Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 March 7 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Despite the possible single-purpose account !votes, it has not been shown that the subject is notable outside of one event. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marinza Bruineman

[edit]
Marinza Bruineman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Fails BLP1e - this individual is notable only because of her relationship with Oliver Jovanovic, the man convicted and subsequently acquitted in the Cybersex Rape Case Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is marginal, but I have added cited info that shows that she has taken up a few other causes that dodge the 1E . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Answertwo (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I still think that's too marginal, but maybe the Sam Sloan connection will swing it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

***KEEP*** 'Fails BLP1e' needs to be substantiated. Otherwise too trivial an objection to warrant deletion of bio." —Preceding unsigned comment added by VillaMaybach (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — VillaMaybach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

On the contrary, the burden falls on those wishing to keep to show that she is notable for anything other than being Jovanovic's girlfriend and supporter.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Based on the founder's own credo: "I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet," he says. "I mean, why not, right?" — Jimmy Wales in The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2008. [1] Furthermore, nothing marginal about someone's fight for justice and the betterment of it for ALL - not just Jovanovic's.4Justice2 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — 4Justice2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP* - The matter is far from over! It's all about a Prosecutor who deliberately overlooked evidence and the fundamental question is .. ''why would she do that, what is her motiveItalic text? Being a lawyer myself I strongly disagree with anyone argueing that it would be marginal - please Mr. Lawyer, explain why it is just marginal when a Prosecutor overlooks evidence in order to send someone to jail long enough to destroy an entire life! In the mean time I get the nasty feeling that someone is not pleased with this publication about Marinza Bruineman. Who could that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansummertime (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — Indiansummertime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
All of which is relevant to Jovanovic, not Bruineman, and would have no place in an article about Bruineman anyway. Please take your daft conspiracy theories elsewhere, she is only marginally notable for her activities in relation to the Jovanovic case, and that's the only reason this article was nominated for deletion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject does not satisfy WP:BIO since the only assertion of notability is that the subject is the former girlfriend and supporter of someone involved in bizarre and protracted court proceedings (and who is now acquitted released). The references confirm that the subject was involved with the notable person (and with two other incidental issues unrelated to notability), but the references do not establish the subject's notability. Per WP:CRYSTAL we do not create articles in advance; if developments make the subject notable, a new article can be created. For reference, this AfD page has been edited by several users with a short contribution history: 4Justice2, Answertwo, Indiansummertime, Mytwosense, VillaMaybach. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE Regardless of the opinions about the above, and since we're all interested in the crux of the matter, Jovanovic was NOT ACQUITTED. His case was dismissed. His case was dismissed because the victim did not want to testify again. There is a big difference between being acquitted of a crime, or having one's case dismissed. Please do not propagate falsehoods while discussing this article. (Not sure what a short contribution history has to do with facts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Justice2 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction. I have struck out my incorrect language. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice theory, but sadly not true. Read Wikipedia guidelines on Notability - one artice does not constitute notability and nototiety for one event does not constitute notability.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 03:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While a number of editors have argued that the article should be kept, they did not address the main point of those arguing for deletion, that the list itself was WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the War on Terrorism

[edit]
Timeline of the War on Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep - Are there accuracy concerns with where it is right now? I'm not sure the objection to it. If there are challenged facts, and nobody fixes them in, let's say 6 weeks, I'd be happy to reevaluate, but seems like a notable topic, well designed page. Lacking some sources, but not a huge issue unless there are some factual issues coming up. Shadowjams (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am always dubious of lists of events, as normally they are WP:OR even if the only synthesis is in the lead paragraph and the title. Single events are seldom notable, and a list of single events doesn't change that. I think it is telling that this list is an orphan, serving no function in the Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those articles you mention are well sourced and the topic is well defined. On the contrary, the War on Terror is a topic that cannot be easily defined, let alone its timeline. If you can you find some reliable secondary source to support such an article I'd gladly change my vote. Although,even in that case, that could be incorporated in the main article.--JokerXtreme (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that OAE is part of WoT, it was actually me who added that in the main article. That's not in question. Are you willing to check for sources for all the elements in the list? It is not a matter of work, it's a matter of content that shouldn't even be in an article like that. Take this for example, about 2003:
May 12 - Insurgency in Saudi Arabia begins.
May 16 - Casablanca bombings in Casablanca, Morocco kills 45 people.
August 5 - Marriott Hotel bombing in Setiabudi, Indonesia kill 12 people
November 15 and November 20 - Istanbul bombings in Istanbul, Turkey kill 57 civilians.
Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the Us-led War on Terror. Bombings in Casablanca have nothing to do with the Us-led War on Terror. Bombing in Indonesia has nothing to do with the Us-led War on Terror. And guess what, yes, bombings in Istanbul have nothing to do with the Us-led War on Terror. All those things are irrelevant. And we are talking about the majority of the list items here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, yes, I would be willing, should the article be kept, to go through all the times in the list. Sure, there are some events that don't belong, but that's all very fixable, no? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain - What would be the difference between this and a category called "War on Terror" applied to all the events linked on this page? The page needs sourcing for sure but most of that can come from the pages that are linked to on this one since every event has a link to another page about that event and every one I've checked has sourcing about the facts expressed in this page. I would remove number of kills on the attacks and other text though without going into detail of event to maintain a NPOV on this page. ZacBowling (user|talk) 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The advantages of a timeline over a category is that a timeline allows events to be put in chronological order. Also a timeline allows for brief descriptions of each event, while a category does not. In this particular case, it seems a timeline might be more fitting. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it comes down to, as I mention above, is basically that terrorist attacks do not belong in the WoT. This is especially true for countries that never affiliated themselves with any WoT. WoT is a very specific thing. It's a series of US-led operations, not anywhere near as global as the Bush administration would like it to be. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - articles are at userspace. JForget 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loud Machine

[edit]
Loud Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The band fails WP:NMUSIC. The article has been tagged for seven months as being unreferenced and I have tried unsuccessfully to find reliable sources for the band. Aspects (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This good enough?

[edit]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

See those? ALL of them mention or are about Loud Machine. They sell on iTunes, have a record label and have hard copy CDs. They sell internationally, you know, out of country? I'm not trying to be mean about all this but I have proven numerous times of this stuff and the article has had several references when it was created, if they are gone, that is someone else's doing. ZydrateSupporter (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) None of those references are reliable sources, see WP:RS. I see no evidence you have "proven numeours times of this stuff" and the article did not have any references until you added some on January 20, but iTunes is not a reliable source. What part of WP:NMUSIC do you think the band passes? Aspects (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. The websites listeed here in the AFD are not reliable sources independent of the subject and as such, do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding...

[edit]

Again, please don't take this as a complaint or anything as I do respect you guys for doing your job.

I will be on the job for a while, finding sources that match to the standards. I will be checking websites from all over my country (Canada), the US and other countries to find better sources. I ask for your patience and allowing me to do so, while keeping the article and all related articles on Wikipedia for another month. If I fail to come up with any of these within the next 30 days, you can delete the articles as planned.

That is all I ask of you at this time and being granted this would be highly appreciated it. Also, if you want to feel free to help me, as honestly, the rules of how a band is eligible do not make full sense to me. I know they have won awards in the Prince Edward Island music scene.

Again any help is appreciated and I will be searching for better sources.

ZydrateSupporter (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - A deletion discussion normally runs for 7 days after the nomination, and you and any other editor can improve that article during that time. For this article, it would be the addition of reliable sources. This would be things such as significant profiles and articles about the band in newspapers and magazines. As an alternative, you may want to request userfication of the article. That would place it as a sub-page of your user page and allow you to develop the article further.
Note that from what I can see claimed int he article, they are local band that have found some local success and may be well on their way to greater things in the future. When they achieve that, the coverage in magazines and newspapers will be there to establish them as a notable band. It's just that right now, they don't seem to have quite cleared that hurdle. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Whpq - Thank you for that information. I see you have seen that I have added some better sources. I know they have went out of province numerous times but cannot find any articles linking to that. I will also request the userfication as well, so I do not lose all the time and effort I have put into the articles.

Thanks again and sorry for any trouble or any annoyance I may have caused you. -- ZydrateSupporter (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shelagh Watkins

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Shelagh Watkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails general notability guidelines, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and Mandinam Press looks like a candidate for speedy deletion - in that it doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LotLE, the result of the previous discussion was almost unanimous "delete". --Vejvančický (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haig Armen

[edit]
Haig Armen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity article for non-notable individual. Only article I saw specifically mentioning him was the faculty bio where he teaches; everything else was social networking. JaGatalk 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails notability and verifiability tests; also spammy and obvious autobio/self-promo problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no coverage about him to establish notability. There's a claim to notability with the awards but it is completely unclear as to what role he played, and can find no documentatation to support those assertions of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Big O. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm City

[edit]
Paradigm City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable fictional location. There appears to be no adequate coverage of the subject in reliable sources in anything other then passing mention (i.e. simply stating thats where the series takes place is not significant coverage). Google search only turns up fansites, wikipedia mirrors and unreliable sources. The article was previously WP:boldly redirected to The Big O by myself due to that lack of notability, but was reverted by another editor requesting a discussion on the talk page. However due to the small edit history despite the age of the article, I do not believe this will attract an discussion. After thinking about it, I do not believe the article is a likely search term.Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable enough fictional location. Plenty of information that anyone wishing to learn more about the series would be able to read. Nothing gained by deleting it. Dream Focus 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it 'notable enough', wheres your evidence or reasoning? The amount of information is neither here nor there when it fails two policies (WP:V, WP:OR) and a guideline (WP:N. Theres nothing gained by keeping it either. Those are pretty weak arguments that you are presenting. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the cut, but unfortunately the issues remain. The entire location section is pure WP:OR for a start. It would be helpful if you could explain why it's 'useful to an understanding'. It's a typical response often given, but never with a real explanation. At what point does the information become relevant as an encyclopedic entry without becoming a fan site (or on a different note, what makes it worthy of an entire article rather then as a brief description in the plot section of the parent article?)? Exactly what makes the information relevant past other articles? Your comparison to other fictional locations is problematic as in all honesty, fictional locations are almost never notable out of universe, and the article certainly doesn't offer suggestion that it is. This is the crux of the matter, if the location is notable, where is the real world discussion of it. Every mention of the city in reliable sources merely mention it as the setting, which is far too trivial to support your suggestion. If you can address this issue, then it will be a different matter. Also,I respectfully disagree about the article quality because i)Too much OR and ii)it reads like a fansite. Dandy Sephy (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was All speedy deleted by Fox as blatant hoaxes. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environment, My, Your and Theirs

[edit]
Environment, My, Your and Theirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Un-notable play. There are zero ghits for either the English or original title. [11] [12]. The author doesn't have a WP page. The article has no references. Clubmarx (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, non-notable, no ghits:

Blessed Are You Among Women (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 delete. JForget 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wilkovich

[edit]
Greg Wilkovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable author and poet. DimaG (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As far as I can tell, all his work has been published via print on demand services. I can find no significant coverage about him or his works. -- Whpq (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ASM-FTP Backup

[edit]
ASM-FTP Backup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant coverage for this software. Google comes up with only about 150 hits, and the only sources are its own site.  fetchcomms☛ 20:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super (Hand Symbol)

[edit]
Super (Hand Symbol) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find too much significant coverage for this movie. While there are some news articles about it, it seems still somewhat speculative.  fetchcomms☛ 20:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Upcoming" is synonymous to non-notable. The article may be reintroduced when the film is finally out and has significant coverage, but this stub is not noteworthy. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin This page Super(Hand_symbol) is redirect to the article under discussion. --Haruth (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant hoax, per CSD G3/WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Engle

