see [12]. Alternatively, recreate Bluepulse and merge Mr. Keighran into it. LagrangeCalvert_{<Talk / Contribs>} 08:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Spaceman Spiff has it right.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick search shows there is plenty of coverage of him in reliable sources to easily meet the GNG, A new name 2008 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 10:58, 6 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 Newsbeat. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Pearce

Contested WP:PROD. News journalist lacking individual notability, Redirect to Newsbeat contested decltype (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - No independent references, barely anything to make an article here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nothing that couldn't be included on Newsbeat. Plastikspork (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - No real substance for him to merit his own article. HarlandQPitt (talk) 03:13, 7 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} 07:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Long (cartoonist)

His comic, Lumpy Gravy, won a contest to replace The Far Side in the Detroit News, but no other paper seems to have ever picked up the strip. Despite a couple books by notable publishers (including a Lumpy Gravy compo), he utterly fails WP:V as I haven't been able to find a single reliable source to verify any of the info in this article. Google News turns up only one source, which simply states that the strip replaced The Far Side. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable cartoonist. Refs here: [13] ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ChildofMidnight's supposed refs are a bunch of crap including things like how Frank Zappa had LONG hair and cut an album called LUMPY GRAVY. Also, some of these supposed sources for a comic from the 1990s date from the 1890s? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just linked to Google News. The nom said "Google News turns up only one source, which simply states that the strip replaced The Far Side" which wasn't what I found to be the case. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we search with quotes on. "Long" and "john" are insanely common, so that turns up nothing but false positives. Did it ever occur to you to search with quotes on to decrease false positives? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I wasn't clear. TPH (and his otters?) said, "I haven't been able to find a single reliable source to verify any of the info in this article. Google News turns up only one source, which simply states that the strip replaced The Far Side." My google news search found at least a couple reliable sources that have substantial coverage about this subject. The book has been reviewed and had some success. I think it's worth including as a stub. If others disagree, they're welcome to vote delete. I apolize if someone inferred that all the sources from google news link I provided are on this subject. Many/ most are not. I provided it because there were some that were. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He also seems to have had his "Long Overdue" panel syndicated by King Features around 1988-90, and it's included in this article from the Chicago Sun Times [14], "John Long, a cartoonist whose Long Overdue is making its debut in today's Chicago Sun-Times, comes to the comic pages after 15 1/2 years as a senior...". A website said the feature began in The Detroit News in 1983. It's also mentioned here where readers at one paper voted it out as "their least favorite" "http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AC&p_theme=ac&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAEA8F2E8709E1F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM]. His "Lumpy Gravy" panel apparently appeared briefly around 1995, before being published with some success as a book in 1995. One of his work's is featured in this collection [15] at Michigan State University libraries. I think it's enough. If it's not, vote delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are times when a comic's writer is also notable in of himself (see, for example, Ryan North), but usually there's no reason to have an article on every writer. In this case, the comic might be notable (personally I don't think so, but that's a discussion for another time), but its author does not appear to be. There's currently no Lumpy Gravy (comic) article and this article has very little content or history to merge there even if there were, so I don't see a reason to do something other than delete. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rjanang's reasoning, exactly. I will take this opportunity to reiterate that the contents of the encyclopedia must be verifiable through reliable sources. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. We have, every time we write or evaluate an article, the choice of making Wikipedia better or making it into a sewer full of.....sewage. Drawn Some (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rjanag. You can't get notable by penning a non-notable comic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 4 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. You were right, it's a copyvio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software Capability Maturity Model (SCMMI SEI)

Contested prod, original reason was non-notable, possible copyvio and possible original research. This also turns out to be a paid advert, see [16], [17] and the histories of this page and aerial advertising. MER-C 06:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I hate it.. I hate it... Bart Simpson way. This, shall we say, model, was a mandatory bit of exam syllabus ... for accountants (ACCA paper 1.4 (or was it 2.x?), around 2003 or 2004 - the whole course was later removed from exam program). The very fact that a large professional corp included it in its qualification program indicates some notability. NVO (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline G11 candidate. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeedsRefs: The version I read had zero refs anywhere. IT also reads like a SCIGEN paper- not that it is incoherent, but the platitudes have the same knowledge content as a paper written with no regard to semantics. That is, as it stands, assuming it could be sourced, it just describes a taxonomy and defines the words within this world. So, if you are going to keep at minimum someone needs to go get some sources. If you want to keep it get at least one unaffiliated secondary source SOMEWHERE. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or incorporate into the CMMI article Ecragg (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect much of the material is a copyright violation. There is text taken verbtaim that can be found in this document summary. Based on the style of writing, I suspect that all of the article is a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Way Ranging

The article does not contain enough information to stand on its own. The article has one link to it, and does not link out. The article needs significant attention if it is to be retained. TRL (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge to Time of arrival: No real deletion rationale supplied by nominator—being orphaned or deadend isn't a reason to delete. Nom doesn't address why the topic is non-notable or unencyclopedic; it looks to me like this is an encyclopedic topic and could have more written about it (in other words, it needs cleanup and expansion rather than deletion). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the Merge assessment. With the fact that the article has so little content, I do not feel that it fits as a standalone article. If it is not merged, it should not be kept as-is.--TRL (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rjanag (talk · contribs) is quite right. This is an encyclopedic topic that can, should and will have more written about it in the future. The article itself needs a lot of work (hence the other tags), but there is no deadline to make the improvements, so deletion is not the appropriate way to approach it. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple papers written, seems to be notable, and I am not satisfied with the deletion rationale provided. Also, I have moved the article to its proper title Two-way ranging (per this and other papers]). -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @199 · 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NukeWatch

Non notable minor UK protest grouping. Even if was notable, Article has major WP:POV and WP:ADVERT issues. Prod removed 02/07/09. Archivey (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult to confirm non-notability because GNews is buried under news of a US group of the same name. In the article, there are three sources: one directory listing all organisations (doesn't count), their own webpage (doesn't count) and an article about them in a local paper. That's not enough. Show me sustained coverage in the local press or articles about them in the national press and I may change my mind. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. Some random UK people protest against 'the bomb'. Not notable or exactly Greenpeace. Agree there are POV value statements in article too. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CLUB Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick Google search gives: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25], and whilst they aren't all-encompassing-low-down-on-this-particular-group kind of sources I'd definitely suggest that if people like The Guardian and The Independent are going to you for a quote it's at least an indication of notability. Some more digging will probably yield more sources (maybe print rather than web). Issues like POV can be dealt with via a clean-up and aren't a definitive reason for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dylanfromthenorth. Have improved wording and added another reference to the article. Johnfos (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fringe group. When this group (not other groups with same name) get significant coverage in multiple sources (per WP:GNG) then they can have an article. Verbal chat 19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the references I've given refer to this group not any others as far as I'm aware Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non notable group of left wing useful idiots. Source even says they dont have a formal structure. They seem to do nothing more than tail UK Warhead convoys that are public domain anyway...maybe merge with CND. Estragons (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it matter whether they're left or right wing? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Verbal here. Crafty (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in national newspapers, as linked by Dylanfromthenorth, is more than sufficient to meet WP:N. Artw (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Faction of CND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.118.27 (talk) 22:40, 7 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. (X! · talk) · @199 · 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easiteach

