Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 June 10 June >

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 speedy delete by Dank. —Korath (Talk) 03:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chatfield Video Games for 2009-10

[edit]
Chatfield Video Games for 2009-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No search results for this or The Media Authority. The article actually says "Not officially verified by anybody" at the bottom and the creator's user page says "I am not trying to endorse the team but rather advertising to the school my video games hoping to make at least some profit." Wikipedia is not for advertisements and it also fails notability guidelines as they are local video games for a local high school. Yarnalgo talk to me 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Little League World Series Cirt (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jurickson Profar

[edit]
Jurickson Profar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A talented player for sure, but only 28 gnews hits, most of which are passing mentions. Doesn't meet WP:Notability or WP:ATHLETE. Prod contested because a previous version of the article had been deleted via prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:CONCENSUS and unsourced WP:BLP Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athina Karamanlis

[edit]
Athina Karamanlis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This came up on Proposed Deletion patrol. Even though technically Proposed Deletion had been contested before, I couldn't bring myself to remove the Proposed Deletion notice after discovering the very serious BLP problems here. This revision of the article will reveal that there are, simply put, two competing and mutually contradictory accounts of this person's life and works. Each denies the truth of the other. And there is no good source for either one.

What non-reliable sources exist are perhaps exemplified best by these two discussion forum postings. All of the publications that document criminal activity are self-submitted postings to WWW sites, often by "George Manolakos", and all of the rebuttals are self-submitted postings have equally unidentifiable authors.

One might argue that the current version of the article is therefore the proper one. But that turns out to be biographical information that is unverifiable from reliable sources, too. The Cardozo Sidebar is a graduate newsletter for the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and the only mention of this person that I have been able to find in it is in issue #11 of the newsletter dated Autumn 2005. It doesn't document this person at all, or support any of this claimed content. It's a list of alumni about whom nothing is known, and is asking for contact information for them.

I am unable to find any good sources for anything on this subject. This is a wholly unverifiable biography of a living person. Uncle G (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Clegg & The Night Creatures

[edit]
Captain Clegg & The Night Creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band featured in a film that we don't have an article about yet, due to WP:CRYSTAL. Album isn't out, movie isn't out, let's wait till the band becomes notable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. We do appear to have an article at H2 (film), but that doesn't make this "band" notable. At best, perhaps a redirect? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the band is 'notable' for Rob Zombie fans like myself. There's an article on Captain Spaulding and other ancillary Zombie characters and seeing as this is also a legitimate music act I'd like to see a Wikipedia page where I can find out more information about them. CannibalCheerleader (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Richardson

[edit]
Bonnie Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Keep. I agree that this individual's accomplishments don't meet WP:ATHLETE, but there seems to be significant external coverage in reliable sources on a national level, three that I note, and so I suggest that this article meets the general notability requirements. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
without changing my vote, I would say 3 or more keep votes and no other deletes would fall into this cat. WP:SNOWHell in a Bucket (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that the article could be enhanced by presenting the information in a more concise way. I found it difficult to assimilate in its present form. Being from the UK I am not familiar with the US athletics scene so am not sure why this is such an achievement, perhaps this could be explained in the article. Deevincentday (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's snowing in Texas. Unique accomplishment noted in newspapers and ESPN. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject meets the general notability guidelines for inclusion with multiple reliables sources covering her. This is strengthened by the fact that the coverage is non-local, and has been sustained over the two years. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil (disambiguation)

[edit]
Peak oil (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a pointless disambiguation page. The Hubbert peak theory and the timing page are both prominent at the top of the main Peak oil page, and the page is not disambiguating anything. Fences and windows (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Let's delete it. I created the page awhile back because editors were concerned about distinguishing between "peak oil" and the "Hubbert theory of peak oil." This is back when there was no separate peak oil article and the Hubbert theory was the primary article, I argued for the separation and the deal was we'd have some kind of disamb. page to cover any confusion. With the inclusion of wikilinks to Hubbert theory at the top of the peak oil article, I think the issue is safely addressed. Publicus 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need thanks to the magic of wikilinks. It really isn't disambiguating anything, as TPH said; all three articles cover all the topics immediately, and anyone searching for one article would be reasonably pleased with any of the others. There just isn't enough difference. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. see comment from nom at the bottom - snow/nom withdrawn StarM 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rumbiak

[edit]
Jacob Rumbiak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
delete one article doesn't warrant inclusion. need more sources Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So one article makes you notable? Personally I don't buy that but to each his own. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that is not what I said at all. Please refrain in the future from putting words in my mouth. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:24, 9 June 2009

(UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to clarify then....And I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth just reiterate my understanding. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Etli

[edit]
Dominic Etli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, see Wikipedia:POLITICIAN, reads like an advertisement or résumé, Google search reveals no useful independent sources. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I am able to turn up exactly one source:
    • Roger LeCours (2008-07-06). "Hardwick Loses New Selectman". The Caledonian-Record.
  • Ironically, this source demonstrates that our article is a falsehood. I've also reviewed the earlier versions of the article, which give rather different biographies of the person. I am unable to find sources confirming anything that they say, either. This is an unverifiable and false biography of a living person, and the one source that exists is not enough to support a biographical article, since it documents next to nothing about this person. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed as moot. Article was deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBillingHub

[edit]
EBillingHub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined a WP:CSD#G11 speedy request on this one, as it seems right on the borderline. Probably posted by an affiliate of the company, and no evidence of WP:Notability. Aervanath (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelines

[edit]
Whitelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has been around just a little too long for me to speedy it without discussion IMO, but db-spam and db-org speedy deletion are both solid options. None of the English-language hits at Google archives obviously refers to this company. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Game (film)

[edit]
Dead Game (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable short film. Lacks references and fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the suggested merge targets do not exist. Should editors begin creating the articles suggested below, the revision history may be restored (if necessary) to facilitate creating that content. ÷seresin 05:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Io (Babylon 5)

[edit]
Io (Babylon 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about a minor subject in Babylon 5 is covered from a wholly in-universe perspective, which goes against WP:WAF. Furthermore, the transfer point itself is not notable by our standards as it hasn't been discussed in reliable, third-party sources. The only reference currently is from a usenet posting, which isn't a reliable source. I haven't found enough information to write a neutral, verifiable encyclopedic article about this subject and since it goes against our notability guidelines and verifiability policy, and because it cannot be written up to our standards of WP:WAF, it should be deleted. Our policies and guidelines were designed to keep just this sort of article out, as it trys to describe a subject which hasn't yet been described by reliable sources. Therefore, as our articles are only as reliable as the sources they contain, no reliable article can be written about this at the current time. ThemFromSpace 20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I might like to I cannot think of a reason to keep the article. At best the information cold be moved into a more relevant Babylon 5 article, or specific episode articles. The bulk of this information in Io (Babylon 5) is covered by the Babylon 4 Wikia project article for Io. My understanding is that Transwiki doesn't help with merging just moving or copying so they should be given a fair chance to merge any details that might be missing from their article. Is there a way to mark an ariticle as due for deletion but leave it pending for a short time? -- Horkana (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The initial edit summary says that the text was copied from "http://tgm.firstones.com/wiki/Main_Page", which is a specialised wiki for Babylon 5 with more lax policies than Wikipedia. Looks like this text was copy/pasted around a bit. ThemFromSpace 00:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assert that such sources exist, even though they're not included in the article. The same sourcebooks/commentaries that talk about Spoo tend to talk about most of the locations. There's enough to meet WP:V there and fit into a list article. AGF'ing that I'm portraying the situation accurately, will you support my move/merge proposal? Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Userfication will be provided upon request. ÷seresin 05:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Kukucka

[edit]
Mark A. Kukucka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims to notability seem to be winning a cadet award (in common with 1700 others[2]) and having research papers cited 'over 150 times'. The vast majority of the article is and will remain unreferenced because there simply are no sources available, and therefore fails WP:V. Those few sentences that can be referenced are but weak claims to notability. (Article is largely an autobiography). ninety:one 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make a determination about notability, please consider the following academic book which Kukucka authored and Virginia Tech published as noted at: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/28529198

Book Title: Mechanisms by which hypoxia augments Leydig cell viability and differentiated cell function in vitro - http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06062008-170416 - this peer-reviewed academic book is composed of 8 chapters; five of the 8 chapters were subsequently published as independent peer-reviewed research articles as noted at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=DetailsSearch&term=Kukucka+MA Wikipedia first notes that "common sense should prevail" while continuing "notability should rely on (among other things)... how widely the book is cited by other academic publications" as found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books

Wikisource files replaced with WikiMedia files per a Wikisource Admin

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Billy Mitchell Award for Mark A. Kukucka". WikiMedia. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
  2. ^ "Amelia Earhart Award for Mark A. Kukucka". WikiMedia. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
  3. ^ "Master Spaatz Award Recipient Listing". The Spaatz Association. Retrieved 2009-06-07.
  4. ^ "Carl A. Spaatz Award for Mark A. Kukucka". WikiMedia. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
  5. ^ "Ira C. Eaker Award for Mark A. Kukucka". WikiMedia. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
  6. ^ "Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager Award for Mark A. Kukucka". WikiMedia. Retrieved 2009-06-10.

Mark A. Kukucka, MS, DVM, PhD (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The "academic book" cited by User:Dvmphd above is merely his thesis, and spinning out parts of a thesis into journal articles is neither unusual nor notable. The article fails WP:PROF for his academic achievements and WP:BIO for everything else. A Google search is rather an eye-opener: in addition to the scads of self-authored material, there are indications that he's a Usenet kook of some repute. Deor (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat labeled it a book... more importantly, it was only used to point to the Scopus results coupled with what Wikipedia considers "notable" when it comes to peer-reviewed published work which has been cited by other academic publications numerous (150+) times... why did you skip over that Wikipedia point? Lastly, there are some in life who don't appreciate the hard work and undeniable success of others (hence the unsubstantiated rubbish written by some of my detractors using their poisoned pens)... I hope you don't count yourself in that group! Oh, and that lawsuit, Kukucka was the prevailing party!

  • Delete. It should be noted that the CAP awards that look like they are "notable" and have their own article re-direct to the same article about CAP awards or to the bio of the namesake. None of these "notable awards" have an article of their own. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the redirects and independent articles that you were looking for:

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/ranks/billy_mitchell_award.cfm

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/ranks/earhart_award.cfm

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/ranks/eaker_award.cfm

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/ranks/spaatz_award.cfm

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/aerospace_education/awards/yeager_award.cfm

Next, 4 of these 5 awards were earned anywhere from 28 to 34 years ago... way before Al Gore found this thing called the internet!

    • Dr. Kukucka, I do admire your zeal, but plastering the information that you find is possibly a reliable source here in the AFD is not going to fix the inherent problem. We want to make the article prove that you're notable, not merely prove that you're notable! =) Might I suggest putting this in the article, and notating briefly here in the AFD that this has been done? That said, I will point out that the links you gave on Wikisource don't actually exist at this time; if they were recently created, it's possible that they have been removed. Also, for the thesis, that shows that your thesis may be notable, but note that notability does not automatically extend out to the author. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 12:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the clarifications. Ninety-one wrote on "my talk" page regarding nominating this wiki article for deletion that "your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page." Since I've never been thru this AfD process before... it's a current learning experience for this doctor! :) Next, since I've been identified as having a COI, I'm trying to minimally edit the existing page in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's rules until a determination regarding AfD has been reached! And then there is the issue that I am still learning how to incorporate (add/edit) some of this stuff into a wiki article... Ol Yeller has remarked that he will get back to this after his finals! Next, I uploaded pixs of the actual CAP awards I received... and they were each created as a Wikisource (which is where I was told to upload them) file last night... so what might have happened to them since? Can someone help me? UPDATE: A Wikisource Admin is apparently telling me to upload my CAP award pixs to Wikimedia instead... why all this confusion... it makes one wonder if the left Wiki hand knows what the right Wiki hand is doing?

Finally, the Wikipedia book reference previously quoted by me where I was attempting to demonstrate what Wikipedia considers "notable" when it comes to peer-reviewed published work which has been cited by other academic publications... wasn't the best, admittedly! But it's the first thing I came upon in the wee small hours of this morning. I was hoping that someone might throw me a lifeline instead of piling on!

With that said, could I please redirect those (who aren't wielding axes yet) to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), specifically the first point under the "Notes and examples" section which briefly notes: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" which points to "To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books." Next, "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." Links to my Scopus results have been provided on this discussion page (above).

Mark A. Kukucka, MS, DVM, PhD (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added those links as citations. That's weird that they want you to upload them here. I was told by a very established admin to have you upload them there but I don't know how much he knows about Wikisource. Sorry if I caused confusion there. If you need any help uploading those files to Wikimedia, let me know and we can work it out. OlYellerTalktome 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for pointing to: Please do not bite the newcomers (aka be nice )... I was beginning to think that I need to pack it in and move along from Wikipedia because there does seem to be some "unwelcomeness" displayed by a few here!

Mark A. Kukucka, MS, DVM, PhD (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. cadets are supposed to grow tough, even if they are MS, DVM, PhD... Twri (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that existential and very well thought you response. lol. OlYellerTalktome 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, Twri, but incivility is incivility. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not real sure that I understand "userfy" but I believe that I have always had the opportunity to make this my user page versus the proposed wiki article. My concern would be that it would become my user page with no chance of becoming a wiki article... and all of this AfD discussion would have been in vain! Since we traveled this far down the path, I guess I am of the mindset that either this proposed wiki article passes or fails based upon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) which would/should also include fair consideration of my Scopus results. If I need to verify other qualifications, certifications, underwear size :) by uploading pixs... then please let me know! I guess I also struggle with "polishing" a proposed wiki article when there is a genuine COI. In the end, this is out of my hands and really up to those who can cast legitimate votes... I am merely seeking an objective, unbiased and fair process given the Wikipedia guidelines referenced herein. Thanx for listening! -Mark

Mark A. Kukucka, MS, DVM, PhD (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note this is necessary only under WP:BIO, not WP:PROF. As for WP:PROF, see below: DGG (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The only thing that is possibly notable is the career as a biologist--the rest is material of no encyclopedic notability whatsoever, and , if the article is kept, should be removed. The article would have been much stronger without it in the first place. The citation counts for the top 3 articles in Scopus are 50, 35, 23. The most cited is Koster, A., Kukucka, M., Bach, F., Meyer, O., Fischer, T., Mertzlufft, F., Loebe, M., Hetzer, R., Kuppe, H. "Anticoagulation during cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type II and renal impairment using heparin and the platelet glycoprotein IIb-IIIa antagonist tirofiban" (2001) Anesthesiology, 94 (2), pp. 245-251. Cited 50 times. In some subjects, this would be very significant citation, but the subject here is pharmacology, a field where people publish a many articles and typically have a high citation rate. Further, they are all as part of a large group, and in neither first nor last position, and therefore not principal author. They are from Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany where he apparently spent a year in the lab of Roland Hetzer -- who is clearly a notable academic-- Scopus shows 787 publications, with highest citation counts 222, 145, 122 -- this gives a good idea of the way people publish in this subject. Kukucka's earlier work is essentially uncited. I notice his current position is as a salesman for nanotechnology products--the places he "consults with" in the last paragraph are merely where he makes sales calls. A respectable profession, but not a notable one. DGG (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Withdrawn. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings (drinking game)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kings (drinking game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unverifiable, absolutely no assertion of notability. A game from some website. ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (if I can get it up to shape) A game from one website? The main issue of the article on this very popular game is that there aren't any good sources online. I think it spreads by word of mouth, and there are different rules in different states/cities throughout the US. For this reason, I think the article would be better as an overview, rather than having is list specific rules for cards. I'll try to find some reliable sources. hmwithτ 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I totally rewrote the article, and I don't feel that it should be deleted for any reason. hmwithτ 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The original article was garbage, this is very well written and referenced. Recommend speedy keep and close. -- ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sport tractor

[edit]
Sport tractor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be original research, no substantial references, almost nothing links here. Vossanova o< 20:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raiiniin

[edit]
Raiiniin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

LouriePieterse (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11 - Spam Aervanath (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMC : SHAKTI MINERALS & CHEMICALS

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
SMC : SHAKTI MINERALS & CHEMICALS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

LouriePieterse (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FUPA

[edit]
FUPA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article defines a slang-term in a psuedo-medical way. More suitable for urban dictionary. Kick the cat (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural admin close, nom is evading block.. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xming

[edit]
Xming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable software. No meaningful independent coverage of this topic other than listings at software sites and forum/mail comments by some users. PeaceTea (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural keep - too soon after the article was kept at the original AfD to bring it back without substantial new arguments or information. The correct way to challenge the previous AfD is initially to discuss it with the closing admin and, if still concerned, to take it to WP:DRV. TerriersFan (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Norway relations

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cyprus–Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is a lack of in-depth coverage of the topic of Cyprus-Norway relations in independent reliable sources to establish notability for the subject of this article. There are several verifiable facts included but dressing the children in matching outfits doesn't make their parent notable. Norwegian expatriates in Cyprus appears to be a notable topic and deserving of an article but that is not what's at issue here.