[edit]
Trevor Engle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this article while looking at the unreferenced BLP list and decided to add some cites to it. However, the Pro Football Reference database had no listing for this player, which alarmed me. Some detective work revealed that this page duplicates information from Trevor Pryce, with a different (incorrect) last name thrown in. I searched for Trevor Engle on Bing and Google News, and found no indication that this is an alternate name Pryce goes by, so changing it to a redirect isn't a good option. WP:CSD only allows speedy deletion for recently created duplicate articles (not from 3 years ago), so I'm bringing it here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: This is the only other contribution from the article's creator, User:Tengle. That name rings a bell, doesn't it? This might be a speedy candidate as a hoax. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G3 - Hoax. Article created [13] as direct cut paste of text and name change from Trevor Pryce revision 02:03, 10 February 2007 [14].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor voting history

[edit]
Survivor voting history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Imo, this article is somewhat redundant and unneeded. Each season already has their voting history on their respective pages. This page hasn't been updated in a while, so I'll update the page. Meäghân i can see your halo 20:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The contentious material has been removed, and the two people calling for deletion have withdrawn their delete views on condition the article is blanked. Wikipedia:Speedy keep now applies. SilkTork *YES! 19:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Ghana

[edit]
Corruption in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has multiple issues, and has been tagged as Original Research since 2007. While there is room for an article on corruption in Ghana, this is not it, and the nature of the article is such that it makes addressing the issues difficult. The first edit makes it clear that this is a student's dissertation cut and pasted onto Wikipedia. All that other editors have done since then is to format the contents, and to tag it with their concerns. Sometimes the best thing to do is to delete the junk and start over. I am not motivated to research and write an article on Corruption in Ghana, but if somebody else is, they might prefer a clean page. SilkTork *YES! 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is quite large and contains numerous sources so your assertion that nothing is salvageable seems absurd. For example, to pick a detail at random, the article provides details of the Citizens Vetting Committee which was established to investigate officials who seemed to be living beyond their means. The essential accuracy of this information may be confirmed by reference to an independent source such as Administrative ethics and development administration. Your sweeping dismissal of so much sourced information requires a more detailed rationale please. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree. In my view, the article is totally unencyclopaedic and deletion should be an option in these cases. I can't identify a single paragraph in the nominated version that isn't unencyclopaedic (ie sourced, neutral, not written like an essay). But if the article can be improved (more like rewritten) I'd be happy to change my !vote. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to your opinion but it seems worthwhile to probe this further as I still find it incomprehensible. It may be helpful to compare our topic with the featured article which you wrote — Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare. I have no great objection to the latter but notice that it relies heavily for sourcing upon the court report and judgement, which seems to me to be too much of a primary source for our best work. And it is literally a case-study, and so is arguably too particular for our purpose, which is to present knowledge in summary form, with a historical perspective. Our topic here today seems to provide a better framework in this respect, being a historical review of a more general topic. Apart from cosmetic formatting, the main stylistic difference is the use of inline citations and wikilinks. These assist us in verification but are not especially encyclopedic as many encyclopedia do without them. As we have many sources provided in the article, it seems a straightforward matter to tie them to the relevant sections and generally wikify the content so that it more closely resembles your work in style. The work involved will be onerous, as there is much ground to cover, but I still fail to see the fundamental difficulty which makes this impossible and so necessitates deletion. What is it that stops us working this up into another FA too? Please explain your thinking. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination is false in several respects. I have today started editing the article and have rewritten the lede, working from a substantial source which testifies to the topic's notability, being a book about the topic which has been cited by numerous other sources which also cover the topic. The claims of OR are not supported by any specific examples and the provision of numerous good sources in the article refutes this hand-waving assertion. The nominator states clearly his personal unwillingness to work upon the topic and has declined the opportunity to discuss it in detail at the article's talk page. As he does not wish to work upon the topic, it seems disruptive to obstruct editors who do so wish to improve the article in accordance with our policy. The cited justifications of Wikipedia:Delete the junk and Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over are neither policies nor guidelines and are directly refuted by our actual editing policy which is to preserve such material for further work. There is thus not the slightest reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep "I am not motivated to research and write an article on Corruption in Ghana, but if somebody else is, they might prefer a clean page." "some one else should write a better article, because I am unwilling to do it" here and elsewhere,[15] is always a dubious argument. Well referenced article with major WP:POTENTIAL Okip 02:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may have worded myself badly. When I come upon an article that has serious issues which need attention, my first approach is to address those issues. If the circumstances (time, skill set, motivation, size of task, etc) do not lend themselves to me helping out, then there are two options - leave the mess as it is, or draw attention to it. I have opted to draw attention to the mess. The tags have alerted people there are issues, but in the three years since the first tag was placed nobody has felt motivated enough to actually do something, and nobody has been able to make a dent in the essay as the size and structure is unhelpful. It is a self-contained essay. An option I considered was simply to remove the essay, but that would have left a blank page. I am not saying that the topic itself is inappropriate, simply that the content is against two of our core founding principles and two of our main policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The opening statement of the essay prepares us for the fact that this is going to be an argument designed to lead the reader to a conclusion: "The historical perspective of this work is to conclude whether or not the occurrence of past corruption issues have affected seriously the government’s role in levels of corruption around the country." A solution to all this would be for someone to write a few lines on "corruption in Ghana", and to remove the student's essay. SilkTork *YES! 08:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my comments, thank you for your well thought out justification. How about I stubbify the article, moving the content to a collapsed talk page section? I have done this before, and it works very well. You could then reverse your deletion nomination on the condition that you will renominate if unreferenced material is presented again. Okip 19:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a page for original research is a proper reason. The topic is not the problem, it is the content that needs removing. Removing the content does not prevent a new article being created. My rationale is that this content has been in place since 2007 and has actually prevented an appropriate article within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies from being created. SilkTork *YES! 08:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank content except for citations. Ordinarily I would say Delete because of unredeemable WP:OR but for those who want to keep the article, some positive solution that doesn't hurt Wikipedia is needed. --Bejnar (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per normal means of editing, even if it means removing all uncited claims and drastically revising as the subject of "corruption in Ghana" strikes me as encyclopedically valid as it is a subject that is the subject of multiple articles: [16], [17], etc. and hundred page studies a la this or this book, i.e. we have multiple sources, including published sources with "Corruption in Ghana" in their titles. My concern thus is even if the current state of an article is not sound, an AfD closing as delete, could make difficult efforts to start over with a new article. And clearly this subject is both notable and verifiable per the aforementioned sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions in the Gospel of John

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Omissions in the Gospel of John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm hitting up this list on the grounds of Original research. It seems to me that someone decided to throw together some random things that are not found in the book of John but found in the other three gospels. This is not encyclopedic as presented in depth at WP:LISTCRUFT. The word "omitted" also seems to be incorrect as I don't think John would "omit" certain things out of his gospel but instead was written in a different style from the other gospels. Tavix |  Talk  20:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure "entire books are written on the topic", but the article doesn't cite any of them. And it doesn't really seem to add anything to the coverage in Gospel of John#John and the Synoptics compared. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I am not denying the fact of omissions, but entire books have not been written on what this article is about. Yes, there are numerous examples of gnostic literature, and those have been written about. Yes, and none of the gospels tell the same story and they have been compared and that has been written about. But they don't put the burden on John. WP:OR and bad title. --Bejnar (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is sort of like personal opinion. Shii (tock) 18:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. It's interesting and I think it has potential, but those are not good reasons to keep. There does not seem to have any opinion, contra Shii. It does have OR, bad title per Bejnar. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be a horribel mistake to delete this important information. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- All the article is doing is saying that it has different content from the synoptic gospels. John was the last of the gospels and was very likely written in the knowledge that the other three (or at least one of them) already existed. This is John, probably the last survivor of the apostles, recording an account of Jesus, specifically what was not included in the others. Even where he does cover the same ground, he gives differnet details. I agree with Radagast3. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if corrected, this would still be redundant to Gospel_of_John#John_and_the_Synoptics_compared. Edward321 (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Union Soccer Club

[edit]
Union Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly founded amateur soccer club - although well meant, the soccer club probably doesn't pass our notability requirements, set out at WP:N. The club has yet to play an official game. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Dawson