Borderline nonsense, unclear exactly what this is supposed to be. This is a three sentence stub containing no valuable information. No prejudice against recreation of a sensible article with references. Drawn Some (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, it exists. I don't really think it's notable within the teaching profession even. I'm sure wec an find references to it in places like the Times Ed, but it's not as if Wiki is even a good place to look for it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I'm tempted to say CSD A3 or G2, I think this can be made into a decent article. Gnews shows some significant coverage in The Guardian, Times, Detroit News, Khaleej Times etc. I'll take a first stab at this. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a great article, but there is sufficient indication the product is notable. Therefore the article should be tagged and developed, not deleted. I42 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the Guardian quote: "M has built on the early success of the Easiteach Maths Software and the growing Easiteach Family has clearly become a standard by which other whiteboard software will be judged. Two new additions were launched at the show, Easiteach Games and Easiteach Science and both seem to have the same clear and flexible interface as the earlier titles" DGG (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a stack of sources including one which explicitly says that it's notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of trivial mentions don't make something notable. Certainly here at Wikipedia we have our own standards of notability and we don't just accept someone else saying something is notable. Looks like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our notability requirements on this point, Colonel Warden, so I suggest you review WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expanded the article with a few more non-trivial references; Easiteach is clearly notable, as anyone in the educational world will tell you; even if the original state of the article didn't make this clear, a small amount of research would have. Black Kite 23:25, 7 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. There seems to be no debate that the sourcing introduced by ThaddeusB is sufficient; all arguments for deletion were made before that was done, and the rewrite seems to invalidate them. Cool3 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Charles Kettler

Unreferenced BLP of non-notable person per WP:BIO. Delete Drawn Some (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Updated below. I found 86 pieces on Gnews (Robert Charles Kettler and Robert C Kettler), a good chunk of them PR pieces that the wires picked up, but almost all about the company, a few significant and a majority trivial, nothing in substantial coverage about this individual though. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that ThaddeusB has found using a different search string. I'm not convinced of the northern VA award, but there's enough coverage to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is extensive reliable source coverage of Kettler/his real estate company on GNews (See [26] - about 20% false positives). In this case the company and the individual are basically the same thing. Some examples of coverage:
- Washington Post: "Bob Kettler one of the region's most successful businessmen ..."
- Washington Post: "developer Robert Kettler has been forced to give up ownership of two huge planned communities"
- Blockshopper: "Robert Kettler is the majority shareholder, founder and chairman of McLean, Va.-based real estate development company KETTLER"
- This is a PR, but still indicates importance: "Robert Kettler Honored with Lifetime Achievement Award"
- Lots of coverage of him on Bisnow
- Biz Journals: "In the midst of a housing slump, developer Bob Kettler is celebrating"

And the list goes on... Now, to me these stories are about the individual, however the company is also clearly notable and arguably more so. Thus I wouldn't object to a rewrite to focus on the company, although I don't feel one is required since Kettler himself is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete vanity page. None of the content is sourced and probably never will be. Just not notable enough. Parkerparked (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional tone and lack of proper sourcing can be solved through editing. Can you explain why you feel the sources I provided are insufficient to establish notability?

Delete. Simply doesn't pass notability. And claiming a "lifetime achievement award" in a source as being important looks good until you read the source and see it's from the Northern Virginia Building Industry Association...not exactly a notable organization. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of the 2 Washington Post articles. DGG (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are actually a couple dozen WP articles on him/his activities. I only listed the first two as I didn't want to clog up the list with a bunch of article from the same source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notable or not doesn't matter in this case. It's a flat-out copyvio of http://www.kettler.com/about/leadership/robert_c_kettler, and therefore, has to go. If someone wants to write a new biography after doing research, go for it—but this ain't it (note: I've tagged it as a {{db-g12}}). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – it has been here on Wikipedia in that state for exactly one year now. It is possible it is a copy of the Wikipedia article on Kettler's site – until this is established I have put a copyright notice on it. People can still see a previous version to comment on notability – which they can't do if I delete it. – B.hotep •talk• 14:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re-written now, so copyvio is no longer an issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have completely rewritten this article, focusing on what reliable sources have to say about him. The promotional language is gone and a lot of new information has been added. Just about everything important is sourced now. Further expansion is definitely possible, as there are a lot of good sources available.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – following extensive rewrite by ThaddeusB with acceptable sourcing. – B.hotep •talk• 18:10, 9 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 Bacoor, Cavite#Education. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Jesus Learning Center

Secondary school but zero independent reliable resources are available to verify the information in the article. Without even the possibility of verification of the information, this article must be removed from the encyclopedia. Delete Drawn Some (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - if all secondary schools are considered notable, there is no reason to make this an exception. Its existence is easily verified through, for example, this gov't document: [27]. Wikimapia even has a picture of it: [28] --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just enough to verify that it exists, the information in the article must be verified. Because of the utter lack of resources, all we can say is that it exists. If you have sources to verify anything else about the school, by all means share them. The burden is on those who say "keep" to justify that opinion. I don't see any such sources. Drawn Some (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have been informed by User:DGG that the best way to alter guidelines is to change practice first and then change the guidelines to reflect practice. Since there is not even a guideline that says all secondary schools are notable, this school is good place to start in changing the current practice of accepting them all as notable so that a guideline can be implemented saying that they are not. Either reason, the lack of notability OR the lack of verifiability of the information, is sufficient reason for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course all the content has to be verifiable and that does not appear to be possible from publicly available materials online. Presumably it could be substantiated from offline sources, but since that is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future I am changing my opinion to "redirect to Bacoor, Cavite#Education" where the school is already mentioned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I said when I prodded this one, there's no assertion of notability, google search yielded no evidence of notability. (I also agree with Drawn Some that the practice of accepting all secondary schools as notable could use some review. I don't see a good reason for schools to be getting an exemption from meeting the general notability guidelines.) Dawn Bard (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bacoor, Cavite#Education. The article states that the school only educates to secondary year four which makes it a middle school not a high school. TerriersFan (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm prepared to accept that this is too minimal and fails V.. At some other similar ones, we tried to find out whether the HS was substantial, or whether it was a few people only, who continued there. DGG (talk) 03:01, 6 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 Scars on Broadway. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scars on Broadway discography

Merge back to Scars on Broadway. One album, two singles (and their music videos) does not justify a discography. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Scars on Broadway. I was actually thinking about this earlier this week. FallenWings47 (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Shaidar cuebiyar. Europe22 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, FallenWings47 created the article and is its major contributor, see page history—so I think it can go—I've transcluded content from Scars on Broadway discography back to Scars on Broadway prior to deletion. Do we still have to wait seven days from the nom?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks to Shaidar, it's already in the main Scars on Broadway article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:58, 4 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, no assertion of notability; tagged for speedy delete at about the same time as it was tagged for AfD. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best. Game. Ever.