Sadly, even the Cypriot government site regarding their relations is that of the Embassy of Cyprus in Sweden, not Norway, and it is merely trivial coverage. If even the respective governments can't be bothered to cover their relations in-depth, it is no wonder that no one else has bothered to do so. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I very carefully reviewed both the current article and the prior AfD. At the AfD no one ever gave any evidence of notability for the topic of Cyprus-Norway relations. It was more of a meta-discussion about all of the articles. Drawn Some (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proceedural keep and trout for nom. Based on the last AfD that closed 33 days ago and the fact that bilateral relations articles are becoming a repellent subject for this kind of pointy abuse of process. Given there are 20? or so of these at AfD presently and the same group of editors generally working on them all this seems only to inflame the angst on both sides when elegant solutions should be the focus instead. It's clear there is interest in the content so it will be here in one form or another the rest is civilly working with other editors. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator. Throwing up giant trouts and ad hominem attacks as smokescreen won't fool people into thinking that Cyprus-Norway relations have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Withdrawn nomination. Quantpole (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catarina Ferreira

[edit]
Catarina Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor tennis player who competes at a level that is not equivalent to fully professional. Therefore fails WP:ATHLETE Quantpole (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. She did play doubles match back in 2005 in the Estoril Tour event as a wildcard. You can check at her profile page at the wta website. Though that match (she lost) is her only real pro match. She also has five itf doubles tournaments if that counts. Secretaria (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE should be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and against WP:CONSENSUS. A discussion among the people who happen to come here is inadequate. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be adequate in your opinion? Drawn Some (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Biaswarrior was blocked as a sockpuppet. Drawn Some (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moot (game)

[edit]
Moot (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and I have doubts about the game's notability anyway. GW… 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE should be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and against WP:CONSENSUS. A discussion among the people who happen to come here is inadequate. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC) NOTE Biaswarrior was blocked as a sockpuppet. Drawn Some (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nom just says he has "doubts" about notability but his main concern seems to be an editing issue, not a deletion one. Maybe the nom meant he was sure he didn't believe it was notable, but it wasn't entirely clear. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "doubts", I meant that I didn't think it was notable enough for inclusion, but was not entirely certain. I feel that both the points I raised are currently grounds for deletion. If another editor can rescue the article and provide sources to back up notability, I will happily withdraw the nomination. --GW… 20:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if the problem was it was written like an instruction manual, the solution would be to rewrite, not delete, if it was a notable game. We have articles on many notable board games, obviously. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anadiplosis. +Angr 10:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epanastrophe

[edit]
Epanastrophe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary GW… 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE should be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL and against WP:CONSENSUS. A discussion among the people who happen to come here is inadequate. Use the talk page and give it an adequate period of time before deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Biaswarrior's only contributions have been to vote Speedy Keep, failure to follow WP:Before, in a variety of AfD debates today, and a couple of PROD removals to boot. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't know what the hell I was looking at, since Lanham doesn't even have an entry for epanastrophe. Opinion emended accordingly; fish applied forcefully to cheek. Deor (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G10 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Mafatlal

[edit]
Sheetal Mafatlal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are WP:BLP issues here, but I'm declining the db-spam speedy deletion because I don't see who it would be promoting ... certainly not the subject. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punching Out

[edit]
Punching Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future single, uncertain release date and no notability per WP:NSONGS Wolfer68 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If notability changes, the article can be restored, so it's not necessarily time wasted. لennavecia 15:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fagan

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

Contested PROD. Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. No other claim to fame either. GiantSnowman 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Stinson

[edit]
Laura Stinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable makeup artist, appearing on four episodes of a minor reality tv series doesn't meet WP:BIO. No independent sources cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 10:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Trzebinski

[edit]
Gabriela Trzebinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very little assertion of notability, does not appear to meet WP:Creative. Creation of single-purpose acct. Lithoderm 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Her web site lists: "Selected Solo Exhibitions: George Adams Gallery, New York, USA, 2006. Jan Murphy Gallery, Brisbane, Australia, 2003. The French Cultural Center, Nairobi, Kenya, 2001. Jan Murphy Gallery, Brisbane, Australia, 2000. The Rebecca Hossack Gallery, London, UK, 2000. Solo Exhibitions USA, Kenya, 1998. African Heritage, Nairobi, Kenya, 1989."[6] I don't see any reason to doubt this. I've posted additional refs at Talk:Gabriela Trzebinski. Ty 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The artist is the subject of an extensive review on Artcritical (which is a good enough source for other articles: [7], [8]). If some outside sources could be found to verify her background and basic facts about her, it would be a much better article, but as it is, I think it's decent enough to be called a stub. While failing strict interpretation of WP:ARTIST, I think this one is close enough to the edge to warrant leaving it alone, though barely. Livitup (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One in-depth article certainly doesn't constitute significant in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
article by collector, not independent. Enki H. (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am concerned about a couple of things: even if we were to accept without question that she is notable, the article still needs to be verifiable, it is a BLP. And I have some concerns about that because as far as I know there is no "Museum of Modern Art" in Toronto that could be holding her work as the article claims. So I question the reliability of the article in general so this article really needs independent reliable sources for verification at this point. Also I want to point out that information from a gallery that showed her work is not independent. A museum would be debatable as independent if it merely exhibited her work temporarily. If her work is actually held in the permanent collections of several notable museums she herself would be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, does not seem ready for an encyclopedia, 1 review or not...Modernist (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - changed per additional information and work by User:Tyrenius at Talk:Gabriela Trzebinski...Modernist (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I believe there is just enough information to qualify under creative to at least have a stub, as shown here [9]. I’ll go through and clean-up the fluff. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. There's really no such thing as "at least a stub". Enki H. (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete. No Few secondary sources apparent. The article at http://artcritical.com/peterson/GPTrzebinski.htm is in-depth, but written by a collector of hers. The other material I found is written by curators - not independent sources. No "Museum of Modern Art" in Toronto exists, no mention of Trzebinski at "Everard-Read Gallery in Johannesburg", no Website for Richard Salmon in London to check claim, not in list of artists of "George Adams Gallery", not in list of artists of "Rebecca Hossack Gallery" ... fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE and is full of false claims need to be addressed. Enki H. (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Enki H. (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my post below and check out Talk:Gabriela Trzebinski. There are references where she has been listed as an artist at "George Adams Gallery" and "Rebecca Hossack Gallery" (the latter including by The Times). She may not be with them now. I dare say some of the other claims could also be verified. Peterson's article is valid: he is independent, not an agent of the artist; additionally, artcritical has editorial control and therefore endorses his text and takes responsibility for publishing it. She is listed at Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Archive of African Artists - National Museum of African Art Library.[10] Ty 12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have put the references on Talk:Gabriela Trzebinski. They date from 1995 with exhibitions and coverage in US and UK. Cumulatively they satisfy WP:N and provide plenty of material to write an article. Ty 12:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see many trivial mentions, many of them obliquely in the context of family, and several gallery exhibitions but I still don't see the information verified and there is at least one untruth in the article. Many trivial mentions don't equal in-depth coverage and being shown in galleries and even museums is not the same as being in the permanent collection. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE and contains false information. Drawn Some (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have reread the Peterson article and I think it raises an interesting question. It is obvious that as a declared collector of her works he is in a COI position. It is equally obvious that he takes a strongly positive POV. Yet his arguments are a credible interpretation of the work. If we consider that article, I would agree that the guidelines of WP:BIO are fulfilled. If we discount that article, then, despite the many references that Ty has discovered, I tend with Drawn Some that the coverage is thin and does not reflect a notable appreciation of the contents and qualities of her work. Since I myself agree in part with Peterson, I could invoke the core of WP:N - simply: "worthy of notice". But not based on a WP:RS, rather based on a gut feeling (call that POV, or call it OR, or just the bias that is unavoidable in any case, simply because we care enough to edit). I'm thinking out loud here, but I don't yet see a clear (and equitable) line for this AfD. Enki H. (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are quite clear that independent reliable sources must be used to establish notability. Once notability has been established then non-independent sources may be used for verification. Drawn Some (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) COI applies to editors, not sources, as does POV. If a source is valid per WP:RS then per WP:NPOV we represent its position. It's not our place to judge it: that is OR. The home page of artcritical shows it has editorial control of content, and it is therefore an acceptable source. It is independent of the subject, as is the writer, who is not acting under her instruction. There is conflation in this debate of trivial with short. Per WP:GNG " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." There are enough sources that fulfil these criteria, where the essential element, namely her work, has detailed information to use. As such, it is not trivial. Subjects have to be considered in their own terms: contemporary art has a small allocation in the media compared with other fields such as sport, and only a small percentage of art shows receive reviews at all, so when there is coverage it is proportionately more significant than it might be for a different field. Her listing at Smithsonian Institution Libraries as one of only 79 contemporary artists for Kenya[11] is an affirmation of her notability. Ty 14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Enki H. (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment changed !vote to keep. The artcritical essay is the only published source that deals with the subject in depth. The criteria for inclusion in the Smithsonian list aren't stated [12]. But it's the Maryland artist files that swings it for me - a glance at the list confirms that the emphasis is on internationally significant artists [13].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator . Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Bolognesi

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Marco Bolognesi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Certainly he is an emerging artist, but I don't think he has reached the level of independent coverage to warrant encyclopedic coverage. Delete per WP:Creative. Creation of single purpose acct. Lithoderm 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We just went through this two weeks ago, see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marco Bolognesi. He was clearly notable then and I personally added the references to the article under "external links" to support it and they are still there. He doesn't have to be famous or to have reached the apogee of his career, just meet our notability requirement of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough. Sorry I failed to notice that. Consider the nomination withdrawn. Lithoderm 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PC (soft drink)

[edit]
PC (soft drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV/OR article on a non-notable soft drink brand Passportguy (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marli Swarowsky

[edit]
Marli Swarowsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability beyond her immediate region. Creation of single-purpose account. Fails WP:Creative. Lithoderm 16:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It Started With a Kiss 3

[edit]
It Started With a Kiss 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Currenty all of the info on this page is pure spectulation. Passportguy (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. لennavecia 15:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monta May

[edit]
Monta May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Google search brings up no results: [15]. Article's creator is Montagaelmay. I'd say we have the non-notability trifecta... Lithoderm 16:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Whisstock

[edit]
Fred Whisstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

19th century designer of toy soldier boxes? Fails WP:Creative spectacularly. I don't think that this guy is even notable within a subculture, unless it would be toy soldier collectors. Lithoderm 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Lithoderm 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep though needs referencing. After so many decades collectability = notability in my book. But refs needed. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Biography does not appear to be notable even if the toy soldier boxes might be. Those are already covered at W._Britain - which features one of Whisstock's boxes. Enki H. (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as original author of the article I vote to keep as the boxes / labels are apparently a key part of the collectibility of Britians items (which surprisingly can apparently sell for many $1000's if rare and in good condition) - however, one without the other essentially seriously devalues the item! Alternatively could consider merging with Britians article - although Whisstocks paintings do come up for auction occasionally (see for example at Christies http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=3447108) - which I thought was interesting. Thus while he may not be a famous painter / illustrator, I felt he satisfied the "unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" aspect of the rules (also would maybe satisfy toy soldier collectors who on occasion email me asking who he was!!!). James Whisstock (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge referenced material to W. Britain if references can't be found to substantiate enough biog to keep the article. "Fred Whisstock was one of the artists of the labels who joined Britains at the end of the First World War. His signature appears on the label and a set with a Whisstock box is much more sought after than the same set in a non-Whisstock box."[16] Two drawings in the Essex Record Office.[17][18] Named in 142 auction results, [19] including for his landscape watercolours:[20][21] one of them sold at Christies[22] (also search artprice.com, sub needed). See also WP:HB. Ty 06:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would he be the notable subject of a biographical article under these circumstances? He does not appear to be generally notable as an artist it seems (the auction results notwithstanding). I would support the merge + redirect though: the article about the boxes (assuming these are themselves notable) would provide the required context. Enki H. (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, as things stand, there's not enough to substantiate an article with e.g. dates of birth/death even, so merge is the option. But if more material is found (which may exist in print sources) then he has achieved enough note within his field to justify an article. Ty 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apparently FW was also involved in the design of pictures featured on postage stamps. I would support biography option rather than artist. One of the editors of the page (Shipmate127) is very kindly sending FWs obituary published in the Southend newspaper, which may provide the additional biographic information as mentioned by Tyrenius - when this arrives in the next week or so I would be happy to include these data - or indeed Shipmate127 may wish to do this himself.James Whisstock (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, I would advocate keeping the article for an agreed time, say one month, to allow for this source, but if it does not appear or provide enough information, then merging. Ty 14:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn DGG (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Molyneux

[edit]
Stephen Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am not 100% about the notability. I am not voting delete, but think discussion is needed. The article has had so many COI edits it is difficult to see if notability asserted is accurate or not. Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cut back. Subject is notable, but article reads like an autobiography, too rosy, COI suspicion, etc. These concerns are not valid reasons for deletion though, so I consider this AfD nom kind of misplaced. Article should be cut back leaving it to an uninvolved editor to improve; if continued COI editing takes place, editor can be warned and eventually blocked. I see no need to strain the already overloaded AfD circuit with this. Suggest speedy keep. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Jamie☆S93 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Illumination Magazine

[edit]
Public Illumination Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find little evidence of independent coverage from a couple of google searches. According to this the name of the magazine's editor is Zagreus Bowery, which would seem to bring up blatant WP:COI issues with User:Zagreus (contribs), the article's creator. Lithoderm 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not to sure about the notability of Jeffrey Isaac or Stefan Roloff. They seem to be more notable than this magazine but they were edited by the same contributors, so I thought I'd mention them here. Lithoderm 16:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Took a look at the article and searched for some sources. Gbooks and Gscholar returned some relevant coverage, arguably thin, though still acceptable RS. Found a short notice at the New York University Library website. The German Wikipedia had a link to a 28th anniversary mention in a Los Angeles Times books blog. Modified the article accordingly. I would say this earns them a page in Wikipedia, clear pass for RS and GNG. Isn't it about time that we start to relate primary to the merits of the article itself, and less to the circumstances of the contributions. Sure, seems likely that we should be alert to possible COI issues, as judged from name of article creator alone. But it is not a concealed COI. More importantly, there is no evidence of NPOV violations whatsoever in the article. IMO, only a desperate and hallucinating salesman would give the entry advertising value. As such, I consider the COI issue to be a marginal one, and as I read the nomination rationale, I think it has (wrongly) been the principal concern. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant that in deciding to create the article, the author would be more likely to decide that the subject was notable if they were affiliated with that subject. I'm looking at the motivation of the creator, rather than the content of the article. It seems to me that a subject would be less likely to be notable if no one outside the organization that is the subject was interested enough in it to write about it. You're right that this is irrelevant to a certain extent, as even if there were issues with the content it could be rewritten. It's just that I come across a large number of articles like this, so I like to put them up and get other people's opinion on their value. The Moma collection convinces me. I'm withdrawing the nomination, and I intend to trim out that long list of "subjects". Lithoderm 02:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone else already axed the list. Thanks. Lithoderm 02:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although this is a tricky one. (I haven't been able to find "tiny size" anywhere in the WP notability guidelines). The Gbooks hits are too thin for significant coverage and the LA times blog was written by someone who also wrote for PIM i.e. not independent of the subject. What swayed me is the mention of authorship by Basqiat, Haring and others, and that it is collected at MOMA and the Pompidou, in the LA Times blog. Presuming that the latter is a reliable source, I think this is a case where the formal requirements are not fulfilled but the subject is still notable. N.b: I agree with the NPOV assessment of Power.corrupts Enki H. (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Lavery

[edit]
Dawn Lavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe the subject does not meet WP:BIO, in view of the fact that I cannot find evidence of sufficient coverage in reliable, independent and secondary sources. Plus, I do not believe the subject meets WP:CREATIVE, as her work doesn't seem to be significant. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sandra L. Piovesan

[edit]
Death of Sandra L. Piovesan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unfortunate, even unusual (for the number of animals involved), but not notable or encyclopedic. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Wilkins (playwright)

[edit]
Alan Wilkins (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article needs additional citations for verification.It does not assert notability per WP:WEB, WP:GROUP, or the more generic WP:N. No reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs)

this page is missing reliable sources, when using the links, there are no firther information, ex: Literary Agent: *: n/a Email:n/a Website:n/a when using google i find Alan Wilkins (cricketer), the rest is made by wikidan61 or in scottish sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If you're going to link the phrase "notability checks" then please do so to a place that shows some notability checks. Please don't imply that you have made any such checks by providing a deceptive link. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 11 just can't be used to determine notability, it could still be used as as a non-independent source in the article per guidelines. I agree this does not "thoroughly" fail, it is borderline. Still, the "substantial" in-depth coverage isn't demonstrated. The award in my opinon isn't of the level required to instantly elevate a person to notability, i guess that could be argued by some. Drawn Some (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the original #11 was a crib from the Traverse Theatre brochure cited (now) at #16. I have added other other cites so the numbering has changed again. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The notability referring to pages where Alan Wilkins is just mentioned, the links do not lead to any further information about Alan Wilkins (playwright). comment by hjk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.18.71 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one vote per editor please (this includes the nominator).