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Shane Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. No indication that this individual is notable enough for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been deleted on a few occasions:
12:38, 5 March 2010 JohnCD (talk · contribs) deleted "Shane Dawson" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
04:42, 10 February 2009 PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) deleted "Shane Dawson" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
10:18, 25 July 2008 Tikiwont (talk · contribs) deleted "Shane Dawson" ‎ (AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Dawson)
The current incarnation (which is generally the same as the deleted version, apart from having had a "history" section added) was CSD'd, but the tag was removed by an IP, then PROD'd, but contested. -- Phantom'Steve/talk|contribs\ 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under the wikipedia "rules", a baseball player who played a single game in the major leagues in 1896 qualifies as notable without a hitch. Indeed wikipedia is full of insignificant athletes who no one knew of even when they were alive. They all easily qualify as "notable" if they played a single game in the major professional leagues.
There are hundreds of thousands of articles on individual songs from albums no one has heard by bands no one knows about.
It is bewildering to me that so many people can spend many thousands of hours acting like pencil pushing bureaucrats on wikipedia, contributing nothing of substance, but they still cannot evaluate the relative importance of things without consulting a rule book. And they do not realize that applying the rules in the rule book spits back answers that are absurd.
If you need a scale to determine whether an elephant or a flea weighs more, that's fine and dandy. But if the scale tells you the flea weighs more then that's a problem.
Wake up people. This is the Web 2.0 world and if Wikipedia can't figure out how to incorporate information that interests people then it will wither and die.AlexaxelA (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AlexaxelA, if you don't like the criteria which are used on Wikipedia, there are two choices: Either start an RfC about it and get community consensus to change what is meant by "notability"; or start your own Wiki. The software is out there, and if you are correct, you will quickly become more useful than Wikipedia, while we wither and die! Either way, I nominated this on the basis of the notability guidelines as they currently stand, and unless you can find some reliable sources which have articles about him (see my reply to Dyaa below), then I see no reason why I need to withdraw my nomination. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phantomsteve; do you always use that tone when such arguments evolve? --Dyaa (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When people speak out against something their country is doing, do you respond by suggesting that if they don't like it they should go move to another country? That "argument" is just as persuasive and constructive as yours. Perhaps you are correct and I should just remain silent while Wikipedia continues to become boated with worthless minutia while it declines to include information on people that are the subject of thousands of google searches per day. I really don't care one way or the other. While I find the sort of behavior I see here intolerably annoying, I have to overcome my own weakness in getting distracted by things like this when I have other more pressing matters to attend to. AlexaxelA (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't always "use that tone" - as you would be able to see if you looked at the various AfDs at which I have commented. It is very easy for a new user to speak out against what Wikipedia is doing - but then that same user does not actually have something to contribute to the discussion about notability other than to basically say "the things that are excluded from Wikipedia are wrong, some of the things included are wrong..." - I didn't just say "you are wrong": I gave 2 ways to chance things (ok, the 2nd one, creating your own wiki, was a bit sarcastic!) - but the first one (starting an RfC about the notability guidelines) was not being sarcastic. At the moment, according to the guidelines, Shane Dawson is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. I replied to Dyaa's comment below about why another YouTube celeb is included whereas I do not feel that Shane should be. If you believe that Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are incorrect, then there are community ways to change them - this is a community, and the community decide whether things are changed. This AfD is a community discussion. If the consensus is that Shane is notable enough to have the article kept, I will not be pissed off - I'll be happy that the discussion has shown that the community believe that Shane is notable enough for inclusion. If the consensus is that the article should be deleted, I will not be dancing with joy. It's not a personal thing for me - I saw an article which I do not believe meets the criteria for inclusion, and so I nominated it for deletion.
The whole purpose of AfD is to ensure that a discussion takes place whereby the merits of deleting or keeping the article can be discussed, and a decision made based on that. It's one of the benefits of this system - and in cases in the past, I have withdrawn a nomination for deletion when people have persuaded me through their arguments that the article should be kept. On other AfDs, I have changed from "delete" to "keep" or vice-versa based on arguments presented. It's a discussion, and everyone should be open to changing their mind if the evidence warrants it, and I am happy to do this in this case should significant coverage in reliable sources were to be found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, using the argument "other stuff exists" is not really a useful argument at AfD. If Shane had been given a featured player role in MADtv, I would probably not have nominated this article for deletion - but he is only a featured player on his own channel. If Shane had an article all about him in a world-recognised newspaper like the NY Times, I would not have nominated this - yet all the mentions I can find of him in the media (like The Independent on Sunday are not about him, but list him on a list of 'most-watched YouTube videos' - and all the other mentions of him which I can find in reliable sources are similarly minor. Show me some articles about him (i.e. not a minor entry on a list of most-watched videos) written in a national/international newspaper/magazine, then I might reconsider - but I couldn't find them. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do agree about the totally obscure 'athletes' (who were probably the great-grandfather of the article's creator - who can't find anything else of note in his family). However "the fourth most subscribers on the third busiest site on the internet" doesn't impress me as such. More especially I am underwhelmed by the string of references to YouTube. Peridon (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I am not wild about obscure bands and athletes, but I am distressed when I look up an outstanding DWEM scientist and don't find him (gender intentional). --Bejnar (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: many people are interested in him. Moreover, there is this rule! --Dyaa (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but don't lock recreation - I've got a better copy coming up. Jeremjay24 20:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got a better copy coming up then why delete the article? What ever happened to the concept of a stub? A work in progress? Do we now require the first draft of an article to stand as proof of the article's worthiness? If so I'd say that's a shame. It's those kind of stub articles that I used to most enjoy fleshing out. Ben Arnold (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he has ample news coverage! The Google news search at the top of the AFD should've been used by anyone, before they tried to delete it. [18] Forbes magazine covers him, among others. You can't say to delete something because it lacks coverage, when you aren't willing to spend a few seconds clicking on the Google news search thing up there, to check for coverage. Sheesh. Dream Focus 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DreamFocus, I did look at the hits at Google News, including the Forbes one. The hits about him (rather than about the convicted criminal, which quite a few were about, along with a sportsman) were basically listing him in "the most viewed YouTube people" kind of lists. In the first 10 hits, the 10th is the Forbes one. (in fact, if I recall correctly, the next mention of this Shane Dawson didn't occur until about the 90th hit or something like that). When I came across the Forbes one, I actually held out hopes that I might find more useful coverage, but all the other ones I checked just had a single-sentence mention of him on a "list of most-viewed YouTube people" type of things. So, DreamFocus, please don't accuse people of not bothering to look at sources - I can't talk for others here, but I did look, as I always do for articles I nominate for deletion (or on which I !vote).PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Click the link I provided. I searched for his name, and then "YouTube", thus filtering out all the wrong hits. Salon mentions him as "exceedingly popular" [19]. The Star mentions it somewhat, although negatively. [20] I didn't bother looking through all 11 results, most of them in Spanish. That's three major English news sources mentioning this though. Dream Focus 22:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your comment "Being the 4th most subscribed channel on YouTube makes someone clearly notable", which part of WP:N are you referring to there? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You form consensus by use of WP:common sense. Just like being on the bestsellers list doesn't make something notable according to any guidelines, however common sense usually gets books that are on it, even if no reviews can be found anywhere, notable enough to get them kept. Dream Focus 22:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Forbes considered a reliable source? I seem to recall in other AfDs that it was discounted as being rather fond of press release material and such. Could be wrong... Peridon (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forbes is in fact a very notable news magazine. Dream Focus 22:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting article. With millions of fans, I think that some background information will be relevant and constructive for the wiki "community". In my opinion, the article needs editing, but not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.21.56 (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) — 92.0.21.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep I posted a lengthy comment earlier but have not until now said whether I think this is a keeper. I took the person who originally nominated this at his word when he said there was no significant coverage in secondary sources. I didn't bother to look for sources myself. What a mistake.

This guy has been named in articles in Forbes and the Toronto Star. If you google youtube and "Shane Dawson" (so that you get the phrase, not just the two names anywhere on the page) you get 1,710,000 hits.

1,710,000 hits.

Let's put this into perspective by comparing this to some other google searches. Note that my Shane Dawson google search only returned hits with the word "youtube" in them. None of the searches below have that limitation.

"Joseph Lieberman" - 376,000 "Barbara Walters" - 1,460,000 "Condoleeza Rice" - 378,000 "Notre Dame Cathedral" - 337,000 "Notre Dame football" - 429,000 "Linus Pauling" - 578,000

If anyone still insists that this person is not worthy to join the ranks of the millions of subjects covered by wikipedia, then my last suggestion is that you first refer to this rule (thanks to Dyaa for mentioning this rule above).AlexaxelA (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
To my mind Shane Dawson is now the most notable YouTube personality. He is probably the most widely recognised face of this new kind of media. While Fred had a series of popular videos he has a much lower profile as Lucas Cruikshank. Dawson has managed to build a self-made profile both as a personality and as a character actor. He has used "new media" to become a celebrity and develop a signature product alongside this celebrity. Other YouTubers have done this contemporaneously with Dawson but he has been the most notable for his methodical and determined approach and for his outstanding success.
His significance as a trailblazer in YouTube is compounded when the cultural significance of this new kind of media and new kind of media personality is taken into account. He is perhaps the second "new media superstar" after Cruikshank and there is no way I can conceive of this not being a notable achievement.
I appreciate that his successes have not been adequately documented by traditional media and finding sources for notability has proved suprisingly difficult, but I think we have a good case for the article with the references that have been found, and this is the kind of topic where the benefit of the doubt must swing in favour of keeping it. If we delete this article now we'll be relitigating this in a few months when the case for the article is even more clear, so why waste everyone's time? As I've outlined, this article has plenty of room to grow; the subject matter has the requisite depth. It just needs some focused editors to dig up some more substantial commentary. You can't expect an article to be featured quality on day one.
Ben Arnold (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It's easy to see why this is the last AFD from this day to be closed. Everyone, including the nominator, seems to agree that this should be notable, that we should be able to find some decent sources on which to base an article, yet nobody has been able to actually do so. The argument that a denomination of this size is automatically notable was discounted as there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for that argument. No prejudice against recreation if sufficient reliable sources that actually discuss who they are, what they believe, etc can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc.

[edit]
New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has NO reliable sources so far as I can see. I do not think it even has enough sources to meet WP:NOTABILITY. The only sources which I saw which might meet notability were some legal documents, and I really don't think they count. At any rate, I would rather see it deleted than stubbed till WP:RS become available (which might be never). (For noobies on the article: please remember that notability in the real world is not the same as notability for Wikipedia.) Becritical (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Relative to the claim below that it is notable because of the 11 year old article in a local newspaper about the church putting up a building, here is what Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria, says: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."
So, no, that single ancient source is not sufficient. Becritical (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Use of the church website would be acceptable if we could verify the information, but we can't since there are no RS; See #2 here. Becritical (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Please consider the following quote when voting:

Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.[21]