A non-notable game within a notable website, but it is too narrow for an article. Zoo Fari 04:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Me More(Auralog)

TRL (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
?. Got a reason, TRL? Powers ^T 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TRL's comments from Talk:Tell Me More(Auralog): "Consider page for deletion. Does not conform to wikipedia article standards, specifically, it is obvious advertising or promotional material. TRL (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)" Copied here by Cnilep (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Spam lacking WP:reliable sources to establish notability. Cnilep (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cnilep. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 3 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. Good to see discussion, but most of the detailed, thorough discussion was directed towards keeping the article - the good arguments from Dori notwithstanding. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 15:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tanney

I'm not sure how this one got out of Articles for Creation. The subject is a sophomore college football player. He does not appear to come remotely close to meeting WP:ATHLETE. Of the four "sources," one is a page listing his high school track records, one is a high school page that doesn't mention him, one is a college press release, and one is to an article that's mostly about his father (who was also his high school football coach). Upon doing my own research, I found a number of mentions of him in small papers, but they were all coverage of local football games--which, I believe, doesn't count. He may be notable someday, but it's a long way from a small midwestern college to the pros. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since I wrote the above, User:71.113.200.203, who originally created the article, has modified the sources. However, they still don't qualify as verifiable or reliable. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet standard for WP:Athlete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please keep in mind that WP:Athlete is a standard for automotatic inclusion. It is not a basis for excluding a person. If a college athlete meets general notability standards, the article should stand. I don't have time this weekend to do detailed research, but the articles cited in the article (and a quick search of google) reveal non-trivial coverage that meets general notability standards. This is not just an average college football player at a small college. He has been selected as a 2009 Pre-Season All-American and was named the 2008 Midwest Conference Offensive Player of the Year headlining. An in just two years, he has already broken most of the college's passing records. This also establishes general notability. His totals of 3,624 passing yards and 50 passing TDs are extraordinary for a sophomore quarterback. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Out of curiosity: if his numbers are so "extraordinary," why are there no mentions of them in verifiable reliable sources? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having reviewed the google news sources here, I'm with Cbl62: this bloke may not pass WP:ATHLETE but he does appear to meet the GNG.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yep, those are the "number of mentions of him in small papers" that I referenced above. I don't believe that local coverage of his small town high school teams counts towards WP:GNG. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Coverage of the local high school sports by the local paper is pretty much mandatory for a paper. That shouldn't be considered notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about passing references to a player in a story about a high school football game. Nobody's suggesting that would suffice. This guy has feature stories about him that satisfy general notability requirements. He has also set multiple records and was the 2008 Midwest Conference Offensive Player of the Year. Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And these "feature stories" would be where? They're not linked by the article itself, and I haven't found them using this search. If you've got better sources, please add them to the article. I tried to find them, failed, and that's why I brought it to AFD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, multiple stories covering Tanney as mentioned by Cbl62 along with the fact he's an award winner which pushes him over the wp:athlete bar.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And citations for these awards can be found where? As with Cbl62's "feature stories," I can't find them. If you know of verifiable reliable sources that state that the subject has won awards that qualify him for WP:ATHLETE, please add them to the article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment: To answer your questions, reliable sources for Tanney's records and awards include this one confirming he was named 2008 Offensive Player of the Year in the Midwest Conference, this one confirming he has been named a 2009 Pre-Season All-American, this one confirming that he holds at least two Midwest Conference passing records (though he is only a sophomore), this one verifying Tanney's records at Monmouth, this one showing he holds the all-time ~~Kentucky~~ Illinois high school record for pass completions. Examples of articles focusing on Tanney as the principal subject include this one and this one. Might you consider withdrawing the nomination now that your questions have been answered? Cbl62 (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take these one by one:

http://www.grinnell.edu/athletics/Football/includes/MWC_FB_AC_08.pdf : Press release from the Midwest Conference.
Scots earn preseason kudos Monmouth, Illinois Daily Review Atlas. An article about the local college football team in a local paper. Tanney is only mentioned in paragraph 4 (out of 7).
Playoff football: Monmouth College ready for next step Galesburg, Illinois The Register-Mail. Another article about the local football team in a local paper. Tanney's not mentioned until paragraph 17 (out of 24).
Monmouth College - Sports Information - News Releases - Football - 2008 Monmouth College Press release.
IHSA Boys Football All-Time Individual Records (Passing & Receiving) A list of records on the Illinois High School Association website. The top honors are published in the National High School Sports Record Book. Number of times Tanney's high school records were included nationally: zero.
Tanneys take field together one last time Human interest story in Bloomington, Illinois's The Pantagraph (local daily paper) about Tanney's father's last game as coach.

That gives us one Illinois state-wide high school web site that doesn't count him as a top athlete, two press releases, and three mentions in local papers. According to this page, press releases are considered "non-independent sources," and as such "may not be used to establish notability." What's left is brief mentions in local papers.

So, he definitely doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, and I don't see that he meets WP:GNG. Why hasn't he been mentioned in a single national round-up? Has he ever been mentioned in a paper outside Illinois? How about a feature story that's solely (or even primarily) about him? Note that this search—all news articles where he's mentioned that include "tanney" in the title—produces zero results

If he's that amazing, he'll get into Wikipedia someday on his merits. But he hasn't got there yet, and anything else is just WP:CRYSTAL. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← outdent, refactor, and linking below by Dori (sorry if it offends)

Answers to Dori's questions/comments. You asked above for "verifiable reliable sources that state that the subject has won awards." I have provided them. You seem determined to seek deletion of this article even in the face of the very sources you sought to verify his awards. You have also posed this question: "How about a feature story that's solely (or even primarily) about him?" Actually, there are dozens of them available through Newsbank, and here are a few:

Tanney, Detmers named East MVPs in all-star game, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, July 24, 2007 link
Tanney sets scoring mark, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, February 9, 2007 link
Lexington grad named Midwest's offensive player of year, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 25, 2008 link
Tanney throws Lexington into quarterfinals, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, November 6, 2006 link
~~Tanney makes his mark~~, The Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL), February 9, 2007 (dupe of #2)
Scots' Bell, Tanney take MWC honors, The Register-Mail (Galesburg, Illinois), November 22, 2008 link
Tanney honored again as Performer of the Week, Daily Review Atlas (Monmouth, IL), October 1, 2008 link
~~Monmouth QB Tanney earns conference honor~~, Peoria Journal Star, October 1, 2008 (dupe of #7)
Scots explode from halftime tie - Tanney tosses 6 TDs to 6 different receivers vs. Carroll, The Register-Mail, September 28, 2008 link
Mud suits Scots Tanney stays clean in debut at Zorn, The Register-Mail, September 14, 2008 link
Tanney leads Minutemen in new conference's debut, The Pantagraph, August 26, 2006 link
Future now for Tanney, Scots - Freshman QB sparkles in 1st game against Knox, The Register-Mail, November 4, 2007 link
Fighting Scots come up short against Knights - Tanney throws 56 passes for 405 yards, The Register-Mail, October 7, 2007
Another Tanney QBs Scots, The Register-Mail, August 31, 2007 link
Tanney delivers for Lexington, The Pantagraph, December 27, 2006 link (note: basketball)
League honors Monmouth quarterback, Peoria Journal Star, November 6, 2007
Young Scot wins his first Bronze Turkey - Freshman QB plays great, going 24-for-29 with 5 TDs in 42-14 win at Knox Bowl, Peoria Journal Star, November 4, 2007
Scots nab Tanney's little brother - Alex broke all of Mitch's passing records at Lexington, The Register-Mail, June 16, 2007 link
~~Tanney, Lexington upset No. 2 Galena~~, The Pantagraph, November 5, 2006 (dupe of #4)

His numerous records, awards, and this extensive news coverage pretty clearly establish his notability. The article could be improved, but there's no reason to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I get the impression that I've offended you in some fashion. If I have, I'm very sorry as I certainly didn't mean to.

My perception is that the main place we're disagreeing is about specific meanings of phrases. For instance, when I refer to a feature story, I'm using the phrase as a journalist does, where it means something that (among other things) is not a news story. All of the above, to me, appear to be news stories. Similarly, when I refer to sources that are verifiable and reliable, I'm using those words in a specific manner: do the sources meet with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies? As such, some things (such as press releases) clearly are not reliable sources.

I've tried to track down as many of the above articles as I can (I don't have Newsbank access), and I was able to find most of them (the darn pjstar.com charges for their archives). I wanted to make sure that I was giving Tanney a fair look. I've added the links above, so anyone else who wants to can as well.

After reading them (and a number of others) my opinion hasn't changed: he's a talented college football player. He may very well make it to the pros one day. But right now:

WP:ATHLETE : Has he "competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis"? No.
Notability (local interests): "People, groups of people who are known locally and businesses and organizations that cater only to the local population are notable if there are multiple published sources (such as news articles) exclusively about the subject. A published newspaper that describes the person or business just as one of many subjects pertaining to a topic (such as an article on a city council describing many council people, or an article on restaurants within a town square) does not make a subject notable for a standalone article."... "A local interest is also considered to be notable for inclusion if it is sourced by a minimum of two (2) separate non-local sources." Here is where I'm just not seeing where he meets the standard (and yes, I know this is only a proposed policy, but it's a perfect example of what that's about). All of the above newspapers are covering their local teams, and as such, they don't show that he's notable outside the region.

Again, this isn't an attack on you, or whoever created the article, or Tanney himself. The fact is that many players on high school and college sport teams get a great deal of local coverage, and that's not enough to be considered notable. That's why we have guidelines, and that's how I read them. YMMV. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Several fairly extraordinary accomplishments that have garnered quite a bit of local attention and a little national coverage. NewsBank has 451 articles for "Alex Tanney", and it appears all are relevant (it's a rather uncommon name). Now, of these 375 come from Illinois (i.e., the vast majority), but there are a number from other places. Much of the coverage is trivial, but all of it comes from independent, reliable sources, and several articles discuss Tanney in some depth. As mentioned, he's won quite a few awards, including being "only the second sophomore to win the Offensive Player of the Year Award". Certainly, the coverage is not overwhelming but enough exists to create a neutral, verifiable article of decent length. Cool3 (talk) 15:41, 10 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. Although the article was nominated by a sockpuppet, there was enough of a consensus generated by the other participants. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Hoffmann

Classic case of someone famous only for one event. No relevant coverage of this individual in reliable secondary sources are exant. see http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22James+Hoffmann%22+coffee&cf=all and WP:BLP1E Baileyquarter (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Barista Championship. This event doesn't seem to be sufficiently important to warrant articles on winners. Same goes for the 2009 winner. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World champion, refs with coverage of Hoffmann [29] [30] [31]. Duffbeerforme (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD was created by a sock puppet. This AFD was created by a new editor with one edit prior to edits related to Hoffmann with this afd being made within 1 day of the editors first edit. Duffbeerforme (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to take this to AfD myself. Classic BLP1E; he's only known for the single award, and does not meet general notability guidelines. Fences&Windows 00:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does Hoffmann not meet the general notability guidelines? Which of the three (multiple) links I provided are not significant coverage or reliable or Independent of the subject? Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is disputing whether the sources are reliable or independent, but that doesn't stop the person being notable for only one event. Two of the three sources directly relate to the World Barista Championship, and the other indirectly refers to it. Under BLP1E, in these sort of situations, the information about the individual is generally better conveyed on the Wikipedia page of the event the individual was noted for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question was about the claim he does not meet general notability guidelines, not about BLP1E. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions Hoffmann should not have an article due to BLP1E should result in a redirect instead of a delete. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In common with just about everyone else who wins this competition he was unknown before and unknown just after, if they are known at all. This competition is so prestigious the prize is a coffee grinder and espresso machine (all be it very good ones.) I am willing to bet that almost no one even knows of a World Coffee Bar-man Competition. This is nothing more than a news event so WP:BLP1E applies here. If he becomes a multiple winner then perhaps an item would be more appropriate then. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki_brah. – iride scent 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a long history of trolling. How was that uncovered? Anyhow, I'm happy to adopt this nomination, so it doesn't fall for procedural reasons. Fences&Windows 22:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest sock was the clear quack from the nominiation of this article, see above comment. Others have been hearing quacks from previous experience. I missed where the first revelation came from. Interestingly while Jean was trying to get James Hoffmann delete it also created an article for Gwilym Davies (barista). Yes I edited that article (unsoured personal info) believing that it was the same person behind both accounts. I maintained a consistent "world champion" view unchanged by trolling. I have not (till now) disputed BLP1E. Winning a world championships where you have to actively enter and try to win and you gain a public profile and continue to cash in on that profile (succesfully to an extent, the press seems to show). Such an active attempt needs no protection. Coverage of his activites, after winning, as being the World champion suggest more than just the news. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, this winner has slipped into obscurity as have most. The exception is actually Gwilym Davies (barista) who has now got several acceptable secondary references, and although I tagged his article for PROD in the past my attitude about it has changed somewhat in the last week or so. Incidentally, James Hoffmann is Gwilym Davies' coffee roaster! Trevor Marron (talk) 23:32, 6 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 -- does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–Tunisia relations