*Delete It should also be noted that there may be a significant conflict of interest— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.18.71 (talk • contribs)

Again, only one vote per editor please. Note that the conflict of interest that the editor refers to is the fact that I nominated his article for deletion, and in an apparently retaliatory move, he has nominated my article for deletion. It should also be noted that I do not know, nor have I ever met, Mr. Wilkins. I originally created the page because a link to him in another article led to a DIFFERENT Alan Wilkins page, so I thought I would do Wikipedia a favor and create the correct page. This does not constitute a conflict of interest. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure why a playwright's notability should be judged by the standards of WP:WEB or WP:GROUP as suggested by the nominator. The best fit would surely be WP:Creative#Creative_professionals. Reference #4 gives some background (EFL, Poland, Spain), #5 a little morem (drama teacher, age, school where he was working, description of how the play evolved), #7 a little more (winning an award), #11 & #12, #13 & #15 provide a little more. His plays have "received multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", in The Independent, The Scotsman, The Times, The Guardian, The List, and The Herald. I am not sure what else can be added at present, but I suspect that more will be in the next few years. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The nominator simply copied the text that I had included when nominating his article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creating public Communities). The cited guidelines were appropriate for that article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this edit [23] throws further light on that. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that particular piece of vandalism was completely unrelated to the current debacle. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Galitskaia

[edit]
Nina Galitskaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Persistently unsourced non-notable artist. One rather spammy and self-published source is provided, plus a gallery link. Article creator has not replied to WP:COI inquiry. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vitali Gambarov

[edit]
Vitali Gambarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Persistently unsourced non-notable artist. Sole independent source is a rather spammy WP:SPS. Article creator has not replied to WP:COI questions. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 09:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Edward Ludlow Bathurst, 4th Viscount Bledisloe

[edit]
Rupert Edward Ludlow Bathurst, 4th Viscount Bledisloe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable peer, never was a member of the House of Lords Passportguy (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can all go home

[edit]
We can all go home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speech from a film. Fancruft, also likely a copyright infringement. Passportguy (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jugu Abraham

[edit]
Jugu Abraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author created by single-purpose editor Zinspiron (talk · contribs), who also created a number of unlikely redirects to this article. Most of edit history is actually on Jugu John Abraham. If kept, that history should be moved to this article—I'm holding off on initiating that pending this AfD. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And lest we forget, each redirect which was a regular page before should be bulked in with this AfD and probably salted. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above-referenced redirects:
In this instance, salting seems like overkill to me. Some of these phrases, and indeed Mr. Abraham could merit an article some day. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I said salting because of the number of implausible redirects that have been created for this, it just gives a very funny feeling. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the redirects suggest aggressive promotion, I can imagine all this as possibly a good faith effort. All editing by Zinspiron (talk · contribs) occurred within a 2 week period, with no edits in over a month. If there were a recurrence, then I would support salting. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not convinced by the quality of the sourcing. For example, the first source is a book which mentions the subject's name only in the preface. The other sources are mostly related to subject and thus are not independent. I strongly feel that this is a case of very aggressive promotion. Salih (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kukreti

[edit]
Kukreti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete article about an Indian surname without any indication of why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Krasnozavodsk tornado

[edit]
2009 Krasnozavodsk tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Canadian Securities Institute. Although, the merge target is an unsourced article, badly in need of clean up itself. Now at least the text is all in one place to hopefully make one good article out of it Keeper | 76 00:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives Market Specialist

[edit]

Derivatives Market Specialist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States insurance companies

[edit]
List of United States insurance companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Keep I at first wanted to say "delete" as well, until I saw how many insurance companies on that list are blue-linked. When there are that many notable items in the list, the list is definately a positive to the project. I would support removal of the red links until article are written, but deleting this list seems unnecessary. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we could work out a compromise like that I would be agreeable to inclusion. So long as it isn't advertisement, that was my main concern./ Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a throw back to paper encyclopedias. Today, lists of companies may not be easily available from google, but you can go to the SEC or even yahoo finance and come close to getting current lists of public companies. I have cited various polemics elsewhere on Wiki to motivate more government lists of this type with real time company or organization attributes. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this has the potential to be a useful list, complementing the categories. It needs work (remove redlinks, maybe make a table instead of a bunch of sublists), but in line with other "List of foo companies"—G716 <T·C> 01:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a useful list. It might need some work, but it helps lead people to other insurance company and lead people in the right direction if they are not for sure exactly the company they are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R2244 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above, it is a potentially useful list. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Why is a list of us insurance companies nec.?" Firstly, please communicate in proper English using full words. Secondly, this is "nec." (I'm assuming you mean "necessary") because this is a comprehensive encycopedia that contains encyclopedic content such as information about notable insurance companies, and we have lists to help people find this information. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). لennavecia 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_McCoy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Michael_McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This stub, being maintained by an SPA, user Wzupdoc, features a person of dubious notability and doesn't seem to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Improvements were requested in same article before the previous proposed deletion. When no improvements or response was forthcoming by the SPA, it was deleted under the proposed deletion process. UnkleFester (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Levine

[edit]
Rick Levine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • I added a link to The Cluetrain Manifesto, a book Levine co-authored. I also put in a link to the patent mentioned and a link to support the Amazon one-click patent claim. Levine has some other patents as well, including one for displaying text when the user presses the help key. (Please note that I am a co-author of Levine's, so my judgment is clouded.) dweinberger (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would mean you do have a fundemental conflict of interest and may be against policy. However that being said I'd like to look over your ref. and see what you added. It may be what was needed to make it notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion is that the article needs fundemental help to make it meet quality standards and be encyclopeadic, the amazon connection doesn't make sense to me and I suggest you remove it as non-sequitor, however the book does help the notability, do you have the Isbn info fo rit or any book reviews to go along with it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • M. Weinberger, what Wikipedia requires for all subjects, per the Primary Notability Criterion, is multiple independent published works, by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, that document the subject in depth. This article as it stands solely cites two patent applications, neither of which document this person at all. I've had a look for independent sources documenting this person's life and works, but have yet to find anything. He is not documented in any books, and not in any newspaper articles that I can find so far. (Rick Levine the director of television commercials is more documented than this Rick Levine is.)

    If no such sources exist, which looks likely from the lack of results in my efforts so far to find them, then per Wikipedia:Deletion policy the article must be deleted. We don't do unverifiable biographies here. So please cite some sources documenting this person's life and works in depth. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Ltd

[edit]
Safari Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sage Gateshead

[edit]
The Sage Gateshead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article listed for deleation as it is wrote as an Advert and no change or attempt to change since September 2009 has been made to rewrite the article //Melonite (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Does *anyone* think this building is not notable? This call for AfD seems completely procedural in nature... frustration over a lack of response to a maintenance tag. Many of the peacock-like phrases have been cleaned up in the past day or so. You want more? DavidRF (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I wish now that I hadn't mentioned AfD when declining the speedy deletion request. I think the maintenance tag (which says to speedy delete the article) was barely if at all applicable to the article, and after recent improvements am convinced that it isn't. DVD 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Backslash Forwardslash at 03:48, 12 June 2009 as WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. Greg Tyler (t • c) 11:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Eye (magazine)

[edit]
Naked Eye (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing indicating that this magazine is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Bruyere

[edit]
Joel Bruyere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I made a good faith effort to gather appropriate sources for this article, but I could not find any. His name is, in fact, mentioned plenty of times on the web, but not (from what I could tell) on sites that would meet WP citation requirements. The band he's in IS notable, but that does not infer notability onto him. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, most of the cites I used are from Joel himself; which would be reliable. In fact, I can post the that TFK sent on here if you like. If you want to find more information, please look at Thousand Foot Krutch and The Drawing Room inserts; I'm sure you will find information there. Look on TFK websites for for other information. theweddingrocks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You are supporting the argument for deletion. Wikipedia:Reliable#Self-published_sources Wiki policy specifies you cannot use self-published sources (his or his band's own website, myspace, etc.) Further, WP: PRIMARY specifies that you not use primary sources. Secondary or Tertiary sources are required. I tried finding independent, reliable (see WPRS, sources but could not. If you can, then please do. As it stands, none are included in the article. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched and have found good cites for this page. I can't put them in because its late over on this side of the world. But I can put them in later or someone else can do it. let me know and I'll give you the links. Either way don't delete this page, it will be cleaned up. godrockshard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

would you mind sharing what the sources are? Wikiwikikid (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium–Malta relations

[edit]
Belgium–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

whilst I note each country has embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly multilateral and of course sport. English search, French search. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any independent sources addressing Belgium-Malta relations in French or English, either. I didn't search in Dutch, that wouldn't be a bad idea, but I don't hold out much hope for that since French came up empty. If anyone finds anything specifically addressing Belgium-Malta relations in-depth in independent (non-government) sources in any language (German is a another good possiblity), I'll joyfully reconsider this opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another pairing of random countries with no notability established. I haven't checked, aren't many of these by the same author? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and he was banned but for some reason the articles weren't. Drawn Some (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for removal of content from banned users are pretty much involved with the user's actions after the ban, not before. Banned users are no longer allowed to edit, and thus any new contributions from them via socks or IPs are not welcome. But that reasoning really has no direct application to edits from the users from before the bans. Barring special cases where the edits are directly related to the reason for the ban, for instance a serial copyright offender, the banning of an article's original creator does not put any particular negative stigma on the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and lack significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. simply having embassies and being part of the EU is not sufficient to establish notability, if you're going to vote keep please back it up with some better evidence. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akushu Kote Tori

[edit]
Akushu Kote Tori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 05:08, 2 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 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mae Yama Kage

[edit]
Mae Yama Kage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:43, 2 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 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shidare Fuji Shime

[edit]
Shidare Fuji Shime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:51, 2 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 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Momo Jime

[edit]
Momo Jime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:51, 2 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 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashi Garami Jime

[edit]
Ashi Garami Jime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:52, 2 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 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daki Kubi Jime

[edit]
Daki Kubi Jime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:53, 2 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 13:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michalia

[edit]
Michalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Michalia City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michalian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no indication, and I find none, that this "micronation" is notable, or more than just something made up one day. Even the "official website" is a dead-link. Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaTeX-Editor (LEd)

[edit]
LaTeX-Editor (LEd) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient references to reliable sources to demonstrate notability . ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologize that you took it personally. This is only the second mention of WP:POINT I made, despite your numerous recent AfDs. I did look at your edit history & it is actually the quantity and timing of your AfDs that prompted my remarks. If you made an honest effort at investigating all of those articles, I applaud you. I just find it surprising that anyone could have made an honest effort of searching for sources or truly considering whether an article might be improved in such a short timespan. At the very least, your nomination for Texmaker was certainly a mistake: mere seconds of searching would yield multiple notable sources instantly. Please withdraw that nomination & consider trying to work a little harder at avoiding such mistakes & on making actual improvements to stubs and articles. --Karnesky (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making a mistake or being sloppy about checking for sources (and I'm making no comment on whether Ukexpat did that or not) may be bad, but it hardly seems to qualify as "disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point". Anyway the worst-case scenario is that it's deleted and userfied until you do get time to find sources and put it back in mainspace - certainly not worth getting into an argument about! Olaf Davis (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You have not convinced me that this accurate, informational page ought to be deleted. Wikipedia is not paper, having this article does not detract from others. If being unsure of notability is the only reason, we should not delete, we should improve the article. —fudoreaper (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I have been unable to find WP:RS for this product. I disagree with the shotgun nomination of a half dozen articles based on a comment in an AfD; the other articles are all sourced now & should be kept. (Ironically, the only article that has had not had sources added has been the only one to be kept, while the others have been relisted.) This single article seems to warrant deletion (without prejudice if a source can be added). --Karnesky (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim, merge and redirect to LaTeX. The above users are correct that this software is not notable, and hence should not be an article in its own right; but since the material is verifiable it would surely be appropriate to preserve the sourced content somewhere else on Wikipedia. The main LaTeX article seems to be the appropriate place.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What content has been sourced using WP:RS? Why should we discuss a non-notable editor in LaTeX? --Karnesky (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer each question in turn, Karnesky: 1) Nobody's denying that this software exists, and 2) Non-notability is a reason not to have a separate article, but in itself, it isn't a reason to cut material out of Wikipedia in violation of WP:PRESERVE (which is a policy which those fixated on the notability guideline sometimes fail to implement).

        In other words, WP:PRESERVE as presently drafted requires us to consider retaining a footnote or sub-subsection in some article (arguably LaTeX) mentioning this software.