Yes, it seems to be from 1999. I'm not sure what one would write from a single 11 year old source though. What you seem to be saying is that we should keep the article as a stub, based on this single source and the legal documents? Because, we can't just repeat the information in that source since it's 11 years old. So I guess we'd just note the existence of the church in 1999. But see the "Added" part above. It's not enough. Becritical (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I mentioned that Tacoma newspaper article because it was an external link in the article, and I noticed it while I was repairing the malformed AfD nomination. I didn't take the time look for any additional third-party coverage, but I expect that it exists. (I would expect to find more coverage for an institution that gets so much attention from online forums.) Regarding the age of the article, please note that notability is not temporary. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comment: I found text from that same article in Google News. It definitely has some content that could be used in an article. For example, it says that the NTCC is "fundamentalist in its literal approach to the Bible and traditionally Pentecostal in its teachings" and that its "holiness standards" specify that "women shouldn't cut their hair or wear makeup and that men should wear their hair short." --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is no expiration date on notability, it's just that this church never had it to begin with. Also, there aren't any other RS available, or the church members and ex-members would have produced them by now IMHO. Becritical (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A denomination with 115 affilated churches around the world certainly ought to be notable. The Tacoma newspaper article cited by Orlady verifies its existence, and the church's own self-published materials are reliable sources for the article (although they don't establish notability), so these together provide enough to write some sort of neutral article describing the subject. I would certainly be happier if there was more in the way of reliable third party sources. The rest of the article, in its current state, seems to be based on (1) government filings, which are essentially primary sources and don't establish notability; and (2) material from a critical organization, which under Wikipedia standards is neither reliable nor evidence of notability, and (unless there is coverage of these criticisms in outside reliable-source media) this content probably violates WP:NPOV. Much of the article might also be argued to constitute inappropriate original research. If kept, the article needs to be better sourced or pared down considerably. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I reviewed Your reliable sources link before posting. I agree with you in general, about what needs to be done IF the article is kept, but I disagree that the church website is a RS even for its own article. We would be forced to use the church website as the only source for the church as it exists today. To do so violates criteria 5 on your link. And if the site is not "unduly self-serving" per criteria 1, I can't imagine what would be. I don't think we can write a NPOV article on one 11 year old source plus the church website. According to policy on non-commercial organizations, "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)
The information on the church website simply cannot be verified per #2. This is getting to be a complex argument about the rules here I guess, but in reality it boils down to whether this article can be well-written with the extremely limited sources, and I don't think it can. Becritical (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been on my watchlist for a long time, but I generally avoid looking at it because it gives me a headache. At various times, the article has contained an enormous amount of detail and allegations that are difficult to make sense of, much less verify. Regardless of my headaches, I think that it would be pretty hard to argue with a brief article along the general lines of this old version of the article. Also, while the various government documents aren't evidence of notability, they do provide some confirmation for historical details (such as dates). --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If people want to keep the article as such a stub, just as in that link, that is probably acceptable per IAR. I still don't think it meets the NOTABILITY requirements, but I don't want to be a dick about this (; GRBerry also suggested stubbing it drastically on the talk page (but he doesn't seem to be around so we can't ask him). We would need to add the old newspaper article in as our source. The article would take some monitoring to make sure that text sourced to church documents was not added back in. Becritical (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is enough encyclopedic nature here to keep the article. Even if the references are not yet up to scratch. looking in google news archive at [22] there are a number of other newpaper articles, which unfortunately are pay per view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which means under Wikipedia rules we can't use them. And just looking at Google, I think they might just be passing references in other articles. Becritical (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Becritical: This is incorrect. Wikipedia has no requirement that sources have to be on line at all, much less free. See WP:Identifying reliable sources#Overview: . Also, your reading of the self-published sources rules may be a bit more stringent than required; I think the Church's materials can be used as sources for non-controversial, NPOV descriptive content (such as basic historical facts, the number of affiliated churches, etc.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to have changed in the last year or so. Having read some of the materials on the church, I would not trust the Church's site even for seemingly non-controversial details. Becritical (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To concur with what Arxiloxos said, just because hyperlinks to articles aren't immediately available, that doesn't mean they magically disappeared and have never existed. If full hyperlinked sources were required for Wikipedia, then most books would be disqualified as sources for material.--Oakshade (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that is true, however your argument is incomplete since we don't know that those sources constitute more than a brief mention; thus, we have not established WP:NOTABILITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becritical (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My summary is that the newspaper references establish notability as you can tell that some of the newspaper articles are about the denomination. The non-independent references can be used to substantiate the content of the article, where it would be in the interest of the reference in being correct. (avoid COI). So the content of the article does not have to be deleted. Nor does the entire article need to be deleted. PS Becritical has been stripping the article of material giving a flase impression of what the original article was like. This is COI. So I encourage Becritical to restore content deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I merely stubbed it as suggested here by ORLady here and GRBerry on the talk page. You can revert if you think appropriate. I do not think we have established notability by two small and old articles in local newspapers which don't do anything but quote the church pastors. Please also see my post here, about one of the only two "independent" sources. Becritical (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I very much agree with you: there's fire out there alright! The problem is that we can't write about it because we can't use the sources! All the sources available are non-RS. I don't think we even have the sources to justify a stub. We most certainly don't have the sources to write a decent article. Becritical (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think I have ever seen an AfD discussion before which made so much use of "I think that evidence of notability probably exists somewhere, so we should keep it, even though we haven't seen the evidence" as an argument. In separate posts Orlady has said: (1) I didn't take the time look for any additional third-party coverage, but I expect that it exists. (2) I would expect to find more coverage for an institution that gets so much attention from online forums. (3) I can't actually read it, but this image of a page from the Tacoma newspaper sure looks to me like independent third-party coverage. (4) Any institution that gets as much attention on online bulletin boards and forums as NTCC has received on sites like FactNet and RickRoss.com ... as well as anti-NTCC and NTCC survivor websites and blogs ... is probably a topic that ought to be covered in Wikipedia. In addition Arxiloxos says that it certainly ought to be notable, and Graeme Bartlett says there is enough encyclopedic nature here to keep the article. Even if the references are not yet up to scratch.
Open blogs and forums are not reliable sources. To say (in effect) "if there is a lot of coverage in unreliable sources then we will simply assume there must also be coverage in reliable sources" is a roundabout way of treating the unreliable sources as though they were reliable: we cannot assume the existence of sources we have not seen.
Slightly different but related is the assumption that unseen sources would establish notability if we were to see them. Thus we have Graeme Bartlett saying looking in google news archive ... there are a number of other newpaper articles, which unfortunately are pay per view, and also the newspaper references establish notability as you can tell that some of the newspaper articles are about the denomination. No they don't, unless we know that the articles give substantial coverage: we cannot simply assume that they do. Of the six hits listed by the linked search, one is not a newspaper article, but a link to a search result which finds one entry: an official record of a deed transfer. One is a book review, and the abstract which is viewable does not mention New Testament Christian Churches of America, so it is impossible to tell how much of a mention the book gives it. The other four, as far as can be gathered from the abstracts, do give some mention of churches with "new testament" in their title, so they may all belong to this denomination, and the articles may give them significant coverage. On the other hand the Google summaries for these four all contain text with identical wording, which suggests possible standard-format press releases, and therefore not independent sources.
All three of the editors arguing for "keep" have used variations of one sort or another on the theme of "I guess it must be notable, and I suppose there must be sources". The simple fact is, though, that the only reliable independent source which has actually been produced is a newspaper article which tells us that the denomination once built a new church. Not substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (another source):Here is a second readable on-line source, from the 2006 Charleston Gazette. I don't know that this will change many minds, but the article mentions a bit about the theology of the church, mentions the headquarters in Graham, Washington and that the church "has a strong presence near major military bases". "New Testament Christian Church welcoming new members", Charleston Gazette, September 26, 2006. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is better than some we've seen, but having read the article it is not what you would think of as "independent reporting," but rather basically a bunch of quotes from one of their pastors. So I would ask editors whether it meets the standard discussed here, where it says "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability". To me these are "trivial works," put out by local papers but not really providing us with encyclopedic content. I don't think the 11 year old article or the article from 2006 gives us enough. RS also says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability," and these two articles, to me, definitely don't qualify. If all we get are articles when they put up buildings, I do not think they are notable, and the nature of the (two) sources doesn't provide enough for a NPOV article. The sources simply did not provide scrutiny, as in "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.. We're trying to produce a professional encyclopedia here, not some article which merely quotes from a couple of articles in local newspapers which did not do any investigative reporting. Becritical (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the sort of thing that establishes notability, even if cannot 100% trust the content. Even for newspapers that we count as reliable, there are willed with inaccuracies, missing important truths and full of opinion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are not enough sources to write more than a stub if we are going to be NPOV. If we write more than a stub, using the most "reliable" sources (one fluff piece from 1999 and one fluff piece from 2006), we end up with nothing more than a piece of promotional material for the church. Wikipedia isn't here to be a recruiting device, which is why we should wait for sufficient WP:RS before we allow an article. We simply don't have enough sources. Consider the spirit of this passage "This can sometimes happen when notability was not discussed earlier in its history or was discussed but there was no clear consensus; when there was a flurry of media reports but it has since become clear the topic was not notable; after a significant cleanup" [24] in which even quite a few news reports do not establish notability. Now consider this: "For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." I think that last quote establishes that this church has NO sources which establish its notability. But the most basic fact is we don't have sufficient sourcing for an encyclopedia article. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Well, two fluff pieces (or more), don't qualify. Because basically it's a matter of whether we can write a real article, and in this case we can't. Those two articles are little more than press releases. "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity..." [25]. There is just no way this qualifies. The sources we have are what NOTABILITY calls "trivial works" [26].

Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.[27]

Becritical (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. NTCC is a relatively small, abusive, cultic-type religious organization that shuns publicity, preys off young soldiers, and seeks to fly 'under the radar' in every aspect of its existence. The article is a work in progress, and its framework needs to remain in place at the very least as a public service! The person who nominated the article for deletion is quite likely one of the members of NTCC, who have vandalized and viciously and relentlessly fought the existence of this article and its contents since its inception.

The value of a Wikipedia entry is even greater for dangerous groups such as NTCC because there is a compelling need for a central place to compile the available material so that it may be easily found. This article, though somewhat substandard, should NOT be deleted. It should rather be restored as it was because it is actually more important than Wiki articles on large 'noteworthy' denominations for which information is abundant and easily found elsewhere. Availability of information about smaller groups is naturally going to be scarcer according to their size and shorter length of existence, and so they need to be cut some slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.118.115 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)69.92.118.115 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Since we are confined to the "reliable" sources, and there are only two "reliable" sources which are fluff pieces, we can only write a promotional article (or one which ignores the ugly side of this church). Is that what you want? Becritical (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because here is an ugly reality for you: anyone who wants to take the negative information out of this article can do it, because the sources are blogs and personal websites. IF YOU WANT TO WRITE THE REALITY OF THIS CHURCH YOU CAN'T DO IT HERE. By reality I mean WP:NPOV, showing both sides of the subject. Wikipedia does not accept the sources which tell the underlying story of this church (positive or negative). So vote accordingly. We do NOT need to cut some slack here, because if we do we merely produce biased articles one way or another. Becritical (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all that remains is a stub or a very basic "fluff article," then yes we still definitely want at least that. But the full article had been honed by both sides and was accurate as it stood. This church organization is notable because they continue to be aggressive in proselyting new young members to replace the many they lose from attrition, and for this reason it is important that their presence continue to be maintained on the leading source of information on the Web. (Wikipedia is always at or near the top of the list on any search for NTCC.) Hopefully links can still be made to other related material such as blogs for those seeking additional information from either perspective. Because their leadership has historically sought to perpetuate a culture of organizational arrogance and secrecy, it is vital that those who are searching be able to easily find the information they need.69.92.118.115 (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that can't happen under Wikipedia rules, without special pleading, with which I don't agree. I'm trying to save the article from being nothing but a promotional piece for the church. If you keep it, that is what it is going to be, because we need to go by the rules Wikipedia has worked out. I hope this isn't the way it goes, but that is how it must be if it is not deleted. [and personal websites won't be included] even as links per WP:RS, nor will information from them be included. Really.... I get your point, and I agree, but I know where this will eventually lead, and I'm trying to not go there, because basically it should not be here since it can't be NPOV under WP rules. If you want to get a message out there, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Apparently, no one within the church knows anything about Wikipedia, but eventually they will catch on as to how to use the WP rules to create a promotional article and ban all negative content. Especially now that I have alerted them. Becritical (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of NPOV can be achieved quite well by two opposing groups ('Wiki', by definition), working together to iron out their differences. A smaller religious denomination is equally notable as a larger one! However, there is precious little public knowledge available about most obscure groups such as NTCC apart from that which is contributed by a) current members, and b) former members. Before this intervention, the article was a highly accurate reflection of that process.

A well-researched and highly-referenced article with 100% RS and zero OR should be the ultimate goal for every article. However, a low quality yet truthful article is much more of a service than is NO article! To require that every article be fully developed and 'A' rated before it is fit for inclusion is draconian and unrealistic. An article of this nature should be acceptable to continue in its embryonic state indefinitely, with the best available information contributed by the 'wiki' from both sides balancing it out for NPOV. As better-referenced material becomes available to 'wikify' and improve it, wonderful. But during that process, my philosophy is that every article of this nature ought to remain unmolested.69.92.118.115 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TO THE CLOSING ADMIN: Sorry about the bold, but I'd like to point out a quote from the above, which seems to summarize the "keep" votes: "However, a low quality yet truthful article is much more of a service than is NO article!" This isn't a vote, we need to abide by WP rules.
Response: Yes, that's your philosophy, but a) this article as it stood did not have proper sourcing and b) an NPOV article on this topic is impossible under the WP:RS rules. We don't wait around for sources to become available. We have the sources to begin with. Becritical (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a denomination, not a local church. If it has 100 congregations, it ought to be notable, whether it is orthodox or cultic. The problem is that all we have to go on is a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"ought to be notable." Yes, this is rather frustrating, because all the keep votes are based on saying it ought to be notable, or that we ought to "cut some slack" and use blogs as sources. If you want to examine the lousy sourcing, see the recent history of the article. But I'm trying to deal with the reality here. Becritical (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael Catholic High School

[edit]
Saint Michael Catholic High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has no verifiable references from reliable sources. Disputed PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what tell me what to do and i'll comply. My remarks above were totally uncalled for. I know that i'm sorry for them. I created this page because I wanted to give something back to the Saint Michael Community. Tanello1 —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I have remove the comments that i have made and i'm sorry. Sometimes i have the tendency to get easily upset. And i will be reviewing the codes mention by doomsdayer520 {User:tanello1] 2:18PM EST March 6, 2010

Just to clarify, what I meant in my vote above was that the school's website appeared to me as the only primary source available. I didn't mean that the article should be deleted just because there are no sources. Gnome de plume is correct about that. But I also think that the other voters here are making valid arguments so I have changed my vote to "weak delete." DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible, yes. As far as I can tell, there are no secondary sources. I could be wrong. I posted on the article talk page. Tan | 39 19:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough secondary sources. Someone just needs to show a new user how to properly reference the article. New users often don't understand why their articles are attacked and get upset when their initial clumsy attempts, rather being assisted by the community, are immediately deleted. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to one of the secondary sources to which you are referring? I'd like to !vote "keep" here but all I really find is sports coverage and passing mentions. Sixty mentions of a school dance doesn't quite fulfill WP:V. Again, maybe I'm missing something obvious, but instead of simply saying, "keep, there's enough stuff out there", we need to show it and link it. Tan | 39 19:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted some links up 1. is the Niagara Falls Public libary archives of Saint Michael. 2. is the Niagara Falls Review articles of Saint Michael. If there is questions regarding this let me know. Thank you {User:tanello1}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanello1 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try these -
The official opening and blessing of the new St. Michael Catholic High School in Niagara Falls
Saint Michael Catholic High School Profile from Niagara Catholic District School Board
Search at 'Niagara Advance' website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.65.172 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little comment about this page. This page was ment to tell about the past 20 years of Saint Michael. This wikipedia page was ment to be viewed and edited by past, present and future mustangs. As well as the people who want to know about Saint Michael. It was also ment to tell about the great things the school has done over the past 20 years. Like the boy's hockey team winning five straight Zone III championships And when the football team went perfect in 1991 to win their first Zone football championship. All i wanted to do was tell what Saint Michael had to offer and what it does outside the City of Niagara Falls. Anyhow that's is all i have to say. User:tanello1 Thank You 70.48.65.172