whilst noting the 2 countries have embassies, distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, most coverage is sport [32]. first article is some business delegation visit but hardly enough to warrant an article. Also note that Serbian Foreign Ministry states very little on relationship including no bilateral agreements whatsoever. Much the same in a French search, did find 1 tourism protocol which isn't a formal agreement. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another pairing of random countries that doesn't show any notability. Nothing here beyond pedestrian governmental functions. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is one of a large series of artciles on international relations. Since neither country speaks English, the lack of English language sources is hardly surprising. The two countries will not have embassies to do nothing. Accordingly, there must be content out there somewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, embassys do things. They host dinners, lobby for things, provide travel visas and help citizens of their own country. Where is the notability in that? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer that, to make sure that we all understand the notability policy, it would be in significant 3rd party coverage of such activities.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, significant 3rd party coverage of those things might do it....and that is what we seem to be lacking, isn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we don't keep articles because they might have sources. I should add that the Serbian foreign ministry website is also fully on English and says close to nothing about this relationship. I also did a search in French which is still used by a lot ot Tunisians. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Really?. I'm stunned this needed to go to AfD but since we're here Delete - I'm open to Heyman keep but It needs to be soon. -- Banjeboi 13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent secondary sources = non-notable = delete. QED. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:24, 8 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 hoax. ... discospinster _talk 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boytoria National Park

Likely hoax, no ghits. Grahame (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. Pure vandalism and misinformation. Not a serious attempt to create an article. I wonder if it possibly some sort of personal attack (a homophobic slur) on the supposed "owner" of "Boytoria". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. The article's supporters are encouraged to strengthen its references in order to avoid a reprise of this discussion. Thank you. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Latvia relations

lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations mostly bilateral. [33] yes there is coverage of the usual double taxation agreement but that in itself is not enough for notability. all EU nations have double taxation agreements. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and handle IAW the Foreign Relations of X precedent. JJL (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The countries have made strides with relations having signed double taxation agreements as noted above, free trade agreements, economic cooperation agreements and also a high level state visit between presidents of the two countries. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. These sources help this article meet WP:N standards, this isn't just your average double taxation agreement and never speak again ordeals this is a set of complex relations that have had presidential visits, ministry visits many agreements. I know I will likely be picked apart because well 90% percent of the time I have a keep opinion on these relations articles but the evidence proves that relations between these two countries are indeed notable certainly not as notable as some but plenty more notable then most. --Marcusmax(speak) 02:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sources identified by Marcusmax to the article, with titles (Marcusmax - better you should do that). The subject looks notable to me, but the article needs expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga has shaken hands with Georgi Parvanov (and smiled while doing so!), and yes, they've signed the usual pieces of paper one might expect two Eastern European democracies to have done. But are there multiple, independent sources discussing "Bulgaria–Latvia relations" in depth? No, of course not. What Marcusmax has found is trivia we'd never notice outside this series of nonsense articles (world leaders are constantly visiting each other, yet somehow we get by without recording the great majority of those visits), totally lacking in contextual relevance and only picked to make this topic seem important. Notability is not, in fact, apparent from the sources, and as no one else has bothered to actually document "Bulgaria–Latvia relations", neither should we. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. The references mentioned above, and in the article, simply list non-notable items that naturally occur between all countries. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very adequate sourcing, reliable enough in this particular. The relationship between two previously soviet union-controlled countries is likely to be notable. I once intended to try to develop a list of acceptable and unacceptable criteria with another editor. I have not, because in thinking it over, I have concluded that the establishment of diplomatic relations itself is a Big Deal, is not done lightly, and when there are treaties as well, which there almost always are, there is importance enough for an article. Although a month ago I might not have kept some of these articles, the time for reflection has lef me to the conclusion that in all cases except the truly trivial ones with mini-nations, there probably should be an article. DGG (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another pairing of two nations drawn out of a hat that really doesn't show any significant relationship beyond the normal functions all govts. undertake on a regular basis. Nothing to see here, move along...Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with everything DGG said. Its exactly what I would have said. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the bilateral relations of all countries (unless totally nonm-existent will always be notable. Since Latvia is a member of EU, and Bulgaria either a candidate or recently joined (I forget which), theri bilateral relations will certainly be soemthing worth having an article about. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, this does not equate to automatic notability. and Bulgaria is a EU member. examples of EU member pairings that have been deleted include Estonia-Luxembourg, Latvia-Luxembourg, Cyprus Ireland, Belgium-Cyprus, Estonia-Slovenia, Latvia-Slovakia. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage of the topic of Bulgaria-Latvia relation in independent secondary sources. There appears to be enough articles on trade agreements and official visits that one could probably synthesize them into a decent treatment of the topic, but that's not what we do here at wikipedia. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient information is currently available to write a reasonable article about this prospective future album. No prejudice towards recreation when that changes. ~ mazca ^talk 07:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inert Momentum

Album with no assertion of notability Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. It's speculative, an album in progress, no clear release date. It may become notable, it may never be released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Junius49 (talk) 01:03, 2 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) 00:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Onraet

I decline a CSD because it possibly asserts some notability; bringing it to AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The information in the article is sourced and seems, if barely, notable. While I've never heard of him I am not an architect and the projects mentioned seem likely large enough to make him a figure inside his field. The article is in absolutely desperate need of cleanup, but the information is there in the sources for someone to be able to construct an actual article out of it.--Talain (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:20, 26 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) 00:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @199 · 03:47, 10 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 iCarly#Characters. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Pearson

Unsourced BLP. Actor's most notable role seems to be Jeremy on iCarly, which is not significant. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources neither provided nor found. SummerPhD (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; actor has held no notable roles and is not the subject of any independent coverage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 26 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) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to iCarly#Characters; this will preserve the history. Borderline notability at best now and on the wrong side of the border, but plausible search term and the history will be there if he ever makes it big. Redirects are cheap. JJL (talk) 02:19, 3 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. Cool3 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P'kolino

Start-up company. Many claims of product placement in different media, but no evidence offered of impact on the larger world or coverage of same. Calton | Talk 17:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of anything beyond trivial coverage. The article is not encyclopedic in style, and there is little that can be salvaged beyond the references. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 26 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) 00:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (ambivalent), clean up. From Google News:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_64/s0904023665409.htm

~~http://www.kidstodayonline.com/article/CA6581390.html?desc=topstory~~

~~http://www.furninfo.com/absolutenm/templates/NewsFeed.asp?articleid=5623~~

~~http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12365193_ITM~~ — Rankiri (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the content of the this PR piece is pure spam. The sources cited by Rankiri also fall into this category: their content is made up from "interviews" of the proprietors, which are probably little more than press releases from the company itself. There is no way this coverage could be classed as being either independent or reliable, and hence fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look at the found sources and I have to admit that you are right.