        I would personally argue that WP:PRESERVE should be updated. My view is that WP:PRESERVE should apply only to reliably-sourced content, particularly in the case of BLPs. But at the moment it does not say that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • That is a rather unconventional reading of WP:PRESERVE: the mere existence of a LaTeX editor would not belong in a finished article on LaTeX because WP is not a directory. There are scores of such editors & there's no way or reason to include them all. If the mere existence of something compelled us to mention it "somewhere," there'd be little reason to have AfD in the first place: most would result in a merge. --Karnesky (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm rather perplexed by how each individual tool from each supplier in one industry can be thought to be notable, but similar such specific articles about tools used in other industries (e.g. 14mm Stanley spanner [that's "9/16" Stanley wrench" to you Americans]) would be deleted without question, even though they are probably much more widely used. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support an article about a wrench, or a stapler, so don't say that we're all fixated on software articles, and nothing else. Just a lot of people on Wikipedia are computer geeks, so these articles get attention, and articles on woodworking do not. I hope this changes. Also, in Canada we call it a wrench, never realized a spanner was the same. Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeXnicCenter

[edit]
TeXnicCenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software - no sources to support notability. In fact no claim of notability is made. ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Then cite those books in the article. And I am not being pointy here -- software, even free sofware, doesn't get a free pass on notability. This article has been around since 2005 without a single reference to support notability. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So tag it as being unreferenced. Don't nominate something for deletion because someone disagreed with you in another AfD. How do these nominations improve wikipedia? --Karnesky (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was wondering what ukexpat has against software projects being listed in wikipedia and then I saw that he is a lawyer. Anyway enough flaming. There are many less notable entries in wikipedia and this one has references and provides a useful resource to a community so I vote for keeping it. ardalby
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ichimonji Shime

[edit]
Ichimonji Shime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:53, 2 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 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you look at the article in question you'll see it isn't a Judo throw. It's a choke (or more likely a strangle). It's also not a Judo technique. JJL (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texmaker

[edit]
Texmaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software - no sources to support notability. In fact no claim of notability is made. ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at ISBN 9783540007180, as cited, and it in fact only covers this subject on pages 519–520, not pages 514–520 as claimed. Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely the preferred stance should be to keep unless it is clear that there is no community and nobody is using it. From experience this is in fact the best LaTex editor available in Windows and the link is essential to building the community as Google does not find the download site. It is also established as part of several Linux releases - Ubuntu etc. So we would do the community a disservice by removing the article.ardalby —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep This software may be niche since it is a document editor for TeX / LaTeX, but in that niche it is one of the more popular applications. The references I see are more than sufficient to establish notability, although this article is currently in horrible shape and should be rewritten and expanded. Tothwolf (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juji Gatame

[edit]
Juji Gatame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:54, 2 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 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This technique has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, as shown by a Google Book search, and satisfies notability. See [29], which says it is one of jujitsu's "most popular arm locks." It is a hold which will break the victim's elbow if he does not give up the match. See also [30], [31] , [32] , [33] , [34], [35], [36] , [37], [38]. If a particular technique in a sport has this many books with this much cverage of it, it is notable enough for an article. This does not mean that all techniques in the sport are notable. Some of the "delete" comments on some of the judo techniques AFDs sound like "IDONTLIKEIT." Edison (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My vote isn't about not liking it. I don't see where the individual technique listed here should have it's own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Tomoe nage, Seoi nage and Hane goshi, other important martial art techniques with their own articles. Many more refs could be added to those and some others. This one is like them, and not like most of the others in this set of AFDs which are only sourced to one book on Danzan Ryu. We should not generalize about nonnotability of moves or techniques in a sport, since it is easy to show notability of many specific moves or techniques. Edison (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uchi Gama

[edit]
Uchi Gama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:55, 2 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 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katate Hazushi Ichi

[edit]
Katate Hazushi Ichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 04:58, 2 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 13:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yubi Tori

[edit]
Yubi Tori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 05:04, 2 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 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moro Yubi Tori

[edit]
Moro Yubi Tori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. On top of that, no sources are provided. Tyrenon (talk) 05:05, 2 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 13:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kane sute

[edit]
Kane sute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Additionally, WP:NOTHOWTO. Tyrenon (talk) 05:23, 2 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 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect. Non-notable elementary schools are customarily redirected to their respective school districts or municipalities; in this case, Westmount_Park_School#Elementary_Schools. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westmount Park School

[edit]
Westmount Park School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This small school is mostly for kindergarten and day care. This is not notable. Kingturtle (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Alexander Stanley Baldwin, Viscount Corvedale

[edit]
Benedict Alexander Stanley Baldwin, Viscount Corvedale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Being the son of someone does not make you notable. After the rules for the House of Lords were changed, this person is no longer guaranteed a seat, and should only be added when and if he does. Passportguy (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a viscount we should include him.Max Mux (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Non-notable. He is a viscount by courtesy, not in his own right. Please stop creating these articles on non-notable peers or courtesy peers. Tryde (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy or not I think he belongs here. Great Britain is still a monarchy.Max Mux (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Monarchy or not, a person is not notable simply because they are a member of a certain family. Otherwise we'd have thousands and thousands of articles on the very extenstive families of the Arab Gulf states. Passportguy (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can be added. Royalty and peers of monarchys are notable.Max Mux (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. The cousin of a cousin of a cousin of the emir is not notable. Any person must pass WP:BIO. Passportguy (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds from the Ground

[edit]
Sounds from the Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no real notability shown. no indication albums are on important label. coverage in independent reliable sources does not appear to go beyond trivial. prod (and speedy) removed because of coverage found in google news, none of which appear to be non trivial. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator Sweep

[edit]
Elevator Sweep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another martial arts technique lacking in particular notability. Tyrenon (talk) 04:46, 2 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 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League of Music

[edit]
Ivy League of Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An "unofficial" list is probably not notable, and a Google search turns up practically nothing. Also, as noted on the talk page, there are several obvious conservatories and schools missing from the list; in fact, one of the few references turned up by Google is for Berklee, which is not even on the list. Powers T 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Alaskan Hotel

[edit]
Millennium Alaskan Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual hotel; fails news search - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't contagious that way. Drawn Some (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well good, we won't get a virus then. Notability is about the existence of sources... sources exist. I was just adding claims of importance so no one tries to speedy delete it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, notability (not notability) is about multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pornography. Flowerparty☀ 00:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SFW porn

[edit]
SFW porn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

dictdef UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paden Smith

[edit]
Paden Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Up-and-coming" songwriter of questionable notability Passportguy (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting architecture

[edit]
Meeting architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not find evidence of the sort of independent use of this term which would be required to satisfy WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. What use there is seems to be connected to the website http://www.meetingarchitecture.org, run by Maarten Vanneste, the author of the book featured, and also the author Maarten.vanneste (talk · contribs) of this article. This new concept may become notable in the future, but it is not yet, and Wikipedia is not here to help promote it. Delete as advertising and as unsourced neologism. JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have copied below two comments which were placed on the article talk page, with my responses. I have marked them both as "Keep" !votes as that is clearly their intention. Both editors are SPAs - these are their only edits. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meeting Architecture is a new discipline that has already a major impact in the design of meetings. Because it is new it seems to me that this is a major reason for explaining to the public what it is about.
Also, the Meetings Industry is in a much needed process of redesigning itself. Meeting Architecture has proven to be instrumental in this.
One more thing: do you know of any new concept, or idea, that hasn't anyone behind it? I don't.
Best wishes,
Maria Lemos
President Sustainable Side of the Street —Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaSustainableSide (talk • contribs) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the point is that Wikipedia is specifically not for explaining new things to the public: subjects have to be notable, best indicated by having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That way, Wikipedia editors don't make decisions on whether a new idea is useful, necessary, interesting, deserves publicity etc; we simply ask, have other people, independent of the originator, thought it interesting and important enough to write about? Yes, every new idea has someone behind it, but at the stage when that someone is the person who wants to write about it in Wikipedia, and appears to be the only source for use of the term, it is too early for an article; also, there may be a conflict of interest. More information at WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Meeting Architecture deserves a place on Wikipedia but the entry needs needs to be rigorously rewritten. Such a rewrite would acknowledge the writing of Ib Ravn in setting out the early concepts of Meeting Architecture. It would point to the numerous seminars and workshops that have been held on the subject and it would reference the article by Martin Lewis published in the May/June issue of M&IT Magazine in the United Kingdom.
It would also look at some of the practical drawbacks of Meeting Architecture and include case histories highlighting the pros and cons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHKeenan (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this made me reconsider seriously whether the article should be kept in the hope of improvements along the lines suggested; but a further trawl through Google leaves me unconvinced that this new discipline has, or necessarily will, "take off" enough for an article that meets our requirements for notability in terms of independent reliable sources; at present it all seems to revolve around a particular book or "manifesto", a website, and meetings that are being set up about it. I think time is needed to see whether this is something that will take off and develop, or whether in a few months' time it will be seen to have been just another buzz-word that was briefly fashionable and then died. My recommendation remains to delete, with no prejudice against re-creation in due course if things develop. I will notify editors who have already !voted in case they wish to reconsider. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Still Delete  : The unsourced outline just elaborates a strategy for

anything- identify something to do, figure out what you need to accomplish, do it, and then figure out how well it worked and try better next time. While I have to admit there are plenty of examples everyday where people don't do this, wiki can not evaluate merit but could perhaps be an e-kindergarten LOL :) What readers would benefit from this entry and how would they find it? Typing meeting architecture into google with other things is probably intended as "meeting architectural objectives" in designing a home or ship. At least try to get a patent or something- am I've probably gotten patents with less original content :) As with home flipping, you only need to find a few people of the billions on the planet who value something more than you do to be successful- you don't need a buyer and loan officer, just a reliable secondary source who can evaluate merit and indicate you have a topic with some accepted art. Even a new theory, no matter how speculative, would be fine, if there was reliable peer reviewed debate about it.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ministrs

[edit]
Ministrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician, considered for deletion in Latvian Wikipedia, the only interwiki page for Ministrs. SpeedKing (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Özgür Çek

[edit]
Özgür Çek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A youth footballer for Turkish team Fenerbahçe PAF (reserve/academy team) who never appeared with the first team, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak as a copyright violation. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shailesh acharekar

[edit]
Shailesh acharekar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wholly unreferenced autobiography. Notability not established. لennavecia 11:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Accounting4Taste (talk · contribs) as G3: Vandalism. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Stipic

[edit]
Dean Stipic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATHLETE William Avery (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. This is a well reasoned discussion, with some compelling points on various sides. All in all, the consensus appears to lean towards keeping the article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Heights

[edit]
Celestial Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I deleted this after its prod expired but a user has since contested its deletion. Prod rationale was "lack of notability. This is just an appartmentblock like any other. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Only usefull for a Hong Kong real estate site". No opinion from me. Flowerparty☀ 10:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • An opinion of something being "not notable outside the area it is in" is not criteria for deletion. Wikipedia has notability guidelines which stipulate that topics are presumed notable if they have had significant coverage by secondary sources, like this topic has. There's no "local popularity doesn't count" clause. In this case, the "local" means the 7 million populated Hong Kong. --Oakshade (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I am proposing a merge not a delete. See WP:LOCAL - "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the essay (not policy or guideline) WP:LOCAL. There are enough sources available to write a comprehensive article. The article you're suggesting to merge to is about the neighborhood and this is about a housing estate. Information specifically about the housing estate like ownership, construction and property values would be extranious and inappropriate in the Ho Man Tin article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the housing estate is part of the neighbourhood, and I disagree that encyclopaedic information about the ownership, construction and property values would be inappropriate on the neighbourhood article. If it feels like the information is getting excessive then (imo) it is probable that it isn't encyclopaedic information. To deserve their own article, housing estates must be more notable than than any other similar housing estate anywhere in the world, and neither having the (second) highest property values in the region nor anything else I have seen about this development makes it any more notable than the housing estates with the (second) highest property values in France, Madrid, Taipei, New York, São Palo, etc, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia editors are not to judge what topics are "more notable and any other similar" topic. We go be what reliable sources have decided to write about them. That's the core principle behind WP:NOTABILITY. In this case, reliable sources have deemed this housing estate notable enough to write about as they don't write about every one.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local reliable sources always write about things that are notable in their local area. There is coverage in multiple reliable sources about a large (comparatively) new housing estate in the village I live in. That does not make it notable, enough for it's own article on Wikipedia. Despite it being the largest single housing estate and largest single development since at least the mid 1980s, possibly since before the second world war, it doesn't even get a mention in the article for the village. Encyclopaedic notability is different to newsworthyness and cannot be determined simply by a coverage in local reliable sources. While it is true that things that do not get covered in reliable sources are not notable, not everything that is covered is notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this "local sources don't count" argument time and time again and it never holds water. WP:NOTABILITY does not and has never "banned" local sources as evidence of notability. And considering Hong Kong is a major world city is further evidence of its notability as sources have chosen to write specifically about this housing estate in a place of literally thousands. --Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is not that "local sources don't count", they do. My point is that you need more than just local sources to indicate notability for the purposes of an international, general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. I read the links in the article and provided by Oakshade above, and they are just the fluff you find in the business section of every newspaper. They confirm it exists, is big, and cost a lot of money (but none of the sources say "one of biggest" or "one of most expensive" or similar wording to indicate notability. Johnuniq (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the author of the article. What I concern is not the deletion of certain Hong Kong property articles, but the view of point for the reservation of this kind of article. Some of the editors and administrators delete the articles just because they don't know the article and try to find some excuses to delete it.
  • Someone said Hong Kong building articles in Wikipedia are promoting the sales of the property developers. How do the editors make a building article without telling the location, the developers and the foundation year? If you think these information can promote the sales of property developers, I think it is a joke. Then all articles involving private housing estates can be deleted, because they are de facto advertisements! For Johnuniq's deletion reason, did he/she find the article saying "one of biggest" or "one of most expensive"? What expensive is its land sale. The source can show the facts. What I make the article of Celestial Heights is based on the following reasons.
    • It is one of a recent private housing estate in Ho Man Tin, a high-class and middle-class residential area in Hong Kong.
    • Its land sale is the second highest (the sources can support the truth) in Hong Kong history. An article of Island Resort also exists due to this reason, I think.
    • It has Chinese version article and photos to support the existance of the building. Ricky@36 (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response: I had read the article you mention before commenting here. Since it is not a good translation to English, it is a little hard for me to be sure what it is saying. I don't know a great deal about Hong Kong, but I recall hearing reports (over many years) that real estate prices are booming, and each year seems to set another record. I don't understand if the article above is saying any more than that, which I believe it would need to do to establish notability. It may be the case that this building is somehow notable; please just say what it is. I see that in another comment above you have added that its land value is the second highest in Hong Kong; that would contribute towards its notability but is there nothing more? You don't have to make a perfect article right now (or ever), but can you can give an indication as to how the article might develop? What more might be said? Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You said "I don't know a great deal about Hong Kong, but I recall hearing reports (over many years) that real estate prices are booming, and each year seems to set another record." I can definitely tell you that the property price may not reach at higher record even though the economic is getting better. In 1997 and 1998, there was a bubble in the Hong Kong property market. Owenrs who bought the flats that time still suffers from losses even at the time when Hang Seng Index rose above 30000 points at 2007. It is not easy to break the record of the land sale in future few years. 07:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a fine and notable in and of itself with notability shown by sources. This not a WP:CORP, other than the fact that all development in Hong Kong is land-leased, planned, developed, and managed corporately. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Keep Notable property development as demonstrated by newspaper articles cited and hundreds more available on Google News [42]. "just an appartmentblock like any other" is not a proper deletion rationale: notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not personal judgements of uniqueness or lack thereof. cab (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gojira (UK)

[edit]
Gojira (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I see no evidence of coverage in reliable sources, their site just points to a couple of local reviews of gigs at a student union. Flowerparty☀ 10:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after 4 weeks at AfD. There is some evidence of notability from local news sources. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poverello Center

[edit]
Poverello Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed; as I said in my PROD reasons, "No evidence of notability; only sources are local, and local sources aren't sufficient for notability". No need for more reasons for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Apparently there are multiple Poverello Centers and they are a Franciscan outreach program, lots of large centers providing food relief, homeless shelters, etc. all over the U.S. and perhaps elsewhere, I see Rhode Island, Florida,Nevada, and this one in Montana without trying. The article should really be about the national organization although there is enough coverage in reliable sources to support at least this one in Missoula and the one in Pompano Beach, probably others. That something is only known through local sources doesn't make it not notable, if that were the case, few high schools or churches would be included. Drawn Some (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - an article sh/could be created for the centers in general. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- centers as a whole notable this one alone is not. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:16, 2 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} 09:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Barnard

[edit]
Kay Barnard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable former Cllr, PPC and PEPC - WP:POLITICIAN applies Saalstin (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Promotional article for a candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN having held no national or regional office. Valenciano (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stella hudgens

[edit]
Stella hudgens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not inherited, and Stella hasn't yet done anything to establish notability beyond her older sister \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPET

[edit]
IPET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly-researched article about non-notable game. Prod was removed after inserting first-party references. Alexius08 (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roll Wit It

[edit]
Roll Wit It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another "Marc Mysterio" song. Charts listed either aren't sourceable or aren't notable:I can't find a single decent link showing that "futuremusiccharts.nl" is a notable chart site. Fails WP:NSONGS, but efforts to redirect the article have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - FMC CHART IS NOTABLE... Secondly, The Canadian National Dance Chart compiled by ZIP DJ is the only national dance chart and official for Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.53.228 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as on the other article, I'll request evidence. Who considers the FMC charts to be notable? What evidence do you have that they are? Who considers "ZIP DJ" to be an official Canadian chart?—Kww(talk) 00:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: zipDJ Charts - For those who do not know, zipDJ is Canada's foremost secure digital delivery service designed with the 4 major labels to distribute current promotional music from industry labels to professionals in the music industry. Not only is zipDJ sanctioned by the Canadian music industry, but it is also licensed by the AVLA (Audio & Visual Licensing Agency), a copyright collective to whom zipDJ pays royalties. zipDJ compiles Canada's national Club, Dance and Urban charts, which are compiled weekly. Both the Major and Independent labels in Canada use these charts to gauge their marketing and promotion efforts in the genres of Dance and Urban music. The zipDJ charts are sent out on behalf of the country to other agencies around the world, most notably M.I.S.,(Music Information Services) in Germany, which specializes in chart-related research for the global entertainment industries. Anyone doubting the information supplied herein may contact zipDJ directly or visit the website at zipdj.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinunger (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a few links: somebody outside of zipdj.com that points to ZipDJ as being a notable source of information and rankings. A Google search for sites that link to zipdj.com yields one link, not a very impressive list. Searching for ZipDJ as text yields blogs, message boards, and the like, but precious little in the way of reliable sourcing.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A specific discussion about ZipDJ has been started at WT:Record charts#ZipDJ.—Kww(talk) 10:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, let me point out a second reason this song article should be kept (in addition to the 3 chartings in Canada, Netherlands & Ukraine).