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saint_Michael_Catholic_High_School" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanello1 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It has independent sources now, including one from the archdiocese which I just added, so verifiability should no longer be an issue. Consensus indicates that verifiable high schools, especially ones with as many sources as this article has, are also notable and should be kept, so there is no longer any reason for this article to be deleted. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly call that source reliable, but I suppose it weakly helps the notability argument. I still maintain that verifiability is a definite issue. Tan | 39 00:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the others ("keeps" that is). It's a verified secondary school, a topic that consensus consistently finds inherently notable. This has reliable sources to boot. We really shouldn't be debating every single high school in the world as that hinders our energies to creating and improving articles and coming to a consensus on secondary schools in general allows us to move on to actually improving this project.--Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We keep all articles on all high schools, precisely in order to avoid the nuisance of considering each one at length, because when we do we find out that about 95% of them are clearly notable. I am forced to admit that bringing articles here does tend to get people to work on sources, but its sort of like threatening to hang people if they have an outdated car registration. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - high school pages should be expanded not deleted. I support the arguments at WP:NHS. TerriersFan (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because on Wikipedia, a secondary school need merely exist or have existed to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. JBsupreme (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All high schools are notable by tradition/consensus, and this article is much better written and sourced than many others I have seen and voted to keep. I wish people would quit nominating high schools for deletion since they are virtually always kept. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Born Killers (D12 album)

[edit]
Natural Born Killers (D12 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous PROD was removed without comment. This album has been "near release" since 2007 but there is still no verifiable release date. All online discussion about the album's existence and the track listing is in forums and self-promotional sites. Too much crystallization here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian G. Burry

[edit]
Lillian G. Burry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN local politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply? Toddst1 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the subject meets criterion 2. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep all, with no prejudice against a merge discussion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2D (Gorillaz)

[edit]
2D (Gorillaz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These four articles are about the four fictional band-members of the band Gorillaz. As of now, the articles are unentirely unreferenced, and written in a completely in-universe style, without no indication of real world notability.—indopug (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles:

In which case they should be in the article on the band - no problem at all with that. However, to warrant their own Wikipedia articles, they need to have achieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - that's not the band's publicity, and not fansites. There are academic papers on Batman and the Mouse, there are books, there is a body of work unconnected to DC or Disney. Show me that for these guys (and it might exist - I just can't find it) and they can stay, and the articles can be rewritten.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS People, you are not getting it. The subjects of these articles need to demonstrate notability in Wikipedia terms. There must be significant coverage in third party sources that are NOT the band, NOT the record company and NOT fanzines. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all and redirect the "biographical" details into the main Gorillaz article, clearly labeling them as fictional. —24.210.159.199 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all in an effort to give cruft fewer places to congregate. Slac speak up! 11:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, there is far too much information about the band members to list on the main Gorillaz article, and with the release of Plastic Beach a lot of people will be looking for this information. Most of the information on these pages is accurate can be referenced either from the band's autobiography, interviews, or from their website. I'm not sure why no one has done this while editing the articles but the information is out there, I am a major fan myself and I can see nothing false on any of these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.213.2 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, Some of the Gorillaz fictional information have been created by the Gorillaz Partnership, and some has been approved by their local record clients (EMI, Virgin, and so on).–Anthony12584 17:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The substantial amount of info in the individual articles would not only not fit on the main Gorillaz article in their profiles. Not just that but the work put into them would be wasted. The article can find resources and label the profiles as Fictional characters in a pararell universe. Some reworking could be done as well to use proper wording on them and find more outside references. Not to mention the fact the reason there isnt many real world references is because there isnt many interviews that are actual real ones. They are looked at and seen upon as actual beings in a sort of second dimension. If you actually did look around almost no one really ever talks about them from a non-fictional standpoint because of this. As such I stand by my Keep All. Edit: Morphed my keep for clarity.User:Dobat User Talk:Dobat 9:00 EST 11 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep (first choice) or Merge (second choice). While it's unusal for bands to have characters like this, I see no reason we should treat them differently than we would the central characters of a successful TV show, or a series of hit movies or bestselling books. Gorillaz is after all a fictional universe of its own, with three bestselling albums, lots of singles, DVDs, a book and even a live show. So the problem isn't lack of material. Finding third-party sources is a problem, but not in my opinion an insurmountable one. Martin Roach's book "Damon Albarn: Blur, The Gorillaz and Other Fables" (ISBN 0955282284) would be a place to start, as would the innumerable articles on Gorillaz--Noodle recently did an in-character "interview" in US Weekly. And that's just scratching the surface. I have no objection to a merge, but at the same time I don't see how that would benefit the encyclopedia. The content itself is perfectly relevant and valuable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all--Theo10011 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all--per Andrew Lenahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran95 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage of this priest in reliable sources. Indeed, there was no Gnews hit at all, and none of the ghits looks usable to me. Not to mention the abusive sockpuppetry going on in this BLP. Tim Song (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing sure about Seiwert-Fleige is that several German dioceses issued official warnings against him posing unrightfully as a bishop, notably on the internet (see article for sources) and that he is somehow connected to his "successor" Ralph Napierski (perma-banned User:Bischof-Ralph) who continues to put his own "brain computing inventions" into the Fleige article (and tries to auction "real cross relics" on the internet). Please put an end to this fraud. --Papphase (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Of the g-hits for this person, many reference this WP article (mirrors etc.) or versions of the Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục article in this and other WPs. Most other hits refer to primary sources published by either Seiwert-Fleige or Ralph Napierski (aka User:Bischof-Ralph). The only reliable sources are the warnings mentioned by Papphase above, which have been published by various German dioceses. As these are all in German, and auto-translators produce only marginally readable English text, here is a translation of the warning published by the Archdiocese of Hamburg [28]: Be forewarned, Mr. Alfred Seiwert-Fleige has been seen, as the Congregation for Doctrine has acknowledged, among other things posing illegally on the internet as a Catholic priest or bishop. If Mr. Seiwert-Fleige in any way contacts parishes or holds religious services, please pay particular attention and alert the Vicar general of the Archbishop. In other words, this article serves only to perpetuate the hoax of a charlatan. Wine Guy~Talk 20:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a service, here's the traslation of another warning by the diocese Rottenburg-Stuttgart: Warning (title) - Regarding Mr Alfred (Athanasius) Seiwert-Fleige, who often poses as catholic priest or even bishop, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith points out: Despite contrary information that is i.a. propagated on the internet, Mr Seiwert-Fleige was never acknowledged by the Catholic Church nor ever reconciled with it and therefore is to be considered a schismatic. Based on that, I took the liberty to remove contradicting statements also from the articles Palmarian Catholic Church and Sedevacantism. --Papphase (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: fails WP:BLP. The only reliable references cited are the official statements of the Catholic Church disassociating themselves from Seiwert-Fleige. That situates Seiwert-Fleige as a one-man spin-off from the Catholic Church, but doesn't establish notability (or anything else). -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with salt In the previous AfD, I at first !voted keep, as I thought there might be notability in the controversy. I changed to neutral. I now go for delete as I can find very little about this controversy. Yes, there are quite a few ghits, but they are in the vast majority sites parroting Wikipedia (OK, be polite, 'mirroring') or sites involved with the 'organisation' Seiwert-Fleige is or was with. I can not find any biographical information except for his 'ordination', 'consecration' or whatever it was in any independent sources - and precious little anyway. I have read the Archbishopric of Hamburg's warning about him, but that by itself doesn't constitute notability. I would have expected a returned lost sheep to be celebrated - or at least that a retraction of the warning be issued. I am not interested in the theological ramifications of this matter as they are irrelevant to me. (I will confess a slight interest in an issue that I came across where some of the people involved seemed to think a pope had been held prisoner or drugged - good material for Dan Brown when he runs out of symbols...) I am interested in Wikipedia presenting a properly encyclopaedic face to the world, and I now feel that this article is somewhat of a pimple. Peridon (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual fail WP:N insufficient WP:RS to pass. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost none of those citations are reliable enough to qualify (except for the Italian newspaper: Is that a reliable source?), and all the tags are correct. (not sure about the first one though as I believe it only has a lead section and a references section) I do agree with the create protection as well, as there is an unnecessary content dispute with a user that's currently blocked. Minimac (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- He seems to be close to being a self-proclaimed bishop. The question may be whether his imposture is notorious enough to warrant having an article on him. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. JForget 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 34

[edit]
Rule 34 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Permastub of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. None of the other rules have numbers; already sufficiently covered, so a merge is pointless.

What's more, this is attracting a large amount of vandalism in relation to the "rule 34" internet meme, which has been determined by both this afd and this AFD as being non-notable. By deleting this, we eliminate both an unnecessary permanent-stub and one of the biggest vandal-magnets outside the article on Goatse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trail of Omission

[edit]
Trail of Omission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable album, not meeting WP:Music Dlohcierekim 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cut and paste copyright violation Nancy talk 18:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Travelling Band

[edit]
The Travelling Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Warrah (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with no prejudice towards redirecting to Body art. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vajazzling

[edit]
Vajazzling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. Dictionary definition at best - the article fails to establish anything beyond the meaning of the word and the fact that it was used once. Rhomb (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pity, then, that these reliable sources are talking about decoration of the pubic mound in general (pubedazzling?) rather than the labia majora. Even if not, they are sources for the meaning of the word, which is dictionary material. If the meaning of the word hasn't stabilised it clearly isn't ready for the dictionary, let alone an encyclopaedia. Rhomb (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I see someone has changed the article to reflect these sources. If it isn't even clear what the word means ... Rhomb (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as unambiguous promotion, and the appropriation of unrelated images does not speak well to the article creator's intentions. Article creator is advised to review WP:Your first article and seek help from experienced editors before continuing, and if he wants to work on this article further it should be done in userspace first. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LI²GHT

[edit]
LI²GHT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Quantum LI²GHT Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mass of technobabble which fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. To be honest I have trouble working out what it is actually about. Transmitting qubits across a room using UHF? Using visible light? Accurate and agile sensing? Wireless energy transfer? Eliminating internal data bottlenecks caused by the inter-processor communication and internal bandwidth limitations?

I would like to nominate Quantum LI²GHT Channel at the same time since it seems to be the same article.

Particular problems I have with the article are

1. No good references except to articles about "white space", which is just unallocated bits of RF spectrum. Nothing about the actual subject of the article - no good references to SkyTech international/interactive found, or LI²GHT.

2. "invisible, Infra Green, Blue and Red laser diodes to turn the electricity into optical energy that cannot be detected in an everyday setting"

These are apparently colours you can't see. Not like normal red, blue and green then. So where does UHF radio waves come into it? I know what infra red is, but infra green? Fortunately it gets a mention in the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles article.

3. The two photos are not SkyTech Quantum LI²GHT Channel Experiments, as their captions suggest. The captions on the images themselves are:

  • "A military scientist operates a laser in a test environment. The Directorate conducts research on a variety of solid-state and chemical lasers."
  • "Three green lasers are seen emanating from facilities at the Starfire Optical Range on Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. Lasers and deformable optics are used here to eliminate or minimize optical distortions caused by the Earth’s atmosphere."