Home Textiles Today doesn't feature any independent commentary. It's a repost of a press release that is also used by another "article" in Kids Today. For this reason, I don't believe that the first Kids Today article should be seen as an independent reliable source. The article in Furniture World Magazine also seems to quote directly from the company's press releases[44]. BusinessWeek appears to be an independent publication with reputation for fact-checking[45][46] but I agree that the "SmallBiz" article alone does not establish the company's notability. Further searches showed some minor reviews of P'kolino's products (Klick, Desk, etc) and this article (text version) in Small Business Success[47] that offers fairly significant coverage of J.B. Schneider and the company. — Rankiri (talk) 14:19, 10 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 (article improved, nom withdrawn); nac. JJL (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jones

No claim to notability, currently an A7 candidate. The history reveals older, longer versions which appear to have been cut down for BLP or POV problems; at any rate, those that I looked at did not clearly establish notability either. Sandstein 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn following Andrew's rewrite, thanks! Sandstein 05:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Qualifies as a speedy (no assertion of notability) but probably worth the finality of the AFD process to avoid trouble later. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proof of notability, and the single external link is unreachable Rirunmot (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a dab page linking to The Devil in Miss Jones and The Devil and Miss Jones 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)
~~Redirect to WQHT~~ - Keep - Jones was notable back in 2005 for controversial song on her radio show mocking the victims of the 2004 tsunami. Sources:

--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC) - PS: She also meets WP:MUSIC for having released a charted album/singles. I've done some research and expanded the article based on several sources. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Andrewlp1991 has demonstrated (with the sources above and what was added to the article) that the subject easily meets the general notability guideline. There's no indication from the other commenters in this AfD that anyone else made an attempt to search for sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:28, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Nominator has withdrawn as he is satisfied with a recent rewrite. However, there are still outstanding "delete" !votes. More comment is needed on the rewrite. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSICBIO #2, charted 2 singles and an album on national charts. Also has multiple independent reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage of her. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:02, 3 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. Combined concerns about inaccuracy, triviality and copyright violation lead to a definite consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 10:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM Magazine's Top 75 Players of All-Time (NBA)

Another Wikipedian listed this as a speedy, citing the fact that it has no sources other than forum posts. While I agree that it should be deleted, I think a fuller discussion here would be appropriate first. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI: An updated ranking (June 2009) with reliable sources has been added to Wikipedia. See SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA). Zodiiak (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually have a copy of this magazine sitting around somewhere, and I can see right away that a few things are incorrect. Kobe Bryant wasn't #4; I don't think he was even in the top 50. However, those issues are fixable. What we should really be discussing is whether or not the article is a copyright violation. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 26 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) 00:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of whether the list is a copyvio, most lists of "Top Ten" or "Top 50" or "Top (fill in the blank with your favorite number)" are trivia and do not constitute encyclopedic content. Most every magazine puts out a "Top (number)" list at some point in its publication; these lists are not notable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list itself is not a notable list, as can be seen from the fact that the only independent sources provided are message board posts (which are not reliable sources). The list is also possibly a copyright violation. Furthermore, the list is sourced to "a special issue released a few years back"; generally I prefer citations to magazine articles to be to specific issues, not to relative eras. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surel

Doubtful notability. Talk page claims regarding charted singles lack sources and are not incorporated into the article. Article is otherwise relatively complete but lacks sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- I found a few hits on Google relating to the artist, but article needs sources to prove notability Tarheel95 (talk) 18:17, 26 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) 00:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a main concern of the lister was a complete article without sources, though sources can be found and therefore I reckon keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The GHits are mostly items that reference her site or do not provide in-depth coverage. There are no GNEWS hit at all. One would think a Notable artist would be newsworthy. ttonyb1 (talk) 13:43, 3 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. promotional, POV, and unreferenced DGG (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC Drive

Content fork from DC motor, written in promotional style by a user whose name suggests a Conflict of interest, as the company of the same name is a supplier of DC motors. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL- what does this mean?

"DC drives do not rely on mathematical models to enhance their performance a" Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, nothing but ad copy... Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with DC motor. Subject is obviously notable, and there is nothing indicative of spam.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:03, 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) 00:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conflict, unverifiable Nja²⁴⁷ 08:41, 3 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SLAM Magazine's Top 50 Players of All-Time (NBA)

This is yet another "X's List of Top X" type article. It has the same problem they all do, which is that there is no reliable sourcing here. It's basically a list made up by some editors of a magazine. It's non-notable fancruft type stuff. As I've said before, if it's Billboard magazine, it's different because they have a reliable, secure basis for their charts. These articles are basically a bunch of editors in a room deciding who is fantastic without any criteria. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they have a ton of criteria. The article has the sources and each person listed has a detailed explaination on why they are ranked in such order, i.e. impact, statistical output, championships, team chemistry, era, coaching effects, etc. I added the article to replace the old list because the top 75 list was sourced via a forum and was 6 years out dated. This however, is sourced from the magazine and was just recently released. Most of the stuff on Wikipedia is sourced from "some editors in a magazine" or newspaper. From the NYTimes to Reuters, etc. it's all from various editors. Zodiiak (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not for reasons listed: copyright concerns here, for the same thing discussed with regards to the Rolling Stones 500s lists (The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time and The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time) - those lists are clearly notable, but at one point were a reproduction of the entire list. This was discussed and considered to be a copyvio in the US (various links to discussions on the subject coming up: 1, 2, 3). Additionally, if you wished to cull it to show only an excerpt, this page would be left with little left.