Under wiki project songs:

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.

What I note is that "ROLL WIT IT" has been played by all the largest djs in the world on their radio shows as well, including:

Judge Jules (BBC R1), Roger Sanchez, Stonebridge, Martin Solveig, Bad Boy Bill, just to name a few. That plus the chartings...

I can provide source links if necessary, however, it fits the bill that "Roll Wit It" has been "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups" AND is therefore notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.85.29 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the song is not the same as covering the song.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI TERMS STATE 'PERFORM' AS IN PERFORM LIVE... NOT COVER...

I am surprised no one has responded to the ZIP DJ comments above:


RE: zipDJ Charts - For those who do not know, zipDJ is Canada's foremost secure digital delivery service designed with the 4 major labels to distribute current promotional music from industry labels to professionals in the music industry. Not only is zipDJ sanctioned by the Canadian music industry, but it is also licensed by the AVLA (Audio & Visual Licensing Agency), a copyright collective to whom zipDJ pays royalties. zipDJ compiles Canada's national Club, Dance and Urban charts, which are compiled weekly. Both the Major and Independent labels in Canada use these charts to gauge their marketing and promotion efforts in the genres of Dance and Urban music. The zipDJ charts are sent out on behalf of the country to other agencies around the world, most notably M.I.S.,(Music Information Services) in Germany, which specializes in chart-related research for the global entertainment industries. Anyone doubting the information supplied herein may contact zipDJ directly or visit the website at zipdj.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinunger (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.130.104 (talk) [reply]

I did respond, and asked for sources. None were provided.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... It appears that post came from kevin unger, the compiler of the chart of the zip dj chart..

dug a lil deeped...

We all know Deep Dish -- right???

Deep Dish notes that "Say Hello" went to #1 on the Canadian National Club Chart here on their own web site:

http://www.deepdish.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.home&sectionId=17&id=95

this site references Kevin Unger (of Zip DJ) as the compiler of the Canadian Chart http://www.tobydabrit.com/music/ncc.html

and then has the same kevin unger/zip dj chart as listed by deep dish on their site:

http://www.tobydabrit.com/music/ncc/2005/110105.html

Hence, you have your answer. Zip DJ is a respected chart in the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.130.104 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have my answer: there are no reliable sources referring to ZipDJ. You really need to review WP:RS to understand what people are asking for when we ask you for sources.—Kww(talk) 19:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't write this article and don't care anymore at this point... None of you are in the music business and simply want to cause drama..

Its the fucking chart, as was the Ukrainian Chart... You are not in the business and therefore have no right to offer commentary on what's legit and what is not.

good luck

and stick this up your ass as well Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.141.3 (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO BLOODY SAY? PEOPLE SUCH AS THE ABOVE KWW EDITOR KNOW NOTHING OF THE MUSIC BUSINESS AND JUST WANT TO ATTACK THIS ARTIST...

IM THROUGH... FUCK THIS WEB SITE IF THIS ARTICLE IS DELETED SINCE IT IS BEING DOEN SO BY PEOPLE WHOM HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT OR THE INDUSTRY.. I DONT HAVE TIME TO DEBATE THIS NONSENSE...

Zip dj charts are the national club charts of canada... put another way, which songs receive the most support in clubs.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.130.104 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Wikipedias. ÷seresin 05:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Sámi Wikipedia

[edit]
Northern Sámi Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect and contested prod. Prod contested because "per WP:IAR - other Wikipedias deserve pages", which is not a correct application of WP:IAR at all, but prod removals may be for good or bad reasons, they still can't be undone. I plan to nominate a truckload of similar articles on smaller Wikipedia versions over the next weeks and months, since they all had their redirect undone and prod removed. I will not create a batch nomination because they may well have widely differing grades of notability, and a delete for one does not automatically imply a delete for another one. But the precedent from previous discussions indicates that many people agree that other Wikipedia's don't automatically inherit the notability of the general Wikipedia concept or of the English Wikipedia in particular. I have listed some previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia#Removal of Articles about smaller Wikipedias after I was challenged for redirecting them en masse.

About this article in particular: it fails WP:N badly. There are no reliable independent sources that discuss the Northern Sámi Wikipedia. Using the English title, I get only 40 distinct Google hits[43] and no Google news hits[44]. Using their own spelling "Wikipediija", I get 180 Google hits[45], most from other Wikipedias and Wikipedia mirrors, no Google News hits[46], and no Books or Scholar hits either. Fram (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There was a mass PROD of other language Wikipedias, and I deprodded most of them as I wanted a community discussion. I personally think that articles about other Wikipedias are a special case, and we should ignore all rules and keep them, but I agree that an RfC - per Gigs - is better than individual nominations. Fences and windows (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am inclined to agree with Fences and windows that articles about other Wikipedias are a special case where we it is appropriate to keep despite the lack of proper sources. Failing that, I redirect & merge is clearly superior to outright deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: why would other Wikipedias be a special case? How can we ever defend the deletion of any website with a few hundred or thousand visitors if we make an exception for ourselves? We should not consider ourselves more important than other subjects. Fram (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would reply by saying: 1) popularity isn't the same thing as notability and 2) Other stuff exists is never a valid reason for keeping an article (thus keeping this one can't be used to justify keeping other articles). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, but this Wikipedia is neither popular nor notable... 2. I know, but double standards are a bad thing, and this is what some of you are applying here. Fram (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide to include articles on all the other Wikipedias this is 1. Perfectly sensible, as readers would expect to find info about them 2. Not at all setting a precedent, as it only applies to other Wikipedia projects. This is an example where Wikipedia's systematic bias and navel gazing make perfect sense. But I really feel that a wider discussion is needed on this point, so we don't keep having the same arguments on 20 different AfDs, or slowly pick off the smaller Wikipedias with no wider discussion. Fences and windows (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Why would readers expect this? Perhaps they would expect this in the Wikipedia namespace, but why would they expect an article on a small unnoticed website, only beacuse it is also called Wikipedia? 2. Why does it makes "perfect sense"? It makes no sense at all, it just gives the impression that we don't apply the same standards to ourselves as we do for the rest of the Web, that we consider ourselves to be more important. 3. As for "slowly picking off the smaller Wikipedias": attempts at picking them off all together (by redirecting or prodding) have been opposed as well, despite older AfD's indicating that deletion or redirecting was the best solution for these. And the discussion on the Wikiproject related to these articles never took off either. It seems that whatever method one tries to tackle these, it is never the right one. Fram (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Being a Wikipedia is not an inherent claim to notability; a Wikipedia needs to satisfy WP:WEB to be considered notable. No sources have been provided other than the site itself. I note that Northern Sami is a language spoken in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, three of the most Internet-connected countries in the world. Even if the Sami-speaking population is not as net-connected as the general population of those countries, one might expect that there would be media coverage in Norwegian, Swedish, or Finnish to take note of the Wikipedia in the minority language, if this Wikipedia were having any cultural impact. Furthermore, one might expect that the Northern Sami Wikipedia would at least have significant coverage of the region where the speakers of this language live. Yet the Northern Sami Wikipedia's articles on Norway and Sweden are barely at stub level, and its article on Finland is not much better. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel E Ferris High School

[edit]
Joel E Ferris High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references provided to support notability. Article contains only one sentence, which doesn't provide any special events or supporting notability. ZooFari 05:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sufficient text is lacking to support notability to me. If it was as Jayron32 asserts, I'd like to see that in the article. The link he provided could be used as a reference. ZooFari 05:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoofari, please read the Before nominating an article for deletion section of WP:AFD which states, clearly "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." In other words, type the article name into google before assuming that a stub cannot be sourced. It took me no longer than 30 seconds to do the google search; it most definately took you longer to list this at AFD than it would have for you to perform a similar search and find the sources yourself. Please, in the future, at least do basic due dilligence rather than assuming that a stub is non-notable merely for being a stub. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The {{construction}} template is quite useful. I always leave notes on talk pages of the user, but maybe I was a little over-peevy about this one, generally because it was a high school. ZooFari 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy bear connection

[edit]
Teddy bear connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an apparently non-notable chain of stores. Article makes claims to importance based upon size of the chain (20 stores) but there is no indication that the subject has been the subject of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, which is the basic inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:N and WP:CORP. Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Networked Insights. merging may be done by editorial process. ÷seresin 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SocialSense

[edit]
SocialSense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product with few mentions in the press and no mentions in the suggested sources listed at author's talk page/sandbox article. There's really not any sourced or useful information in this article that would make this a candidate for a merge or transfer to the company's article. Flowanda | Talk 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive media coverage and strong notability - Each of the media articles cited is about SocialSense! (Networked Insights's flagship product). The sampling of citations I provided all came from major news outlets (both electronic and printed). Some of these outlets include: Forbes, Business Week, Wired Magazine, Washington Post and CNET. I deliberately stopped at 7 citations, but if needed, I can provide many more. Clearly, this is a very notable product in terms of media coverage and widespread use.--PiRSqr (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I removed the header format for the above post as it caused a problem with indexing within the page -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Media coverage does not automatically equal notability. Nor does it make a product remarkable. Indeed the artical looks more and more like an advertisment every time PiRSqr edits it. Indeed this is not even software that an individual can buy, it appears to me to be a subscription service. Trevor Marron (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this I see NONE of the news articles actually review the service; they are either regurgitated press releases or interviews given by the services CEO to publicise the service. I see nothing that yet convinces me that this service is worthy of an encyclopedic mention. As for widespread use I notice in one of the articles (all be it an older one) that only eight companies are using the service at that time. If you want to push the widespread use you will have to be able to verify it using what is probably commercially sensitive information. Trevor Marron (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note All the major media references I read, talk about this product as being notable. The articles in Forbes, Washington Post and others are not press releases. The context of all secondary news coverage is about specific functionally and the product's impact on the social networks and entire marketing industry. As far as buying the product of the shelf, I don’t think you can, my understanding is that this is a SaaS model which is identical to the one used by the SalesForce platform--PiRSqr (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles do not reference SocialSense at all. Flowanda | Talk 09:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I can not find the name of the software anywhere in the articles referred to above. Unless someone can come up with more to convince me this article is of note and is not just advertising puff then I will have to decide how to vote accordingly.
Correction This is not accurate [[47]],[[48]], [[49]]. All articles talk about Networked Insights's product\service. If you check out their website you can clearly see that SocialSense is the only product\service they offer. Also here is an article that is entirely dedicated to the SocialSense platform.--PiRSqr (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction for your correction NOWHERE in ANY of the links you have provided us does it mention SocialSense. Not as software, a service, or a platform. The name SOCIALSENSE is never mentioned once. Until you provide accurate references showing it is of note then it fails Wikipedia's criteria for an entry. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of your correction to my correction [[50]],[[51]], [[52]]. What are these articles about? They are about a product\service develped by Networked Insights that is called SocialSense. The following article actually discuss the product and shows a screen shot of the application SocialSense.--PiRSqr (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first "article" is a press release by the company Networked Insights. The second "article" can in no way be considered an article or significant coverage. The third is an interview with the company CEO/founder. The last article you mention doesn't even say "SocialSense". It's more like an article about Networked Insights and what they've been doing. --C S (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last article you mention doesn't even say "SocialSense" I am not sure why you are not seeing the name SocialSense in the article. I just read it again and found it. Have you tried using your Browser's search function?--PiRSqr (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Administrator: The criticism against this article is not driven by acceptable Wikipedia standards. It doesn't make any sense! When I edited the original SocialSense article, I made it as Spartan as possible in order to eliminate any claims of advertising. I wrote it because the product is mentioned on the company’s main article and by doing so I felt that I should provide the reader with a logical link. Today, I was told that due to insufficient references and contents the article was branded "insignificant software". So, in response, I added more contents and references, but after doing so (extensively), I am now being accused creating "advertising puff" and the actual existence of the product is now being debated.--PiRSqr (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No one is persecuting you. You created an article that in my opinion and subsequently that of Flowanda | Talk is about a product which is not of any note. I am not going to go over the discussion above again, the article is nominated here for a broader discussion. When that discussion is complete then the decision will be made, usually by consensus, based on the discussion here. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Networked Insights. I was surprised to see that the company and its services have demonstrated notability through significant in-depth coverage in independent (non press-release reprint) reliable sources. However, the product "SocialSense" is never mentioned by name or discussed in detail or even mentioned trivially. The company and its services are notable but the product isn't. WP:PRODUCT gives very clear direction on this issue and I suggest everyone read it phrase-by-phrase a couple of times. It's not a matter of persecution, it's a matter of prior consensus about how to handle these matters being implemented. Drawn Some (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exactly the point I am trying to make, Networked Insights services are a product\platform called SocialSense--PiRSqr (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, SocialSense isn't notable. I have sat in many a meeting about a company's services and a week later no one can even remember how they branded the package even though they can remember in detail how the service might be useful to them by saving work or reducing expenses, etc. There's a lesson in that. Nobody gives a flip about the product branding in business-to-business services like this. Drawn Some (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to be honest I hadn't read the primary article and I see the info isn't included. I'll change my redirect comment to add merge. That is exactly what WP:PRODUCT indicates. Drawn Some (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million for the guidance and perfectly logical solution. This has certainly been a baptism of fire for me.--PiRSqr (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia is very complicated. Drawn Some (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, There isn't much out there that talks specifically about SocialSense. The information is about the company in general. The product is not notable on its own but the information about should be expanded in the article about the company. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The bottom line is Wikipedia doesn't need two articles about the same thing. Currently, the company is synonymous with its product, and all the sames references and external links at the Networked Insights article are used in exactly the same way to source a slightly expanded article using a product name that seems to have been in use for just a few months on the company's website and blogs. It is troubling when a Google search on "SocialSense" brings up the Wikipedia articles as the first reference to this particular use of the phrase, and the Networked Insights website as the only other obvious result. Wikipedia is intended to reflect what's already out there, not help establish a name or spread the word. I won't object to a redirect, since it is what the company calls the product on its website, but I see little transferable content from the SocialSense article other than perhaps the screenshot; the additional info is either techno/corporate speak or brochure copy that provides little real information to the reader. The Network Insights article would be better served by pulling out information from the source articles to explain the company's services. Flowanda | Talk 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Help Based on the advice from several editors I added additional supporting references to the SocialSense article that shows the media’s coverage for the name SocialSense. Yesterday I discovered that they were removed because apparently, I added them as external links (which I should not have in retrospect). Can anyone show me how to incorporate one of these references correctly and I will do the rest myself. At this point, I’m afraid that if I revert the changes, this will start another editing war.--PiRSqr (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the links removed from Networked Insights? I moved the links to Talk:Networked Insights for use in sourcing and to the SocialSense article as well. Flowanda | Talk 00:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm not sure how to handle all these references and it looks like each time I make a change someone else gets annoyed. I thought that I was supposed to add them to the SocialSense article in order show notoriety for the name SocialSense. I am still a bit confused as to how best incorporate them (references vs. external links). What do you recommend?--PiRSqr (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I GET IT! I just noticed your changes. Sorry about the misunderstanding.--PiRSqr (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you might think that the article has to be written or formatted a certain way as part of the review, but the AfD discussion is strictly about determining notability and improving the article to help show that. I added the external links to the SocialSense article because they were never added there (as far as I can tell, nothing was removed after the AfD was listed) and could be used to help establish notability. All the edits and suggestions I have made have been to try and improve the article, not sabotage it or your efforts, or try to get the article deleted. I encouraged you to edit the article and made suggestions, and, while direct and to-the-point, my comments here and elsewhere have been about the article and edits. Flowanda | Talk 21:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment regarding reference deletion was about my adding the SocialSense references to the Networked Insights article. After our group discussion, I thought that these two articles were going to be merged. So I decided to add the references to the Networked Insights article. Shortly after doing so, I discovered that Themfromspace removed them per WP:EL. So my thinking was I can’t have them in the SocialSense article because its slated for deletion and I can’t have them in the NetworkedInsights article because of WP:EL. What gives? I think I finally understand that the AfD is a discussion and that while it's going on I should try and continue to improve the article. If after the discussion it is decided to merge the two, then the references will be merged with the target.
As far as the scope of my editing, I thought that it was my responsibility to do the whole thing. Do you recommend I just provide the raw text and references and let someone else do the formatting? Does Wikipedia use specialty editors for each function (copy edit, formatting, etc)? Also, on a side note, how do I left align a section caption like “Features” in the article? (I tried inserting additional lines to push the text to the bottom, but this is was only marginally successful)--PiRSqr (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an administrator who actually makes the decision to keep, delete or extend the discussion to allow more time for participation. It may help to note that the discussion is just about meeting Wikipedia's standards only, not any kind of statements about the product, company, people, editors, etc. And it's not a final determination...some articles just need time for the sourcing needed to meet notability standards. More info is here at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Flowanda | Talk 03:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell an administrator from a regular editor? Can you chat with to the administrators directly or do they operate behind the scenes?--PiRSqr (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are just editors like you and me with an extra set of tools. They have earned the trust of the community and have been given the extra tools. They work with us all the time, you can get a complete list of all the administrators at Wikipedia:List of administrators. A new name 2008 (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InSite Bowling