4. It uses a "laser projectors (or free-space holographic projector for that matter)", but works on a UHF band? Uh? A free-space holographic projector?

ps. You can get through the flash movie at the front of their website by going to http://www.skytech-interactive.com/welcome.php Jll (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete both per G3. Hoax: among other things, the images don't match up with the captions, (already noted by nom) and the quote "it is vacuously true that 0 is an achievable rate for any channel" is pretty hilarious. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melito Dias

[edit]
Melito Dias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insufficient notability Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICurrency Plus

[edit]
ICurrency Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the speedy because the article claims notability as the first currency tracker that sends push notifications to the iPhone. However it is unsourced and very promotional in nature - just not enough to be speedied. Please note that the author is also the product developer. Community can decide. JodyB talk 11:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a very notable iPhone app, not much significant coverage found on Google, and what there is is really a lot of the same material copied on different sites.  fetchcomms☛ 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I am the writer of the page and the main developer of the app, so I will try to be neutral. This application is the first currency tracker application in the iPhone platform that sends push notifications of notable changes in the currencies of your choice to the end user, customized by the currency pairs that the user tracks (no other currency application send push notifications). While the only way to proof this statement is by showing that all other applications in the app store do not meet this functionality, you will understand I can not do this in Wikipedia. I can however, put references to very noticeable sites that decided to publish the press release (including very reputable sites like macrumors.com) where they confirmed that this is the only application that does it. Of course they will all look the same since it is a press release sent to a few sites that decided to republish it to their partners, so by just sending to the main top 10 sites you get more than 300 sites coverage, but with exactly the same or very similar text.
The application has other majors features not included in other currency applications: automatically set some pairs based in your location, flexible customization of the initial view so you can compare the same price in the past, simple interface, nice graphs to easily see trends ... but all of those are more difficult to proof and not as noticeable as the push notifications. So I am not planning to focus on those.
I have reviews and interviews in other major sites in the pipeline, but I am putting them on hold until a new version of the app is released which we schedule to do very soon. I can and I will put these references in the articles if you decide to let it continue in Wikipedia. The reason why I have not done it earlier is because I knew that I will be in this situation based on my more than three years experience in Wikipedia. Since I wrote the article however, I was putting together the list of noticeable sites that reference the application as well a brand new way of explaining what the apps does and how to help developers using similar techniques based on all the experience I accumulated while developing and maintaining the application. I will do all of that only if the article stays, at least on probation.
I have been long enough in Wikipedia to know how it works, so I am not planning to call my friends and ask them to vote in my favor, I will really leave it to you guys to decide. I believe that the person that suggest a speed deletion has a second agenda and I am sure he/she will bring a lot of people to vote against. If you believe that this article or the application is not noticeable enough to be included in Wikipedia, I encourage you to look for iPhone applications pages that has been way longer than this one and ask yourself why have they last so long and mine is been for just a few days and someone already suggested a speed deletion.Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One last notice, since I just updated myself as well, searching in Google for exactly "icurrency plus" returns more than 6000 pages making reference to it. Not that it is important, but it should mean something. Please note that I am searching for the exact phrase, this list do not include "currency" or "plus" references. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You say, "I have reviews and interviews in other major sites in the pipeline, but I am putting them on hold until a new version of the app is released". If you have the power to delay publication of these reviews then they can't be independent. The type of sources that we require are those that don't give the developer of a product a veto over publication. I would suggest that you wait for truly independent reviews to be published, i.e. those over which you have no influence, and only then create a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those publications you are referring to as "independendant", they do exists and I can collect them by searching Google for sure. What I meant is request for interviews about the app that I have put on hold until the next version is launched. Of course I understand those are not that important. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've spent about half an hour looking through the Google web search results (there's nothing on Google News) and can't find anything remotely resembling an independent reliable source. I would suggest to Mr Mateo that if, as he says, he knows of any such sources he identifies them in the next few days, as that is the only way that there is any chance that this article will be kept. I would also suggest not making paranoid accusations of anyone having a "second agenda" and assumptions that the nominator will try any vote-stacking. That sort of childish behaviour can only serve to make people question your own motives for creating this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil, you are right, and I should apologize for that. It is just "interesting" that a user that has very little contributions to Wikipedia nominated this article for "speedy deletion", without any other trial to the article. That is the only reason why we are in this situation now. I encourage you and all others to look at articles in the categories Mobile Software or iPhone OS Software, there are a lot of stubs there way more questionable (and I do agree they should be kept but enhanced, never removed). I can bring all the sources, no question about it, but I do not want to spend hours do that if the article will be removed anyway. One point to notice, the application was launched less than two months ago, it would be impossible to find anything in Google Scholar or Google Books about it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but you are getting this the wrong way round. You first need to provide sources, and then, if they meet our guidelines, the article will be kept, not "removed anyway". Your stubborn refusal to provide the sources that you say exist is what will lead to it being removed. Why, if you already know of such sources, will it take you hours to tell us about them? If they are online just give us the URLs, and if they are in print media give us the publication names, dates, pages and article titles. That will take minutes, not hours. We all know that there are plenty of other articles that don't meet our guidelines, but this discussion is about this article, not those others, so please concentrate on showing how this subject meets our guidelines. Any other articles that may not meet guidelines can be discussed separately - the instructions for starting such discussions are at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got you. This is just a quick list of "independant publications", some of them are just short comments, some are full reviews, some are in other languages, some re-use portions of the press release, some I had to take them from the catched pages at Google since they were news and they no longer exists in the original site. I had no control as requested over these publications or sites. I have excluded blogs (although independant) and any other site (including important ones) that just copy/pasted the press release:
  • I meant by hours to consolidate this list and put all those comments in the article (which I intend to do if an only if the article survives this AfD). Please notice my frustration, that this is definitely the first app of its kind in the app store as recognize by a lot of sites, still we are talking about removing the article. I did not get a comment in the article "This article requires sources", what I got was "A speedy deletion notice" that thankfully was removed by an admin and put the article in this process instead. I will try to cooperate, I just can not believe yet that we are here at this point, nothing else. My frustratino should not be against you guys that are trying to do the right thing. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those are either independent or reliable, all being sites that accept user submissions, and they are just pretty much exact copies of the same text. The fact that many include the wording "promo codes are available for qualified reviewers" shows that this is, pure and simply, spam, and your attempt to abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes can only reflect badly on you, as this discussion will probably be near the top of any web searches for "ICurrency Plus" for years to come. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE: you all have been very helpful, honestly I do not have the strength to fight for this, there are so many articles in Wikipedia, not remarkable at all, and they all get "this article require sources" tag, sometime for years, mine got a "speed deletion" tag instead, from a user that has very little contribution to Wikipedia, so you guess then how i feel ... if people believe that I am doing this to get free promotion (which I can show that I have not got one single reference from Wikipedia to my site) and they want to remove the article "because this is the right thing to do" then so be it. I have very reliable sources like [[32]] and [[33]], but they "cannot be considered" since they are basically the press release. For an interview or independent review you have to pay money for it. To me does not make sense that I need to pay money just to be included in Wikipedia ... what is it important to me is that this is definitely the first app in the apple store that sends customized push notifications about important price and performance changes in the currencies of your choice, in more than 200 currency application no other does this; that is noticeable enough, but you are deciding to remove the article because I cannot prove it to you in the terms you want. None of the iPhone OS articles in Wikipedia meets the criteria described here. Please note once again, I never got "this article requires to be improved" instead I got "this article needs to be removed". But once again, thanks, honestly! Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should have been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising. The entire article is a features list done up as a tutorial. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IMHO this likely is notable but clean-up and sourcing are concurrent issues that have to be addressed. I found this which seems to be more parroting a press release but using that you likely could find the press release and use it as a primary source. Likewise with pulling interesting information from their Facebook page. The issue remains that this product is likely too new. Has it been discussed on the business morning shows? In trade publications that are online and geared toward those in the stock markets? Those would be credible as much as a shout out on Oprah. It confirms that the product is notable enough to meet our present guidelines. As a suggestion Miguel.mateo, if there are not, yet at least, independent coverage in reliable sources you might want to halt this current deletion discussion and agree either userfy it or send it to incubation for more work adding reliable sources as they are found. Absent those Wikipedia is just not well equipped to address products that don't obviously have plenty of good sources readily available. Additionally every company, band and marketer wants to promote their item(s) so the culture on Wikipedia is to not be terribly trusting of items in those areas unless it's obvious that they are notable. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more try to give some more information:
  • The original source of the press release: http://prmac.com/release-id-11020-search-icurrency+plus.htm (it was sent to other sites too but this was the main distributor to secondary sites)
  • The same press release in honest and really reliable sites (they do not publish anyone, there are others which I could not find, but with patience in front of Google they will show like macrumors.com and appleinsider.com):
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D. Marks

[edit]
Paul D. Marks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete There is no evidence of notability. No sources cited in article, and no independent sources found by searching. Even by the unsourced claims in the article the subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR. I prodded the article, and the author (SpaceOdyssey) contested the prod. SpaceOdyssey also did me the courtesy of informing me of the contesting, and very helpfully posted on my talk page a list of 15 references. I have checked all 15 of these, and have found the following: Listings of books, many of them on sites selling the books, and some of them giving no more than the title of a book and its author's name, others giving very little more. A "reader nomination" for a competition. A file containing several stories, one of them by Marks. A page reviewing numerous books, one of which is a collection of stories, including one by Marks; in this review there is a two sentence mention of Marks's story. Another review which contains a one sentence mention of stories by several writers, including Marks. A page which lists books by Darrell James: one of the books also contains stories by other writers, including Marks; Marks's name is included in a list of contributions, and that is the only reference to him. Unfortunately, none of these comes anywhere near being significant coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaminda Hettiarachchi

[edit]
Chaminda Hettiarachchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP appears to fail PEOPLE guidance, the most potentially notable claim is being President and Executive Director of the Sri Lanka Diaspora Professional Association which is not, of itself, notable. A search for independent reliable sources reveals little. I find this book: State of democracy in South Asia: a report, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 184, ISBN 9780195689372 which has a tangential mention in a list of other names for left-wing activists and a couple of tangential mentions on Google News but nothing that would constitutes substantial impact. There is nothing significant on GScholar to indicate that a rationale using PROF would be appropriate. Ash (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 13th part II

[edit]
Friday the 13th part II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:HAMMER. I guess it has a name, but the actors are "rumored" and the plot is "awaiting a script." I assume it's written, but still not enough. Shadowjams (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saidham daspan

[edit]
Saidham daspan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable temple. No reliable sources were found. Request AfD. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 09:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-admin closing due to un-contentious and unanimous early consensus that the article should be redirected to the Jumper article, given that the content of the new article is pulled directly from the original's section on the possible sequel. Additionally, article creator has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper 2

[edit]
Jumper 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. All information regarding the film is purely speculative, at this point, as far as I can tell. I will rapidly retract my nomination if somebody can find something better than a blog post or an IMDB page to support that this movie will actually exist. The title is apparently still very much up for debate (WP:HAMMER) -- this article was originally giving a title to the movie that I simply can't find support for anywhere. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Foust

[edit]
John Foust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Good looking article, sorry to have to nominate it, but it's a local politician that fails WP:POLITICIAN #3 from what I can see. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Washington Post articles as references are just standard, local (since this is an election within the Post's home readership area) listings of candidates. They aren't articles about him, so I am not sure how the article meets criteria #3. Even if it's big, it's still local. Shadowjams (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how much press coverage do you think the New Orleans City Council gets outside of New Orleans? -BLM Platinum (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well-sourced article about one of nine people who govern an area with over 1,000,000 people. Per criterion 2 of WP:POLITICIAN, I'm willing to make the argument that this amounts to significant press coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair argument but I would object to the assertion that the article's well sourced; there are 3, 2 from the post that they do for every local candidate, and 1 from the local Fairfax county government. The ones you found are local press coverage in my estimation, but maybe there's more there that can be hashed out. (I'll stop badgering now). Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial reality TV shows