Even besides all of that, I'm not even remotely convinced that it's notable: Rolling Stone (as much as they may be disagreeable) is an incredibly notable magazine, and its lists there are oft used as benchmarks for later "greatest music" lists; I fail to see any similar historical relevance for this list. A list on its own, even in a notable magazine, does not inherently infer notability. No coverage in third party sources = delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 26 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) 00:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources have been provided that discuss this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @199 · 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Kosovo relations

Australia's relations with Kosovo don't extend much more than International recognition of Kosovo. the current articles states what is in International recognition of Kosovo and is based on primary sources in any case. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As habanero-tan pointed out (in relation to Exploding chicken), "(t)he general phenomena itself, [Australia-Kosovo relations], has not been covered sufficiently by independent sources to pass WP:N. Collecting examples and synthesizing an article from them in order to advance the position that it is a notable phenomena is original research WP:SYN." In other words, recognizing a country as a country, "supporting the rights and safety" of minorities there, etc. doesn't make their relations notable as a topic for an article. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect ot International recognition of Kosovo but it is, frankly, an unlikely search phrase, especially with the em dash. Drawn Some (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable bilateral relation. Could be expanded even further with inclusion of the details of the large number of Kosovar refugees taken by Australia on the then unique Temporary Protection Visas.[48] This caused quite a controversy at the time as it was a step away from the usual approach taken by successive Australian governments to immigration, then geared around permanent residency. Many of these refugees were placed in Tasmania, where the community fought hard to keep them in the country. These nominations are nearly always based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT. The moral panic about these bilateral articles (Oh no, there are 40,000 possible combinations ... ) is misplaced and laughable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn, do you have any independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic of Australia-Kosovo relations or is your !vote merely WP:ILIKEIT? The subject of refugees from that region being placed in Tasmania may indeed be notable, please write an article about that if you are so inclined. You have also mis-estimated the potential number of articles by about 20,000. Drawn Some (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you are right, there are 40,000 possible combinations. Not sure how that changes my point, 40,000/2,935,675 is an incredibly small percentage. Of those 40,000 only a small subset have been created and of the ones that have been created a fair chunk are clearly notable along the lines of Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations (the most ridiculous of the nominations seen to date, no doubt someone will beat it soon). The beat-up around this supposed problem has led to a bunch of self-appointed wiki-warriors who see deletion of these articles as some sort of holy crusade. The basic premise for deletion is their personal sense of incredulity that a relationship could exist followed by a half-baked google search. As for the ILIKEIT claim, I gave an argument for keeping it; the article has enough independent reliable sources to meet WP:N. I even supplied a link to a scholarly article specifically discussing Australian-Kosovar relations. Just because you can't find them, does not mean they do not exist. The world is larger than a google search. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you bring up the Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations AfD. That is the only one of these that I actually voted to keep. It had actual notability evident. It didn't require trying to stretch, twist and turn a passing mention or two into manufactured notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations was originally nominated as "Indonesia AND PNG" and the original article written as a description of one land mass. Many editors including myself did not support Indonesia and PNG article but rather Indonesia-PNG relations. You've given a very selective example here. the key test is significant coverage as per WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn, your statements make no sense whatsoever regarding the arithmetic but it is totally irrelevant. Either you can produce sources that discuss the topic of relations between Australia and Kosovo or you cannot. You may be confusing sources that discuss particular interactions as being sources that discuss this actual topic, Australia-Kosovo relations. The burden is on those who think the topic of the article is notable to demonstrate significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Since you are apparently in Australia you may have access to books on Kosovo-Australia relations that don't show up on Google books, or similar off-line information. Please share the information with us. Drawn Some (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one took five seconds to find (and was linked above if you had bothered to read it). Why would I bother spending any more valuable time looking for sources for an article the lynch mob is determined to delete. I repeat, sources are available—even if it seems unlikely to you. As for the arithmetic, the wiki-dramaz stirred up over this topic by the bilateral lynch mob with exaggerated claims of "40,000" articles are absurd. This campaign to remove articles that someone sitting 12,000 kms away considers "non-notable" is absurd. Honestly, the world is wider and larger than even Google knows. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"lynch mob is determined to delete" please be WP:CIVIL. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn, that article is about refugees, not about Kosovo-Australia relations. I think it would be a good reference for an article about Kosovar refugees but it is irrelevant to support the notability of the topic of Australia-Kosovo relations.

Also, you're the only one talking about numbers of articles, but if you're going to do so, please get the math right. The proper calculation is [(n*n)-n]/2 which is around 20,000, not 40,000. Drawn Some (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as LibStar points out, the fact of recognition is already documented, and as Drawn Some cogently argues, the few bits of information one can gather up about Australia and Kosovo don't actually treat "Australia–Kosovo relations"; neither should we. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support creation of an article Refugees from Kosovo as many countries took refugees. Precedent of refugee articles exist with Palestinian refugees and Jewish refugees. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how many random pairings of country relations will be created? Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Mattinbgn gave a link ("This one took five seconds to find") above, but the article only illustrates the gap in understanding between those who want to keep and those who want to delete these meaningless articles. The article mentions Australia and Kosovo (in connection with refugees, and in comparison with Canada's reaction), but the article in no way asserts there is any ongoing or notable relation between Australia and Kosovo. The recognition of Kosovo's independence, and the Kosovo refugee information, is notable, but that should be in an article on the development of Kosovo where it is important (it has no importance to Australia). Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That Australia decided to recognize the country is important to both Australia and to Kosovo. It alone might make an article. as there are other relationships as well, this article is appropriate. DGG (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I simply don't see the notability of the relationship. Took in some refugees....ok, what's so unusual about that? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the bilateral relations of all countries (unless totally nonm-existent will always be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not true, precedent has shown that at least 300 of these bilateral articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Australia is the most important country in Oceania and I'm sure Kosovo has already realized this. Also, Australia is represented in Kosovo via it's embassy in Vienna.[49] –Turkish Flame ^☎ 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

every country that has recognised Kosovo would represent itself if they don't have an embassy in Kosovo in a nearby country such as Serbia, Croatia or indeed Austria. using your logic, Australia does recognise Liechtenstein and San Marino as well, therefore should Australia-Liechtenstein and Australia-San Marino exist as well? LibStar (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can a country represented in Kosovo through it's embassy in Serbia? Serbia claims Kosovo as it's own territory. Yes Australia recognizes these micro-states but Kosovo isn't a micro-state. –Turkish Flame ^☎ 06:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well perhaps not Serbia but many countries represent Kosovo from not in Kosovo and don't have an embassy in Kosovo. simply being the largest country in Oceania does not give automatic notability in bilateral relations, otherwise you'd have Australia-Togo/Bhutan/Luxembourg/Nicaragua/Bolivia/Yemen/Lesotho/Seychelles etc. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually borderline - Australia housed many Kosovar refugees during the period when everything was up in the air, most of whom were peacefully returned once it was safe to do so. It wasn't a standard refugee situation in that it was negotiated between the government of the day, the UN and representatives of the Kosovars. However, I can't find any evidence of *current* association between the two governments. Orderinchaos 11:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All bilateral relations with countries like Kosovo are extra significant due to the importance the Balkans has had in IR these last few centuries. There are now multiple secondary sources to confirm notability, and doubtless many more that can be added. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been many, many situations in history nvolving refugees. That doesn't mean we cover every single one of them here at Wikipedia. The Balkans have not been particularly significant in the past few centures. Think, they didn't play a major role in either World War... etc. You see my point. So what if Austrailia recognized Kosovo? That in and of itself is not nearly grounds for a Wikipedia article about their IR. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bilateral relations are not inherently notable, even when Kosovo is involved. Significant coverage of relations in reliable, independent sources makes a topic notable (see WP:GNG if you don't believe me), and that's something this topic lacks. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:56, 8 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding chicken