[edit]
InSite Bowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No Google News, Books or Scholar hits for this defunct company. Somewhere between 86 and 523 Google hits period. Deprodded. Joey the Mango (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Simpson (academic)

[edit]
Richard Simpson (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded and deprodded a long time ago, discussion on talk page shows ambivalence about notability. Three years later, still an assistant prof, his h-index is somewhere between 3 and 13. Joey the Mango (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Brown Jug of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan

[edit]
Little Brown Jug of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources found, orphan since forever, outdated and nobody cares (as usual). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have now updated the article with 14 separate sources reporting on the long-standing Upper Peninsula tradition. It is not the same article that those above voted to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Deitti

[edit]
Flash Deitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, even though the removel of the prod tag was reverted by XLinkBot (talk · contribs). Looks like an advert for a Finnish dating service of some kind. Not that blatant, but still a Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. There seems to be some support for a merge with either Circumcision or Opposition to circumcision, so please take that discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision advocacy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Circumcision advocacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a WP:POVFORK of circumcision. I can't construe any way that circumcision advocacy could be notable as a standalone concept, since there is not a notable movement that I can find. The main coverage of circumcision advocacy seems to center around AIDS prevention, which is probably better treated as a section in circumcision (and largely, already is). Gigs (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, see here for an explanation. Drawn Some (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A merge should be out of the question in my view. Opposition to circumcision is worthy of its own article. As has already been highlighted, there is a significant opposition movement. However, there doesn't seem to be a current strong advocacy movement. It is also different from the general debate over circumcision. The Opposition to circumcision article is generally about the actual groups that are opposed to circumcision (NOCIRC, doctors opposing circumcision, the genital integrity movement, the marches they go on, etc). It isn't really about the debate per se. As I have said above, a separate article on non-religious circumcision: Medicalisation of circumcision:1850 to present day would include information about circumcision advocacy and how that led to the USA adopting it. A lot of the history section of this article could go there. We would still retain the opposition to circumcision article however as it would not be about the debate - more about the organisations themselves and their activities. So I am still on the fence. What I am sure of though is that merging would be a mistake. One of the problems is that the main article: circumcision, is guarded by a pro-circ zealot (jakew) who tries to play down the fact there is opposition to circumcision on the main page. I propose that there should be a separate section on the main page highlighting the fact that there is opposition to the procedure. We should also trim down the medical aspects section. This section is 3 times as long as the other sections for the sole purpose of highlighting the medical benefits of circumcision. Let us remind ourselves that no medical organisation recommends it. Also remember that only 1/3 of the world's males are circumcised; 2/3 of those circumcised are Muslim and done for non-medical (religious) reasons. So why is there such weight given to the medical aspects section? It seems like it could be named: Circumcision prevents the following diseases...? What about putting circumcision in its social and historical context? It seems to me that Jakew has created the impression that the case for circumcision is stronger than it is. If there wasn't such a pro-circ bias on the main page - there would be less problems all around. Tremello22 (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your concerns about User:jakew strongly indicate that Opposition to circumcision is a povfork as well. We don't create new articles just because reaching consensus on a controversial topic is proving difficult. Renaming the opposition article to an NPOV title seems like a good idea to me. Consider this, if there were a single "Circumcision controversy" article, which was dominated by opposition material (as it should be, since that organized movement has a vastly larger following than the scattered pro-circ advocates) then people will be able to more clearly see where the current thinking is at. Gigs (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Opposition to circumcision and Rename to Circumcision controversy. I am unaware of any organized notable circumcision advocacy movement similar to the genital-integrity anti-circumcision movement. The controversy exists, let's put them all into their own article and then go get that popcorn (air or oil popped?) -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge If there is an Opposition then there is an Advocacy. If we cannot keep one, then both need to be deleted and incorporated back into the main article they were forked from or merged into a very real circumcision controversy article. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Merge, or Redirect. This seems to be a case where the information can go somewhere, but a separate article is not merited.Tyrenon (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone actually envisioned what would make up this new page? Let us look at the opposition page as it currently stands: Opposition to circumcision. As you can see it lists the history of opposition not just present opposition - so firstly, opposition among Greeks, Romans, Christians. Then there is opposition to the medicalisation of circumcision in English speaking countries from late 1800's onwards. Then there is a section on the genital integrity/anti-circumcision movement; this section talks about NOCIRC mainly and the various meetings. So, what are we saying - that we would keep the opposition page as it is but just add a few sentences to the medicalisation of circumcision section: "Late 19th Century to Present" to include early advocates of non-religious circumcision such as Hutchinson and Remondino and Sayre Where would info about current advocates such as User:jakew (Jake Waskett) and his friend Brian Morris, Edgar Schoen and the other people who wrote this letter: Medicaid coverage of circumcision:a health parity right of the poor, AJPH,2009. Would we create a separate section for that after the 'Modern movements: Intactivism and Genital Integrity' section? Presumably Jakew and his friend Avi would like their circumcision promotion to be under wraps. Are they hoping there wouldn't be a separate section for modern advocates? What have they to hide? I agree with the fork issue - it seems that certain editors' (user:Jakew, user:Avi and user:Jayjg - and sometimes user:coppertwig) may prove problematic in getting a fair hearing for the opposition on the main circumcision page. Tremello22 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as opposition has a "history of" section the advocacy can have "history of". It may include a list of religious groups and rationals as well as popular views / myths of different eras. The opposition section should be divided into a chunk about the rationals against circumcision and a chunk about the anti-circumcision groups as they are not synonymous. 87.69.153.62 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I have serious NPOV qualms about the article. I am troubled by the very nature of an article on "advocacy;" I think the topic itself is a POV. I know that people who have contributed to the article have tried very hard to conform to our NPOV policies, I am not accusing anyone of deliberate policy violation. But all the things that are good about the article, that address multiple points of view and place them within a larger NPOV context — in short, material I think has value — goes so far beyond the specific topic of advocacy, that I think it should all just go in one article on "circumcision." In short, if it can be merged with the Circumcision article and NPOV'd, that would be fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POVforkage with little redeeming content. Would not support a merge. JFW | T@lk 22:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Drawn Some - the controversy exists, and Wikipedia should cover it. It would appear there is too much information for the main article, so a neutral Circumcision controversy or similarly titled article covering both sides of the controversy is the way forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge carefully. As Slrubenstein says, it should all go into one article on circumcision. (Definition.) Unfortunately, the apparent default consensus at that article keeps the controversy minimized in favour of a medicalized (and thus favourable) presentation of male circumcision. That desire apparently spills over as far as this article and many other related articles, thus the reliable material in some of these articles often goes missing, with dubious explanations. There is an argument for keeping the two articles Circumcision advocacy and Opposition to circumcision, in that some editors believe that a concept should be expressed in a form more or less acceptable to its adherents, and that separate articles may facilitate that. I'm not sure if that idea has traction. Perhaps it would be better to merge the articles so as not to scatter discussion of the controversy -- but such a merging must not be viewed as a rejection of this entire concept as OR (as was seemingly the motivation behind the first AfD attempt), nor should it be viewed as a way to ghettoize the controversy into one tiny article. If the articles are kept apart, perhaps this one should be renamed "Support for circumcision of male minors," which is as neutral a title as Opposition to circumcision is now, and further narrows the topic to where the actual controversy under discussion lies. Blackworm (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seair Seaplanes

[edit]
Seair Seaplanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor airline, no indication of ntoability that I can see. But I've learned the hard way that AFD is better for airlines than CSD< so I've declined the CSD and am starting up this AFD instead. TexasAndroid (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd. I swear I did the same gnews search and found nothing. Reading the articles, they are trivial mentions at best. Wings just tells us that they exist, which has never really been questioned. Still a delete for me. Livitup (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus – South Africa relations

[edit]
Cyprus – South Africa relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, all seemingly in sport and multilateral context [57]. only 1 actual bilateral agreement in 15 years of relations [58] and that's a usual double taxation one, doesn't say much for the countries talking to each other much.
LibStar (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rockstar North. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agent (video game)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
    Agent (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    fails Wikipedia:CRYSTAL as the game was just announced with almost zero info on it.陣内Jinnai 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6211142/rockstar-details-agent
    http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6211640/take-two-grooming-agent-to-be-the-next-gta
    http://ps3.ign.com/articles/989/989528p1.html — Rankiri (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Frank Book

    [edit]
    The Frank Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No indication of notability is given. TexasAndroid (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Netscribes

    [edit]
    Netscribes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Borderline spammy, and borderline notability, at best. Of the three references listed, two are press releases, and the third is a small article in a local paper. The third helps the situation, but IMHO does not establish notability by itself. TexasAndroid (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: Given how the author keeps re-inserting multiple links to their website and the content direction of the page, I'm inclined to think that before the end of this AfD, the page will go the G11 route. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Belgium–Mexico relations

    [edit]
    Belgium–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations in 3 languages I searched. almost all coverage is multilateral or of course football. Spanish search, French search, English search. There's this visit earlier this year by the Crown Prince but that alone is not evidence of notable bilateral relations and the usual double tax treaty. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to assume good faith, but I think again you just look at the first and maybe second page of tens of thousands of results and declare defeat. I and others have added at least 10 references for what you have termed "trivia". You aren't really performing "due diligence", you are performing a single search instead of doing the much harder research of sifting through the results. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    did I use the word trivia? simply constantly deriding those who oppose your viewpoint achieves little. whilst you have found sources for this one, there are others that I have searched similarly and nominated and been deleted. this is what AfD is for. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Factoids" are not a Wikipedia concept, it just means the information in the article isn't of interest to you personally. SYNTH says: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article" Can you point out the "new position" that has been advanced? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Arthur Norton (1958-, I addressed this particular question from you in another debate within the last 24 hours and you ignored my response. I am not willing to keep answering it for you over and over again if you're going to ignore the answer. You might well ask yourself why different people keep telling you the same thing over and over. If you disagree with consensus on guidelines, try to change the guidelines, but don't please don't willfully ignore the consensus in practice because you disagree with it in theory. It is starting to interfere with building the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep posting it because you keep bringing up the same invalid argument. People have a habit of invoking the names of Wikipedia guidelines without actually quoting the text from them. Can someone point out the "new position" that has been advanced in this article. This is an example of a "new position". 1. Trotsky visited Mexico. 2. The King of Belgium visited Mexico. New inaccurate position: The King of Belgium supports the liberation philosophy of Trotsky. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am inclined to agree with Dahn but I am intrigued by the large number of honorary consulates that Belgium has in Mexico. Empress Carlotta is a bit of a red herring because there weren't any relations between the two countries, it was more of a personal relationship she had with Mexico, not a country-to country relationship and I have never seen her tragic life discussed in terms of bilateral relations except in this article, really it is a France-Mexico issue anyway. I will hold off on a final opinion to see if anyone (such as Richard Arthur Norton (1958-) who claims to have sources addressing Belgium-Mexico relations is willing to share them with the rest of us or if we are just expected to take his word on it. Drawn Some (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Honorary consulates are usually someone who is willing to have the title and they have very limited consular powers eg can't issue passports. They are usually expats who have real day jobs in their adopted country, and almost always they have no dedicated office, just a work or home address. This confirms the 6 honorary consulates. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand that. I still find it intriguing in this case. I guess Mexico is a popular place for retirees because of the low cost of living, nice climate, and the proliferation of Spanish as a second language. Drawn Some (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the execution of Emperor Maximilian (Carlotta's spouse), Belgium did send a representative to try to appeal to Mexico for mercy, which is a direct relation between the countries. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no one is disputing that Belgium and Mexico have had interactions, we are just trying to decide if the relations between Mexico and Belgium are notable per our standards here at Wikipedia. There don't seem to be any independent reliable sources discussing the subject in a non-trivial manner in English, Spanish, or French. Perhaps they exist somewhere we haven't looked or in another language such as Dutch. If you find such references, please bring them here or add them to the article to help others reach the same conclusion that you have. Drawn Some (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - factoids mentioning Mexico and Belgium that one user happened to dig up are no substitute for actual coverage of "Belgium–Mexico relations", of which there is none. - Biruitorul Talk 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Factoids" are not a Wikipedia concept, it just means the information in the article isn't of interest to you personally. The article on International relations describes what constitutes the concept, even if the word "relation" doesn't appear in the referenced article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suspend AFDs, DRVs, and creations of X-Y relations articles. The discussions are driving people into entrenched positions from which few are willing to retreat at risk of losing face. The current situation of having discussions decided based on how many from each side show up, followed by automatic DRVs because of disagreeing with the closure (and that is what's happening) is poisoning any remaining relationships between each side, and putting at risk any chance of coming to an agreed position. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment How many bilateral robostubs would that leave untouchable? Edison (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Question Is this proposal being discussed seriously somewhere? I'm inclined to support it, but only with certain provisions.... Yilloslime TC 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it is seriously being discussed on at least two admins' talk pages. These frivolous and disruptive AfDs have to stop already and as such, I endorse Stifle's proposal. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you help a brother out with a link or two? Yilloslime TC 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the talk pages for User:Stifle and User:DGG as there are multiple threads. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Another random pairing of countries that doesn't establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't understand what's the obsession with deleting these kind of articles, are they harming Wikipedia in anyway? I think not, if anything they increase Wikipedia's "informability" about a wide range of topics; sure both countries don't really have a really strong relation but it exists. If we were to be really picky about it, then we should also delete "useless" articles such as these ones:

    Burundi – United States relations
    Djibouti – United States relations
    Lesotho – United States relations
    Sierra Leone – United States relations
    Mali – United States relations
    Gabon – United States relations
    Bahrain – United States relations