[edit]
List of controversial reality TV shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per standard AFD consensus against lists that tag the listed items as "controversial", delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry couldn't help it. The real problem is that "controversial" is a very subjective term. Something could be controversial to some people and not to others. It is also used a lot of times as just a label to indicate that the person writing the news story doesn't agree with what's going on. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or there could be a "controversy" section in Reality television.(There is already a "criticism" section. Anything new in this article could be added there.) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge possibilities can be discussed on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Melbourne Thunderstorm

[edit]
2005 Melbourne Thunderstorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS and I feel it doesn't meet WP:EVENT, just a run of the mill thunderstorm CTJF83 chat 06:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I reiterate that 120mm of rain in Melbourne is a very large amount, additionally, two people died from the storms. For now the article should be kept. Before we delete articles, we should be creating better systems of classification for storms on WP, looking for ways to better include this information rather than exclude it, delete it and forget about it. Nick carson (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources given by Marcusmax above. Everyking (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Hanks

[edit]
Doug Hanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed wannabe politician who withdrew from a city council race when it was found out that he was a regular poster on a racist website. Was covered, for a short period of time, by the local media and a generic AP story. Really nothing more than a case of WP:BLP1E because his climbing a flagpole is even less of an event than his failed candidacy. Article was declined for speedy once and then a prod was removed because there was supposedly discussion about a merge, but the discussion never happened. Original author appears to be blocked for socking. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ecovillages

[edit]
List of ecovillages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No one is against the page. It's just a question of the limitations of Wikipedia. It shouldn't be a storage place for lists of information, hence WP:NOTDIR.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I endorse the view of User:Gene93k. When I came across the page I thought "Hmmm, this page is incomplete and if complete will be quite extensive. What about a list of notable ecovillages? That is a possibility but the page is essentially a list of external links and therefore is a deletion candidate because of WP:NOTDIR." -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I tentatively suggested nearly three years ago. In the intervening time, little has been done to raise this article to anything like the scope of the lists provided in the External links section. To compensate for what looks like the pending deletion of this list, I have copied those external links to Ecovillage. — Epastore (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. If a list is being maintained on another site why should we duplicate the work, especially in a case like this when more ecovillages are being founded all the time -- or should be if the movement is successful.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I take the blame for nominating this too quickly, I'll wait for it to develop and see what comes of it (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Melbourne thunderstorm

[edit]
2010 Melbourne thunderstorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS CTJF83 chat 04:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Don't think I could form an opinion one way or another until the storms are over, if the hail truly is this huge and striking a major metro area chances are there might be fatalities. If that were the case, or the damage is severe enough I would say keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I must say, a subject's notability or any classification for inclusion here in WP shouldn't be based on damage or fatalities. The size of the hail alone is justification enough for inclusion, not to mention the cancellation of several major events, damage to key public buildings, evacuations and injuries. Above all else, Nick carson (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete delete Osman hajy marouf, and no consensus with leave to speedily renominate for Worker–Communist Party of Kurdistan. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) amended, Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osman hajy marouf

[edit]
Osman hajy marouf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Minor politician. The reference inserted in deprodding is a Wikipedia mirror. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Worker-communist Party of Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
for which only a trivial reference was provided by the creator. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Party leaders and national political parties are usually notable. This is the Google News archive search for his other name, Amjad Ghafur. This is a Google search for his Arabic name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 04:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Osman Hajy Marouf. Three weeks listed and this is still a BLP with only two sources: one plonks his name in a list; the other doesn't seem to mention him at all and in any case is obviously an unreliable source. This presented by Eastmain appears merely incidental. The Arabic-script sources he/she then provides are just a google list: the reliability of the sources has not been established, nor is it anywhere near clear to what extent the subject is covered by the sources. This BLP is therefore nowhere near passing WP:BIO (or WP:POLITICIAN which also applies). Its retention is totally contrary to policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Atonement (Christian holiday)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Day of Atonement (Christian holiday) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination has come out of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday). This is a similar article - it's essentially a POV fork of Yom Kippur. All Christians who observe the Day of Atonement are in fact observing the Jewish (or Hebrew of Biblical) day of Yom Kippur. Hence, Day of Atonement (Christian holiday) should be merged into Yom Kippur. But I have already transferred all the information that seemed relevant and verifiable. So what remains can be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think edit history is an issue here, since I wrote the section in Yom Kippur afresh. It covered the same ground as in this article (e.g. the Book of Hebrews) but there's no particular text that has been copied across. StAnselm (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Breakthrough (album). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Never Told You

[edit]
I Never Told You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable single, it has not received significant press coverage or chart positions. Should be replaced with a redirect to the album. Fences&Windows 03:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tim Song (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Ten Music

[edit]
Twenty Ten Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This music publishing house was, by its terms, created in 2010 and has quite a few social media sites, but Google News search has 0 listings (if you put it in quotes to find the actual phrase) "Twenty Ten Music".

As for google normal search, there are a few non-primary social networking sites and as a byline on a few ringtone and commercial sites, but nothing that would indicate notability. Shadowjams (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate the work--it's much improved. My lingering concern is that of all the non-primary source references I looked at, I never found the phrase "Twenty Ten Music" in any of them. Are there any that indicate some coverage of the company that I missed? Shadowjams (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good question, Shadowjams. While many of the artists the company's signed to publishing deals have already received prominent national coverage, as have the company's initial recording projects, the company itself seems yet to be profiled at length in a major online outlet. This is no doubt due to the company being in its first year of existence. That said, I would propose the notable prestige of the company's founder/overseer combined with the company's immediate successes and ability to sign notable artists (as highlighted with citations) attests to its significance and increasing importance in the worlds of music, film and television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Swartzendruber (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would change my nom !vote if someone would add some sources. The references in there, that are independent, don't really talk about the label (when I checked; if they're updated, tell me). Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phayrelands

[edit]
Phayrelands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Describes a house with no notability whatsoever. Also, a very short article giving no sources. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claims of notability, and can't find reliable sources to establish notability either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Albert

[edit]
Eric Albert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)s

Unreferenced BLP regarding non-notable author. Subject has several friends that are active Wikipedia editors, something to consider when reading comments. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources, as Gigs said, are really not going into any depth on the subject, which leaves us where we came in. If we have an article or section of an article on computer-generated crosswords, a namecheck for Mr Albert there seems sensible since MelanieN has found a good source for that. But I'm struggling to see that there's enough here. For a stand-alone piece. Is there a decent smerge target? I couldn't find one although I didn't look very long ... If it can't be smerged it'll have to be deleted, unfortunately. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 No rationale given, NRHP makes it notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Theatre (Seattle, Washington)

[edit]
Paramount Theatre (Seattle, Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Wurlitzertheatreorgan (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials

[edit]
Thermal Exchanging Composite Materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Thermal Transference through Composite Materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kalt Fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ball Capz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a multiple recreation, with different titles, of speedied article about a body cooler product. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TXR2. Google News returns no results. Sources are largely Wikipedia articles, blogs and forums.

The connection:

Sole Soul (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any relation to the company that produce the product and have you used any other account in this site? Sole Soul (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! pointless question, even if the answer would be yes for both, do you expect any admission? -RobertMel (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We have other ways of proving other than admission, that's not the goal. I want the user to have a chance to come forward and clear things up. Sole Soul (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is no promotion, the article has a notability and a sourcing issue. Sole Soul (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the connection provided by Sole Soul, the articles refer to products from a compagny. See for exemple Kalt Fusion, there is no such recognized technology, pay also attention to the logo on that page. The creator found a briliant way of not having to mention the compagny by creating different articles. -RobertMel (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the two page mentions the other. One page refers to a performance fabric and the other is a medical and food storage gel pack. There is no links to websites that sell the items or names a specific company only a technology. 3M carries the gel pack under another name in a medical program and is available in hospitals. Should that link be added? Danda2 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kalt[e] Fusion, in German literaly means cold fusion, there is no Kalt Fusion meaning what your article means. In fact, the logo on the right side, which in the summary you have added logo and branding. The fact that the content of the article you have created say: Capable of reaching dry ice... means that Kalt really intended to mean cold. We can easily conclude from the logo and the claimed technology that it is a branding of a claimed compagny technology which has no notability. -RobertMel (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image has been removed. It came from awards banquet brochure for new tech. Should I include websites that sell this technology under other names? I avoided doing this only because it seemed like promotions of sells. Thank you for your help. Danda2 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a term of art, unnecessary neologism. Do a search in Google scholar or other engineering database. The name of the article is a subterfuge. If the topic exists outside of the patent, find sources. They aren't here. --Bejnar (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 relisting there are still valid viewpoints on both sides of the aisle. At this point in time, this is a no-consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election

[edit]
Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically a page of biographies of non-notable individuals, who ran in a local election several years ago, and who received very few votes. This article seems to be a cover for providing bio pages for these candidates. Neither the political candidacy nor the individuals themselves seem to rise to the level of WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Note: second nomination)
Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 1997 Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 1993 Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I have noted, the 2000 election page was nominated for deletion with the result of keep several years ago. The prior AfD can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marxist-Leninist Party candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election.