The general phenomena itself, exploding chickens, has not been covered sufficiently by independent sources to pass WP:N. Collecting examples and synthesizing an article from them in order to advance the position that it is a notable phenomena is original research WP:SYN. Habanero-tan (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there an article about the treatment of animals in film? I think a merge to the broader topic would be best. No need to lose the sourced bits about chickens related to this larger issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically an "Exploding chickens in popular culture" article without the benefit of a primary article on a notable topic of "Exploding chicken". Utterly non-notable as a topic. Drawn Some (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability Nja²⁴⁷ 08:48, 3 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Nu

Non-notable fraternity that, according to the article, seems to be centered at a single West Virginia college. Google searches turn up nothing to support WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and list in List of social fraternities and sororities so it's included appropriately on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In general a local fraternity will be of interest only to those attending a college & the college web site and its own give all the coverage necessary. That list is supposed to only include notable ones, which means ones with Wikipedia articles or qualified for them. This one is not. Wikipedia is not a directory.
Delete. Fails WP:CLUB. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:47, 4 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pumppuamo

"Pumppuamo" is not a real place. The word means 'pumping station'; the more usual form is "pumppaamo" but the Finnish map site uses "pumppuamo" throughout. | hyark (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the Google map there seems to be a separate built-up area entitled "Pumppuamo" at the place indicated. GEOnet has nothing on Pumppuamo in Finland, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At the Finnish WP, if I understand correctly, the villages in the Valtimo municipality are: Elomäki, Haapakylä (kirkonkylä), Halmejärvi, Hirsikangas, Kalliojärvi, Karhunpää, Koiravaara, Koppelojärvi, Maanselkä, Nuolijärvi, Pajukoski, Puukari, Rasimäki, Rumo, Sivakkajoki, Sivakkavaara, Verkkojoki and Ylä-Valtimo. Are these all or just those for which articles have been written, I cannot say. The only other Pumppuamo links I found from a google search seem to be either WP mirrors or sites keying off Google Maps' recognition of the place. May fail WP:V. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Maps is not infallible; in my recent work in adding geographic coordinates to WP articles, I've come across a number of places that are mislabeled or labeled in the wrong locations on those maps. (That GM labels six places in Finland other than the one in Valtimo with the same name also seems rather odd and may support the nom's contention that the word is a generic designation rather than a proper name.) In any event, unless confirmation is forthcoming from other, independent sources, I'll have to say that this fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. Finnish google search and Finnish language google search both go only to that map and english wiki articles+derivatives. Might exist, but with a complete and total lack of sources there's currently no way to know. Can be recreated if such sources are found --Saalstin (talk) 12:25, 3 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 as per WP:NEO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zen filmmaking

"Zen filmmaking" is a neologism which describes the personal filmmaking philosophy of Scott Shaw. It is not widely used in this context by other filmmakers, if it is used at all. All references are to books or articles by Shaw. Fails WP:NOTABILITY & WP:NEOLOGISM. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam and non-noteworthy (and etymologically clueless) neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Do not delete. It always strikes me a strange that only people who are not Hollywood based and are not involved in the film industry and, thus, do not frequently read magazines like the Hollywood Reporter, Variety (magazine) and other industry magazines attack articles like this.

FYI: this style of filmmaking is highly documented, it is discussed in university course on filmmaking, (like where I learned about it at USC), and there have been and are numerous filmmakers who have employed Zen Filmmaking as a cinematic style other than its creators. Just look at the list of films created in various counties around the world that have used this technique. In addition, there has been more than one parody film made about Zen Filmmaking and it has been mimicked on the television series MADtv. Plus, your statement about the only references being written by Scott Shaw is not true. If you check the magazine articles listed you will see that they were written by other people. Articles about this style of filmmaking have even appeared in newspapers such as the Jakarta Post. This seems more like a personal attack set in motion by User:Delicious carbuncle than anything else as I notice he or she has deleted other entries made about Scott Shaw. Again, this is an important article and there is no valid justification for its deletion.(Alex West (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC))User blocked as puppetmaster of socks. Darrenhusted (talk)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**KEEP Are you kidding me? (Filmbotboy (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No, we're not. Do you have any polices or guidelines which this article meets? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I guess I could go into all kinds of reasons and logic of how your statement of WP:NEO is not true. It appears, however, you have your mind made up, as do I. Though I certainly understand the concept of neologisms and Wikipedia's policies towards it, I think perhaps your point of view is overlooking the fact of the amount of filmmakers and films that this style of filmmaking has influenced, which has been documented in Reliable Sources from established News Organizations. This, alone, elevates it from neologisms. What I will says it that the article on Zen Filmmaking was long ago approved by Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. Who are you or I to overlook this fact? The article is also referenced with several Reliable Sources from established News Organizations. I'm sure the number of these sources could easily be increased if someone wanted to take the time, because I know I have read a number of articles about Zen Filmmaking in magazines and newspapers which have not been referenced in this article as of yet. I understand your point of view, I trust you will understand mine. (Filmbotboy (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

User blocked as sockpuppet of Alex West. Darrenhusted (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How did I miss this earlier? WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant (song)

May "possibly" be the third single of an "upcoming" album. My redirects to the album page until such a time as this really is a single, and meets the criteria at WP:SONG, keep getting reverted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY. That's it, I'm writing that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am keenly looking forward to the WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY essay. Rlendog (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect then protect the redirect. no need for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article does cite two relevant sources (I'm not counting the ones for scores of Laker games), so it may have notability. Probably merge with the album is the most suitable option until the single is released (if it is) or until more sources can be found to expand the article. Rlendog (talk) 22:45, 23 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) 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, the two reliables are good enough to keep it for now in my opinion, however if it doesnt become a single a redirect might be better. --neon white talk 00:22, 3 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. (X! · talk) · @134 · 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lukins

Only one legitimate reference from the BBC, but all it seems to confirm is that this company owner is in a dispute with someone. No notability at all. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 08:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient notability. All available news coverage^[50] falls under WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT. — Rankiri (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Rankiri. Cs-wolves (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rankiri. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 4 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.