    And many others, but of course, since they are about the United States no one seems to complain about them... Supaman89 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Bahrain is the headquarters of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet and the U.S. designated Bahrain a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2001; the relations between those two states are rather notable.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be used for retaining this article. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, and please don't turn this back into a "systemic bias" issue. It's not, and you will find out that what these articles usually do is to prioritize and create special criteria for info on the third world. So, if anything, it's systemic bias backwards. The articles you mention are presumably case by case, but I for one have no problem with voting to delete those that, like this one, are trumped-up. Dahn (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak DeleteYes, filling Wikipedia with directory listings about non-notable things absolutely harms the project. The preceding is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that we can't delete a crappy article if other similar crappy articles are still around. The end result would be a descending spiral into crappiness. Supaman89 should feel free to nominate any of the named articles if he cannot find reliable sources which discuss the bilateral relations of the two countries. In the case of Belgium and Mexico, there are some interesting 19th century historical tidbits about a Belgian woman who was empress of Mexico, but that is covered in the article about her, and is not enough to sustain this article. Thre do not appear to be enough reliable and independent sources covering the bilateral relations as such, and they are not that closely tied by trade. Edison (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia defines a directory listing as follows: "[Wikipedia is not for] Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article." I don't see that type of information here, there is no street address and phone numbers for consulates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A Nobody, you realize that book is from 1910 AD, almost 100 years ago, correct? Drawn Some (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the full book: [59] Drawn Some (talk)
    Are you sure that is the same book? The title of the one I am mentioning is Banking in Belgium and Mexico, and not The Banking System in Mexico and date does not necessarily matter. If someone wrote a book on a subject, it is timeless. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, quite sure, the one you are referencing was a chapter from the book I gave you the link to published seperately. It is from the US gov't printing office.
    A Nobody, the second one is someone's thesis. We really don't need this distraction. We are not discussing an article about the banking or currency exchange systems of Mexico and Belgium, we are discussing an article about Belgium-Mexico relations. We need in-depth coverage of the subject of the article to hold it notable, not coverage of miscellaneous related topics. Drawn Some (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything we do not need the distraction of an AfD as we have sufficiently estalished a realistic potential for improvement. Thus, the AfD should be withdrawn so that these improvements can move forward in the normal fashion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no one has shown even a single independent source providing in-depth coverage on the subject of the article, Belgium-Mexico relations. Not one. You're on some wild goose chase for articles about the banking system in the early 1900s when the big controversy was whether currency should be backed with gold or silver or both and first class postage in the US was two cents an ounce. This article is about Belgium-Mexico relations. Drawn Some (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is nevertheless what the referenced information already in the article covers, i.e. treaties, interactions, etc. between Belgium and Mexico. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Are you reading it? 3 centuries? Belgium didn't become an independant country until 1832. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can't see how that is 3 centuries, no matter how I juggle the number. Even if you are going to try the part about Belgian tradespeople in the 16th century, having some tradespeople who happen to be from an area go there isn't "relations". And calling Belgium a "major power" might be overstating it a bit. Mexico is in the G-20, but Belgium isn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The modern name of the country doesn't matter. Articles on China don't start when it was declared the People's Republic of China in 1947. Iran–Iraq relations goes back 3,000 years, and US-Britain start way before 1776, despite the modern names of the countries used in the titles. Again people are focusing on the exact wording in the title and not the concept. The article on the United States begins: "In 1507, German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller produced a world map on which he named the lands of the Western Hemisphere "America" after Italian explorer and cartographer Amerigo Vespucci." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep since there seems to be plenty of evidence in Dutch-language sources that these relations are notable. For instance, 2004 saw the commemoration of 50 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries, a relation that seems to be growing (trade between the two increased by 56% between 1999 and 2002). The source linked gives a brief history of these ties (going back to 1825); celebrations included exchanges between libraries and art exhibitions. Vicente Fox and Guy Verhofstadt exchanged pleasantries, presumably over the phone. The Belgian embassy in Mexico has a fairly long history of these relations also: DID YOU KNOW THAT...in 1537, three Flemish beer brewers went to Mexico, and are now credited as founders of Mexican beer brewing? I could go on--there's more here. In Dutch. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will save everyone from responding and apply a canned response: "Ugh, more trivia and factoids. Do the sources specifically discuss Belgium–Mexico relations in detail? Otherwise it is just trade figures, state visits, and more non notable treaties." I hereby strike my cheeky comment. It wasn't meant to insult. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep The existence of a book talking specifically about the subject, in any language, is absolute proof that a subject is notable, if the GNG means anything at all. We could of course argue that the GNG is totally irrelevant, and that no amount of substantial discussion on a subject indicates notability. (I am, as I have said, an advocate of putting it into a secondary back-up position, but that's another matter from totally rejecting it.) If we do reject it, we must go we go by what is actually important either in a common-sense way, or according to some sort of specific rational criteria, and in that case the specific material found about by Drmies is fully sufficient. there is a third alternative--to explicitly accept IDONTLIKEIT as the primary reason. Is there anything else? (I Don't Think It's Important Because Such Things Are Not Important = IDon'tLikeIt). DGG (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems silly to duplicate a page of information in two articles. Multiply that by 200 countries on a single page, the Foreign Relations of X are already too big. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment but by the same token, if there are 200 countries in the world, there are potentially 200*199/2=19900 "X-Y relations" articles. Isn't "Foreign Relations of X" a better organization for that, broken out in the rare cases of e.g. "Canada-U.S. relations"? In any event, I read this as rough consensus on this approach. I know not everyone agrees with that. JJL (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No nexus for being notable. If we need such stuff, single country articles should suffice -- until one is written, delete these. Collect (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please look at the article in question as even a cursory glance shows that it is an obviously "notable" relation, which is why there is no honest or legitimate reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per Collect. WIkipedia is not and indiscriminate collection of information. Per WP:GNG we need significant coverage of the topic (topic = Belgium-Mexico relations) in reliable, independent, secondary sources to justify an article. We don't have that. We have a collection of sources, but none of them address the topic of these countries bilateral relations directly or in detail as required by WP:GNG. Yilloslime TC 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This notable subject cannot reasonably be called "indiscriminate" as the multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources included in the article justify its inclusion on our project by addressing the topic of these countries' bilateral relations directly and in detail as required by any common sense or logical inclusion guideline. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are Wikilawyering and arguing what the meaning of "is" is. There is no requirement that each reference cover all the information in the article in detail, just their specific information. This is an almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never claimed that there was a "requirement that each reference cover all the information in the article in detail." All I've ever maintained was that if WP is going to have a standalone article on a topic, then there need to be a least a couple of independent, reliable, secondary sources that address that topic directly and in detail. This is what WP:GNG says, I don't think there is any other way interpret it—this is not "wikilawyering" or arguing about the meaning of the word "is". The required sources certainly don't need to reference all of the material we might include in the article, we just need evidence that someone other than some random wikipedians thinks the topic is worth writing about. Once that bar is met, then an article on the topic can be created, and we can use our best judgement about what facts to include in that article. A fact that is obviously relevant to the topic of the article (e.g. date of official recognition, existence of treaties, etc.) can and should be included, even if the source for that fact doesn't mention it in the context of X-Y relations. But for a fact that is not obviously related or relevant, then we do need a source to put in context, otherwise the article rapidly become a collection of indiscriminate information. Yilloslime TC 23:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not calling the topic "indiscriminate", I'm calling the collection of facts in the article "indiscriminate". There's a difference. Not even one of the various reliable, independent, secondary sources included in the article address the topic of "Belgium–Mexico relations" directly or detail. WP:GNG is not met. Yilloslime TC 18:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "ChatterEmail is an application program for the Palm Treo PDA" and "The TAGIBook initiative, based in Jordan, aims to introduce an affordable basic computer for every Arab citizen" would be indiscriminate when combined into an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you are hung up on the word "relations" as if it has to appear in all the references. Any synonym will do as covered in international relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Facts specifically pertinent to the relations between Belgium and Mexico and organized in a coherent manner as indicated by the chronology and section headings are clearly discriminately utilized. Because they discuss the topic in enough of a direct and detailed manner that we have been able to dramatically improve the article since nomination WP:GNG is undeniably met. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree. Words have meaning, and I don't just think that the fact that "The American and Belgian company Anheuser-Busch InBev owns a 50 percent share in Grupo Modelo," fits within the scope of the meaning of the term "Belgium–Mexico relations". If a reliable, independent source discussed this fact in the context of Belgium–Mexico relations, then I'd accept that it was related and therefore appropriate for the article. Without that, then this is just random, tangentially related piece of information that does nothing to inform our understand of "Belgium–Mexico relations." I mean how many partially and/or fully Belgian-owned companies have stakes in Mexico-based operations? There must hundreds; are we going list all of them in this article? Would that really inform anyone's understanding of "Belgium–Mexico relations"? Yilloslime TC 23:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am left with the impression that once LibStar nominates an article, delete votes appear to be automatic. I don't get the impression that the delete voters even read the article anymore. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment please assume good faith. I certainly read the article in question each time--but I strongly feel we need a consistent way to handle bilateral relations articles, and think this way is, in general, not the best way to do so. Of course, there are exceptions. JJL (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This was your comment: "Delete as usual for this way of addressing bilateral relations." Even when assuming good faith you made no indication of any Wikipedia policy involved in your rationale for deletion. You gave a rote statement that gave no indication you preformed, minimally a search, to see whether a stub could be expanded to a full article. You made no attempt to strike your original comment or change your vote when additional material was added to the article. While the statement was not directed at you personally, you provide an excellent example of what is wrong with a rote vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As there is a rote way of handling these types of articles that has come out of the bilateral relations discussions, and as this clearly doesn't rise to the level of an exception (such as U.S.-Canada relations), referring to the usual way of handling these types of articles seemed plain enough for me. As you can see, I have been following the discussion and changes. Your expectation that I should "strike your original comment or change your vote when additional material was added to the article" reflects your own bias regarding this material. I see it from a different angle. You seem to be having difficulty acknowledging that reasonable individuals might differ on this matter. JJL (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are arguing "relative importance" which isn't a concern for Wikipedia. No one will deny U.S.-Canada relations has the most coverage in books and news, but Wikipedia only requires that the information be notable and verifiable. It meets both standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree concerning notability of this relationship--indeed, I see a lot of verifiable facts in the article but no cite for the claim that "Belgian-Mexican relations are important and notable" which would be needed under WP:N--but my argument is that WP also has style guidelines. In the face of a morass of X-Y relations articles, the suggestion has been made to handle them as Foreign Relations of X articles and only break out the lengthiest ones. It appears however that you have a lock on the WP:TRUTH here and that further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. JJL (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia Notability reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Once again you bring up a Wikipedia rule but don't quote it directly. And once again you are hung up on "important and notable" as if someone has to express these exact words for it to be true. Events and topics are notable when the media takes note of them and published information on them. There is no magic word that needs to used in the reference material. Any synonym will do it. Every article in the US relations series covers the same topics, and don't have the "magic word" either. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you considered that you got the wrong impression and that sometimes people say the same thngs more than once because they are appropriate more than once? I read them. I even voted to keep one today. But I often use the same or similar wording. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Events and topics are notable when the media takes note of them and published information on them." Ok. So the guy who got caught soliciting a prostitute last night and found his name, picture and arrest info in the paper this morning is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok here is that theoretical article: "John Doe was arrested last night in Red Hook, Brooklyn for soliciting a prostitute. New York District Attorney John Smith said that "Red Hook was becoming a red light district discouraging businesses from moving to the area" He pledged that "New York would be beginning a major crackdown on prostitution by hiring new police officers."
    We have an exclusion for one time events as article topics, so an article called "John Doe" or "John Doe arrested" are excluded. However, the media coverage has information that could be used in an article on prostitution and on Red Light Districts. We have lots of articles on prostitution. It is still notable and verifiable, but excluded by the one event clause as an article topic for this man's arrest. Is that your new argument, that each individual event in the Belgium–Mexico relations article occurred only once, so is excluded by the one event rule? In theory any article in say The New York Times could be used as a reference no matter what the topic, if it provides a source for information already in an article, if it quotes a statistic, or defines a concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow! Could you miss the point any further. Just forget it. I voted. I'm sticking with it. Removing it from my watchlist so I'm not tempted to do more. Done here. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A long history together, and current relations. Dream Focus 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. To the editors who worked hard on sourcing and writing this, well done. The article is much more than the usual bilateral relations stub, and the relations between Belgium and Mexico are suitably demonstrated to be notable, especially by the trading links. There are specific sources found that directly discuss the relations between the two countries. Fences and windows (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources would those be? Yilloslime TC 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A whole book:[60]. Also see this Reuters report:Mexican President Felipe Calderon welcomed Belgium's Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde, who are on an official four-day visit to Mexico, at the Presidential Residence of Los Pinos in Mexico City on Monday (March 23). Children waved Belgian and Mexican flags as national anthems of both countries started to play and an honour guard stood by. Calderon mentioned this was Prince Philippe's third visit to the country, confirming his personal interest in Mexico, its culture and his determination to strengthen the bilateral relationship. Calderon mentioned that in the last eight years, bilateral commerce grew more than 140 percent, going from nearly 700 million dollars to more than 1.7 million billion.[sic] "Today we have the opportunity to double our financial and commercial exchanges and I'm sure the large business delegation accompanying their royal highnesses will identify new opportunities for commerce and investment between Mexico and Belgium," Calderon said. Prince Philippe said the world faced challenges in poverty, injustice, organized crime and climate change and he hoped to discuss those themes with businessmen and Mexican government officials during his visit. "Commerce, cultural exchange and scientific cooperation and the collaboration links between Mexicans and Belgians, have brought us close together," Prince Philippe said. "We have come to Mexico accompanied by an important delegation of businessmen, with confidence in the future with regards to the bilateral corporation and commerce," Prince Philippe added. Belgium is Mexico's seventh largest European investor in the country." [61] and this report in El Informador:[62]. Check out this coverage of trips by Prince Philippe of Belgium to Mexico in the Spanish-speaking press:[63]. Here's some numbers from the Belgian Foreign Trade Agency:[64]. Fences and windows (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How many references are required before an article becomes "mindful" and is considered no longer "mindless"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep The existence of a book specifically on the subject matter (De Belgen en Mexico By Florence Loriaux) is a per se indication of notability.[65] Concern of the nominator about a lack of sourcing has been completely addressed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rene Maurin

    [edit]
    Rene Maurin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I don't really see much, if any, indication of notability. The awards do not appear notable themselves. The two links in Croatian might show some notability, thus AFD instead of A7 CSD. TexasAndroid (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. The fact that the additional material is not in English shouldn't be an argument that the subject isn't notable - not everything revolves around the English-speaking world. I think his work by itself proof of his importance. Besides, he was a director of a professional theatre. I added a source for both of these facts (albeit not in English), hope this is enough. --Yerpo (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No, the world doesn't revolve around English, but the English Wikipedia does. It's not really realistic to expect English speakers to assume that foreign language sources say what you claim they do.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that even without the knowledge of language you can easily determine that the person in question is the central subject of coverage in references provided. Automatic translation tools are also available. The publishers of those references can themselves be easily verified - SiGledal, Vjesnik, and Slobodna Dalmacija. --Yerpo (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: the links provided at the bottom are interviews in major Croatian newspapers, so those are more references. There are also passing references to his function as a theatre director in major Slovene newspapers (such as Večer and Dnevnik), but only the one I provided explains the fact fully. --Yerpo (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would swith my vote if more sources can name him as notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added his entry in the Slovene National film fund database, but to be honest, I think you're not being reasonable anymore. Three independent and reliable references are more than enough to comply with WP:NOTABLE guidelines. --Yerpo (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Commentthere are many further references like: Cankar Hall, Dnevnik, Vest, Radio 101, DokMa, European capital of Culture, Gorenjski glas, Kultura hr, Teatar hr, ITI and others. Of course most in foreign languages ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparkleShark (talk • contribs) 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Nothing in policy or guidelines says that sources have to be available to everyone, whether for reasons of physical access (e.g. if they are from books or journals only avaliable in libraries in one country) or of language. Sources have been provided for this article, and they are verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gavrov, Sergey Nazipovich

    [edit]
    Gavrov, Sergey Nazipovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I prodded this article yesterday, and my tag was removed by an IP with no edit summary, and no improvement to the article. My rationale for deletion still stands:

    Fails WP:N - no coverage in third-party sources (Google News Archives, English transliteration of name; Google News Archives, Cyrillic name.) J.delanoygabsadds 01:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I see no reason for exclusion. Gavrov Sergey Nazipovich one of the best experts in the theory of modernization. It examines the modernization of non western societies, including Russia. These studies are important to Asian and Latin American developing countries. As an expert on the modernization of Western societies is not, by Professor Gavrov after the Cairo speech, President Obama asked Assistant to the President Mr. David Axelrod. Article should be retained in the Wikipedia. 9 June 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.1.171 (talk)
    • Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low. Zero hits on WorldCat. The subject, who is also the article creator, seems to think that by claiming he owns the copyright on the article, he can prevent it from being edited/deleted. In fact, the subject’s claim is a reason for deletion in and of itself.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.This is not the articles, and monographs. They are now translated into English.

    Replacing the Russian text in English requires a different directory. See Gavrov Sergey Modernization of Russia: the post of imperial transit http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/preview.cgi?article=1058&context=a4hhistory Sergey Gavrov Social and cultural tradition and modernization of Russian society http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/preview.cgi?article=1057&context=a4hhistory Article: Sergey Gavrov Russia between past and future Published in Russian journal Neva, № 3, 2009. Read, learn something new about the modernization theory and practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.51.0.220 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Full-Text Downloads for March 2009 for DigitalCommons @ University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Of great interest to my books. In March 2009[66] my books were on the 181 out of 21,825! Books in Russian for the English-speaking readers! I made a translation into English, that would justify such attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGavrov (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When they say that to my work and public speaking few references, then forget that Gavrov, Sergey Nazipovich full name. I appeared on the Internet under the following names: Gavrov SN, Sergey Gavrov's, Gavrov Sergei Nazipovich, SN Gavrov, Gavrov Sergey, Strgei N Gavrov, Sergey N Gavrov, Sergej N Gavrov, S. N. Gavrov, Gavrov Sergei, Gavrov Sergey, Gavrov Sergej Nazipovič, Sergei Gavrov. Different names give different results. Representative study of my speeches and publications as possible in the amount poska ssholar Google and other searches on all these items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SGavrov (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete after examining sources and subject's comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Noise and Confusion

    [edit]
    Noise and Confusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A concert in '05 that, although it was a success, apparently did not become a yearly event (as was hoped). A 'one-off' event. Many GHits show for it, but most are blogs, news releases, Fan 'WOW's or flicker photos. Not a Notable ongoing event. An Orphan with no apparent Refs Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • So are we a going to have a list of an Article about every concert that ever taken place? I am sure that there is loads of RS's for every concert that has ever been, but having a RS isnt an indication of the event itself being WP:Notable. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct insofar as it does not mention any "ongoing event" requirement because WP:Music is about musicians, ensembles composers, lyricists, Albums, singles and songs. This Article is about a single Concert, not about the bands that played there, their music or albums. I do not believe WP:Music applies. The cited sources at most state Who played Where, How many people attended, that Tickets were £35 and their hope for a yearly event (pretty darn close to advertising). Honestly, I don't think any of the non-blog cites are substantive. That is why I sought input from a AFD. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how exactly is this "one-off event" point relevant? On a seperate note regarding the content of sources, it looks like the Wessex Scene Online is the most useful one, since that one is a review of the actual mini-festival after it took place. IMHO, Ryan Bailey goes into plenty of depth about the concert itself. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Wikipedia is not a news outlet. "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." I consider Concert reviews the same as sports coverage. Every concert garners a review of the performance somewhere, just like every game gets its play & score reported somewhere. I admit it is a good review of their performance, what impact did the event have? Are you implying that the bands performance makes the event notable? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a useful analogy. Here's how I see it:
    Minor events (delete or redirect) Medium events (merge) Major events (seperate article)
    High school sports College/pro games One-of-a-kind games (Superbowl, All-star games)
    Garage band performances Concerts with 1-2 performers Festivals
    What makes this event notable is that it was a festival, not just a concert. We've already got plenty of articles about festivals, and if we're going to create a new inclusion criterion it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) and applied evenly to all of them. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Festivals are yearly events as the link you pointed out (list of music festivals) shows. Every Article it points to is a reoccurring event. Noise and Confusion was a single event, so it does not qualify as a festival, it was a single concert. You are the one whom asked why the "one-off event" point was important. I believe you have just answered your own question. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 21:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot find any sources that define a festival as "yearly events" [71][72] but the Wessex Scene article does call this a "mini festival". The Echo Project is on the list and like this one, was intended to be annual but never made it past the first year. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:notpaper We're not running out of space. This was a notable event, with many notable bands there, plenty of news coverage, and I would imagine a fair number of people attending. Having numbers of those attending would be a good thing to add to the article. Dream Focus 00:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's the question isn't it, What makes this concert Notable? It wasn't the first/last concert of any of these bands that played, it wasnt the first/last concert ever played at the venue, it set no Guinness records, the number of attendees, it does not matter what big number that is. It was a single non-notable event, that should be treated as a News report, just like all the trivial news print/advertising it received (remember that WP:N reminds us The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage). We are not talking about the Notable bands that played there, as that does not make the event Notable. The Wiki is not a Directory of every concert that has ever happened. Those concerts that do have articles have something that makes them Notable, it may be unfortunate, but this one does not. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the review the event got in major newspapers. [73] That alone makes it quite notable. Not every movie ever made, nor album ever recorded, needs their own article, nor every concert. Just the ones that are clearly notable. Dream Focus 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really ... "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Just because the event got a standard concert review in a paper does not make it notable. I ask the question again: What makes this concert Notable? We cannot rely on concert reviews to make events notable, the event itself must be notable in the first place. (Seems a review focuses on the bands performance, which might fall under WP:inherited but I'm not going to work that angle. I still say the event itself is not notable.) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Music festivals are big business and this one had notable talent, reliable sources also likely cover this in droves with all manner of concert reviews. It would technically pass sourcing and GNG. The bigger issue - which is a clean-up issue - is to help build this into a reasonable article actually worth reading. Certainly it was no Woodstock we We Are The World bit but likely was significant in some key respects. Was there a concert DVD? Give some meat to the story or your friends will take away your pint and send you packing. -- Banjeboi 09:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hybrid-origin

    [edit]
    Hybrid-origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I had proposed that this article be merged to Multiregional origin of modern humans, but I realise now that this theory is a non-notable fringe theory created by a parapsychologist, Stan Gooch, which has never been referred to in a reliable source - I checked Google News, Scholar and Books. The article has hung around since 2005 with no sources - time to kill it off. Fences and windows (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Where the Lines Overlap (song)

    [edit]
    Where the Lines Overlap (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:VER. The linked to website says a song is called "Sumo Sandwich", and even a quick Google shows it may only be a working title. Delete as nom, if not Speedy as G1. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    * Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this point in time, none of the entries on this list have a Wikipedia article. While some may infer that some entries here are notable, no evidence has been provided—we are therefore operating opinion. Given the absence of any demonstrably notable persons, this article, as it stands, is a directory of alumni. Articles such as these should be written after there is evidence of notable alumni, and when a list of such alumni grows unmanageably long on the main article. ÷seresin 05:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of St.Peter's College alumni

    [edit]
    List of St.Peter's College alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article is little more than a long list of alumni of a Sri Lankan school. If the alumni are notable, there is no evidence to confirm this. This runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I would have thought that a bishop, a university vice chancellor, a university chancellor, an appeal court judge, a commander of an army, a commander of a navy, an air vice marshall and the chairman of a national savings bank at least seem notable? Or wasn't your attention span long enough to read that far? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important Note if you'll notice I am the one who is editing the St Peter's College, Colombo and this page...Why don't you'll check the page history and confirm your self that I was the one who shifted one major topic under the schools page..due to the fact that there is a long list of Old Boys...Since the school's web site is no longer functioning...I can't provide any 3rd party references...And I am adding these information (Names) from the AGM reports of SPC OBU. Please be kind enough to reconsider before deleting this page.. Godfrey Walawage (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a fixed list of old boys from St Peter's College, Colombo and not all members names are added...This is a list of honors recipients that is awarded by the school. Therefore removing any names will cause the content to change and it is not fair to add some of the reputed names and remove others. But all were awarded as notable Old Boys of St. Peter's College. Godfrey Walawage (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the standard. The standard here is considerably more stringent, their recognition as notable by people outside the college. This is demonstrated by either having Wikipedia articles, or being obviously qualified for one. Many of the people are, and the articles should be written -- the two Commanders of the Army for example are notable. The several Captains in the Army listed, though, are not at all likely to be notable. The various people listed as Professors need to have their careers checked to see if the satisfy WP:PROF--some will, some probably won't. Similarly the physicians, and the business executives. If you insist on the above very weak local standard, the article cannot hold; it needs drastic editing. Andthe references for those articles will need to prove the positions. DGG (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Civic culture

    [edit]
    Civic culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    little more than a dictionary definition. RadioFan (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Katate Hazushi Ni

    [edit]
    Katate Hazushi Ni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 04:58, 2 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) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryote Hazushi

    [edit]
    Ryote Hazushi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 04:59, 2 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) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was G12 as copyvio, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry gluck

    [edit]
    Larry gluck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Advert and copyvio from here. Speedy delete tag was removed by original author without explanation. Delete DMG413 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Morote Hazushi

    [edit]
    Morote Hazushi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:01, 2 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) 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Momiji Hazushi

    [edit]
    Momiji Hazushi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:02, 2 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) 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    George Craig (musician)

    [edit]
    George Craig (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. No vote. causa sui talk 07:47, 2 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 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryoeri Hazushi

    [edit]
    Ryoeri Hazushi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:03, 2 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) 00:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yubi Tori Hazushi

    [edit]
    Yubi Tori Hazushi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Martial arts move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 05:03, 2 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) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravenshaw family

    [edit]
    Ravenshaw family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Page does not add any useful information about the family itself, just duplicates information already in other articles relating to the individual members of the family, one of which was already deleted in 2007 because it was not notable. Prod was previously removed by an anonymous editor with no reason given. Finally, no pages link to this one. Arthree (talk) 17:33, 2 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 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There's no reason for this page to exist if the only content is already elswhere. Dawn Bard (talk)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Julen Urigüen

    [edit]
    Julen Urigüen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    junior tennis player highly fits notability standards for deletion... 1 non functioning reference (doesn't load)  Rmzadeh  ►  03:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (corrected typo) --  Rmzadeh  ►  17:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    please note that I originally made a typo (added underlined words after finding out about it), the article is a good candidate for deletion as the notability is in question, the link is now working correctly for me however it is the only source of reference. when I google the article I get 2 reputable matching websites. due to the fact that it is about a junior league player and the reliability of the information given and the number of sources cites I believe that the article is a good candidate for deletion.--  Rmzadeh  ►  17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for fixing the nomination statement. :) Somno (talk) 05:12, 4 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) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Friars (musical group)

    [edit]
    The Friars (musical group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Only trivial local coverage found, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:19, 2 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 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Norimi

    [edit]
    Norimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Judo move of questionable notability. I do not feel that specific moves within a martial arts discipline, unless of particular note, deserve their own page. Tyrenon (talk) 04:41, 2 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 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anuhea Jenkins

    [edit]
    Anuhea Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    speedy contested as result afd is requested. Notability highly in question with 1 reference given. very little content available.  Rmzadeh  ►  02:22, 2 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) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Musicians' Village. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For New Orleans

    [edit]
    For New Orleans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    All sources are 404's. No reliable sources found for this album, only a press release and directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:19, 2 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 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wes Cusworth

    [edit]
    Wes Cusworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, seems like personal page peterl (talk) 03:08, 2 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 00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    UAE Retail Benchmarking Study 2009

    [edit]
    UAE Retail Benchmarking Study 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This appears to be less an article about the organization that conducted a survey and more of a report on the results of a survey (which is news reporting, not encyclopedic content, and thus fails WP:NOTNEWS.) Transwiki to Wikinews if appropriate, but delete here. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 2 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, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but... The author of the article has indicated on the article talk that the article should be moved to 'Retail Benchmarking' and that it will be expanded to illustrate the concept more than the actual study that currently makes up the majority of the article. This is a really good idea, and I'd do the move myself it it wasn't currently in AFD. The artile is already more general than it was originally. But, I also note that the article's creator is the same person who created the article on the company which authored the study, so my advertizing/corporate interest radar is up and turning, but for now I can AGF. Livitup (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Livitup, basically. Again though, just because an article needs work is no reason in and of itself to delete it. Ohms law (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about one survey, which itself has no evidence of notability. The sources are not about the survey; rather they report (some) of the results of the survey. In this current form, the article is reporting news, which is not what we do as an encyclopedia. ÷seresin 06:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, inappropriate to report the report's results; is essentially plagaiarism. Abductive (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy until it's expanded as above. - Richfife (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the WP:ILIKEIT comments, consensus is for deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spectrum Culture

    [edit]
    Spectrum Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nn website Exleops (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — Exleops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    I don't quite understand why the page for Spectrum Culture is now up for possible deletion. I know it is the only article I have written, but I took my time to make sure the information was accurate. I have references wherever possible. The site has only been around since October, so there are no secondary sources as of yet, but as it grows over time they will be added. I believe Spectrum Culture is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. If not for the increasing number of hits it receives each month, it also has Hold Steady keyboardist Franz Nicolay as a contributor. I know it doesn't have the influence of Pitchfork or the history of Tiny Mix Tapes, but both of those sites started out small and have grown into the great sites they are today. Why shouldn't Spectrum Culture be afforded the same? DreamGuy, I ask of you, what exactly needs to change on this page to allow it to stay up?Joe hockey14 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 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) 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 07:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiconews

    [edit]
    Indiconews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nn website Exleops (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — Exleops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 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 00:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A.nnotate

    [edit]
    A.nnotate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    nn website Exleops (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — Exleops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 2 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 00:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashanti White

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Ashanti White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not sufficiently notable. No significant google news hits, and google mentions are of a book tour. Book is very recently published, and on Amazon, but I don't think there's enough coverage yet. Shadowjams (talk) 00:12, 2 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 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Applejacks (NL band)

    [edit]
    The Applejacks (NL band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Declined speedy. I have done no research on this, but I think a Dutch opinion would help decide what to do. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the Netherlands, the band isn't just another teenage band. Their song was covered by Acda en de Munnik, who are really famous in the Netherlands. And the song is in the movie 'Lover of Loser', which is a big production. The most of their clips on youtube are more popular than the clips of the other two AppleJacks. On Google the applejacks band from the netherlands is more searched than the other two AppleJacks. The dutch Applejacks also performed at wel-known stages, like The Melkweg, Patronaat, P60, Ancient Belgique. I know that this band isn't really known in countries outside the Netherlands, but that shouldn't mean that the band can't be on Wikipedia, right? - 2 June 2009 Vincentvano

    • Delete - Not a Dutch opinion here, however I did search for ("The Only Thing You Need" "Lover of Loser") checking for anything with the song and the upcoming film title and for ("The Only Thing You Need" "Acda en de Munnik") with the more popular band with the song title and found nothing. Both searches were web and news searches. Also searching for ("The Applejacks" dutch) and ("The Applejacks" Netherlands) brings up one hit from 2006, two years before the band formed according to this article. Also their first album is not released until the end of 2009 and I see no indication of anything that would meet WP:MUSIC as inclusion criteria.--kelapstick (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Cavalry, here's a Dutch opinion: Houwe! OK, I want to vote weak keep, and not just cause, you know, Amsterdam is the greatest city in the world, and ANY band from Amsterdam is by definition notable. Just ask User:ChildofMidnight about Claw Boys Claw.

      Well, they won a somewhat notable contest and are finalists in a pretty notable contest. That's the best I can do right now--I've added some relevant information to the article. Vincent, the problem is lack of coverage--nothing in De Volkskrant, nothing on http://www.vpro.nl or http://3voor12.vpro.nl/index.jsp, nothing in www.popinstituut.nl. It's too early for *ahem* them. If they win The Next Stage it might be different. Give the references from your (local) newspaper! Document this stuff! An article without references, from a foreign country with a different language, on a new band, usually that's a losing proposition. Add verified information to the article or put the links or bibliographic information on the article's talk page. Is there a record deal, BTW?

      En succes in de Melkweg; ik duim voor je. Hey Admin, if the decision is to delete, please userfy to me or to Vincent. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never heard of this band, and I suspect they are just as notable as Claw Boys Claw, in which case I think its clear what needs to be done with their article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 3 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 00:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment If any proof of the band appearing on a national chart is found, it would be a keep. If not, possibly delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_9&oldid=1142644279"