The prior AfD kept the article feeling the proposed deletion was hasty and the article could be expanded. This and the related articles have long been in a stable form and are probably as expanded as they are going to get. A fresh assessment of the notability of this subject is called for. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also: if the vote is for delete of all of these articles, Category:Marxist-Leninist Party candidates for the Canadian House of Commons and its subcategory pages should also be deleted. It appears their are some individual biographies that are part of this category as well. In any event, it seems to me like this category needs consolidation. Breaking it down year by year for just a couple of articles is not justified. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the same rational, hundreds, or perhaps thousands of articles can be created which à priori are unenclyclopedic. What about creating articles about list of those who worked on Windows 95, 98, XP, Vista and then 7? Don't you see what I am getting at? -RobertMel (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Petitioning for 50 names hardly indicate significance. The number of votes most of those candidates got hardly significantly exceeded the number of names they've got to register as a candidate. Mind that not only they are not ministers, not only they are not deputies... but they've also all got under 1% of the votes. -RobertMel (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually 100 eligible voters that must sign, this means they must be Canadian citizens over 18 years of age who live in and are eligible to vote in that riding, you also must deposit $1,000.00. To become an official part you must run a minimum of candidates in the election, MLPC is recognized by Elections Canada, if it was not the candidates would have to run as independents--Mista-X (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Also, you should have an official agent and auditor, it is not really that simple to run or else everyone would do it. Which is sort of the point MLPC has put forward. --Mista-X (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they were on the ballot at the federal level itself denotes significance in some form, that in itself is enough. Changing opinion to Strong Keep. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A federal election is notable, but all participants at all levels? For example, if somebody is running in one very small district representing a Toronto neighborhood, and even on that scale gets 0.2% of the vote and runs 6th or 7th place, that doesn't indicate notability. Yet, because of these articles, a number of people who have only this marginal of a claim of notability have Wikipedia biographies. I think the compromise where these articles are simply reduced to candidate lists and vote tallies is called for. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong absolute delete - Those sort of articles create precendents. It's unacceptable to create several articles for each elections of some small party which has non notable candidates. Any relevant info should be on the parties mainspace. -RobertMel (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists are useful, particularly when there is no corresponding category. Most losing candidates, even from a party that wins a majority of the seats, are considered individually non-notable, but there is still a role for listings by party. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastmain is correct that lists of this type are useful. But RobertMel is incorrect that this article is setting a new precedent — the precedent permitting this type of thing was, in fact, already set years ago, and by AFD, to boot. That said: these articles have tended to turn into something they were never meant to become, which is a giant pile of unsourced BLPs smooshed together. The original idea was that these would be just reference lists, not long aggregations of unencyclopedic campaign brochure biographies; Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election is a much better example of what these lists were supposed to be. Keep, but strip the unsourced biobumf and reformat to be consistent with Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election. It should also be noted that the CPC/ML ran 71 candidates in the 2006 election, 84 in 2000, 65 in 1997 and 51 in 1993 — but as currently constituted, each of these articles only lists a fraction of the complete slate. It's not a topic that's too small to be useful — they're just incomplete articles. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, that nothing prevent anyone to do the similar for this party for exemple, anyone wanting to creat his own notability and be in Wikipedia will only have to find 50 signatures. Minor parties with candidates who gets few dozens of votes can do well having few relevant statistics in the article on the party itself. But here, not only we have lists, but for each elections. -RobertMel (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a bunch of low quality BLPs, about largely non-notable persons. It's a great place to throw possibly contentious poorly sourced material, where nobody will ever notice. While a properly sourced/formatted list article may be appropriate, *none* of the content in this article would be of any benefit. If somebody wishes to make such a list article, please go straight to Elections Canada and get your data there, and use nothing from this. These wretched lists tend to be made in a piecemeal manner, by merge/redirects from BLPs that should have been deleted, but are instead copied, without *any* editorial review, to garbage dumps like this. Again, deleting this, does nothing whatsoever to discourage a good list. --Rob (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is that some people don't review the situation very carefully, and just speedy the new version as a G4. The appropriate solution is usually to keep and reformat the list and then delete contentious or badly sourced information from the visible edit history, rather than deleting the whole thing and then recreating it from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G4 is a fair concern, but that's to be solved by admin education (and there's always an undelete option). The merge/redirect approach is only good if bad content is useful in making good content. It isn't here. It's easier to make good new lists based on Elections Canada Data. Also, future good new bios are best made by sourcing content from external reliable sources, instead of trying re-use existing content from the person's "nn days", which were probably written by the candidate them-self, their friend, or worse, their enemy. I can see a situation where somebody who wins their first election has somebody spin off a separate article from a list like this, and simple keeps the text largely as is, without properly reviewing it, and providing sources. In the rare case where somebody writes a "almost but not quite good enough" bio for a candidate, who's content is worth preserving in history, but doesn't warrant an article quite yet, that article could be re-directed to a party article, if a list article doesn't exist. --Rob (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bruce Lee#Fight history. Rough consensus is that the topic is not encyclopedic enough or notable enough for its own article. Most of the article's suitable content has already been merged to Bruce Lee. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight history of Bruce Lee

[edit]
Fight history of Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is not notable, since Bruce Lee who was an actor throughout his career and not a professional fighter, did not participate in official tournaments and thus, unlike real sportsmen, lacks an official fighting record which could be referred to on the basis of solid sources. Combing through the entry reveals the unsubstantiality of most of its contents:

  • 3. Quotes about martial arts and fighting skills is trivial and thus needs to be removed anyway
  • 2. Fights Without Date / Anecdotal / Speculative is precisely what the heading says
  • 1. Fight History by Date consists of scattered references to brawls and street fights in Lee's early wild days. The evidence rests mostly on hearsay from eye-witnesses. Only one of Lee's few semi-official fights took place within the framework of an organized event and none in a regular martial arts series. It is clear from that that Lee was never a real tournament fighter and that the oral character of the - invariably awed - accounts of his other fights naturally frustrate any encyclopedically useful attempt at an objective evaluation of his fighting capabilities.

Most of us are fascinated by the movie icon Bruce Lee, including me, but the whole entry is a thinly disguised hero story and as such unencyclopedic to its core. The two episodes which had indeed an impact of Lee's life and career, his teen brawls in Hongkong which led to his remigration to the US, and his unwillingness to stop teaching non-Chinese in his Oakland dojo, should be transferred to Bruce Lee, the rest discarded. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On a closer look at the main entry Bruce Lee, there are more dubious forks such as The awards and honors of Bruce Lee and Physical fitness and nutrition of Bruce Lee, but I will leave their discussion to others. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um the reason is because the paragraphs were too long to be placed in the main article. I condesned the sections and split it in trying to clean up the main article. I think given Lee's unusual physical fitness and widespread coverage sources on this, this is appropriate. There just need a lot of work to be written into articles. I certainly think there is enough interest in such an article. 12,505 views already in February 2010. But I have no objection if you want to readd it to the bloated main article and condense it down. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 11:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Gun Powder MA: To say he was (only) an actor through and through would be the same as if you say Arnold Schwarzenegger was an actor through and through, never a bodybuilder or politicain. If the name of this page would be "Fight RECORD of BL", i would totally agree with you, because he wasn t a so called "professional fighter". But what is a professional fighter? A sport figther or tournament player. But c mon, fighting and martial arts is much more than tournaments or sport. When people claim "Bruce Lee was not a tournament fighter", they re right! But to say he was not a (street) fighter is not true. If we start to relate ANY comments about fighting to sport records, we have also argue about the claim that the Samurai Miyamoto Musashi was involved in over 60 duels during his lifetime, and never lost one. No "official" source exist for his fights, but it s no reason to delete this claims.

  • - his fight against Wong Jack Man is documented, just two different opinions (Linda Lee Cadwell claims it least about 3 minutes. Wong himself claims 25).
  • - his fight against Boxer Gary Elms in a Hong Kong Boxing tournament is mentioned in many documentarys. I am sure you could find more sources about it by visiting Lee s former school in Hong Kong (La Salle College), because it was a school tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.227.220 (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - all quotes in section "Quotes about martial arts and fighting skills" are well documented (just check out the references).
  • - the opening thread stats "some by date, some without", so any reader can judge for himself what he want to believe, especially the section "Fights without date / Speculative / Anecdotal".
  • - to claim the whole page is unsourced, undocomented etc., is not true.

Other example: Go to the wiki site of Wong Shun Leung, who was the teacher of Lee. You re gonna find a statement like "Wong reportedly won at least 60, and perhaps over 100, street fights against martial artists of various styles". Should we delete this as well, just because Wong was not a "professional fighter" too?

Both should be mentioned and taken serious. It s not fair just to consider professional fighters and ignore street fighters.

Finally i hope there come more people and talk with us about it. Because i don t think 1 or 2 people should judge about remove a whole site. Best Regards 188.97.227.220 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC) CB (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2010 (CET)[reply]

Comment: I agree we need to hear more opinions, but in the end we have to decide with a view to the standards established by the documentation of fighting records of true professional sportsmen. These can be nicely summarized from and solidly referenced through official statistics and all kinds of sports almanachs, but for Bruce Lee's inofficial fights we are reliant on the (rose-coloured) oral accounts of (self-declared) eye-witnesses. This is not an objective way and I don't see how a encyclopedic entry can be based on that slim and unreliable basis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep informative article that might interest many readers. Str8cash (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sure a list of Bruce Lee's pre-marital dates might interest even more readers, but that can hardly be our criteria for keeping, can it? ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any claim has his source, exactly as it should be on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with it, Gun Powder Ma, ignore it. Like i said before, especially the section "Qutes about MA and fighting skills" is WELL documented. If you say it isn t, you consider guys like Manny Pacquiao, Joe Lewis, Ed Parker Jr., Dan Inosanto etc. as liars. Pls. do some research before you judge about it. Take all kinds of documentaries, books, and any source listed as reference, and then say again it is not objective. This page was done around 6-7 months ago, and to this day no one said it should be removed (deleted) because of "unobjectivity" or what s however. Why? Think about it... CB (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (CET). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.227.220 (talk)

One last thing: Please still fair and don´t try to maniuplate! Some individual changed my words above, put in some statements i didn t wrote, so i had to fix it. It s not my decision to keep or delete, but it s also not encyclopedic to change words of other people. I guess anyone will agree. Best Regards ;-) CB (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.227.220 (talk)

Currently the article needs a lot of work. Note it was split from the main article because it was too long and needed many of the quotes cutting out. I think this could be written into a decent written articles with adequate sources. But it would rebloat the main article again if we were to delete this... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 11:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected as I think it is more appropriate to condense this in the main article. I only split it because it degraded the main article. An AFD is unnecessary and a waste of time. The article amounts to little more than dubious coverage of his teen brawls. I've now cleaned this up and reinserted it into the main article without bloating it You are free to close this AFD. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 11:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort, but I am not sure if we are allowed to remove the tag in the midst of an Afd, and whether this makes sense. After all, you only moved the problem from one place to another. What do the admins or somebody competent in these things say? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in future you'd be better discussing things with the creator on the article talk page first and proposing to merge before going to AFD... I've redirected the Physical article too. I've condensed them and cleane dthem up a little, the article is better than preivously. I only split into this article to remove excess from the main article. In thinking about it the best thing would have been to clean it up on the spot like I did earlier instead of splitting into more messy articles... This article probably fails WP:Athlete anyway... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the ongoing Afd, since the question is not only if an article of its own should be kept for BL's fights, but also whether much of the article's contents is encyclopedic. Please don't remove the tag again ("this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed"). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must have a lot of time to waste... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There could be a thousand books each repeating the same few unreliable eye-witness accounts, but they don't change the fact that Bruce Lee has no professional career to show which we could objectively trace here. Since he was a street fighter, the testimony to his fights is mostly anecdotal, which makes the entry not notable in my view. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What means "well sourced" for you? Are you happy with an article which mostly consists of reproductions of eye-witness accounts (and invariably flattering to the extreme)? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of street brawlers can get "eye-witnesses" to say what good fighters they are. That Lee was involved in some street fights isn't notable in itself, people only care because it's Bruce Lee and he's famous for things other than his street fights. Since Lee didn't compete in organized competitions there's a lack of independent reliable sources. If any of the fights can be shown to be significant to his life, then it should be in his biographical article. Papaursa (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that there are frequently multiple accounts of the fights, being a street fighter is not what makes Lee notable, but it is important nformation about a notable marital artist, and the mail article is too big to include this in there. Tidy it up, scrap detail based on overly POV single reports fine, but if your reading about Bruce Lee, some sort of info on fights is very relevant. --Natet/c 08:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two episodes really noteworthy, his teen brawl in Hongkong which led to his remigration to the US, and the fight which resulted from his unwillingness to stop teaching non-Chinese in his Oakland dojo. These two can be summarized in less than 1 KB. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You comment on any "Keep" statement your opinion, over and over again. CB (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2010 (CET)
Comment: The user has just awakened from a long long peaceful slumber. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - everything notable here can be, or already is, covered in the main article on Lee, and the article itself is very bad. Many of the sources used are not even remotely reliable - I mean, A&E programs, random websites, (deleted) blogs, and IMDB pages? Really? There's also Wikipedia self-reference, taking disputed and much debated bits of martial lore at face value, and significant claims that are uncited or original research - the section on the Wong Jack Man fight is especially bad because of this. At the very least, what is here needs to be seriously cleaned up (this also goes for what has already been copied to the main article, which now sufferes from some of the same problems). Ergative rlt (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree there would be in interest in Bruce Lee's fights, but the lack of reliable sourcing renders most of this article useless. Much of this is against unnamed opponents at unspecified times (or vague dates like years). Even the apparently documented ones fail the reliability test--I find it hard to believe he finished a 10 second fight by "knocking Uechi the length of the gymnasium." If you eliminate the irrelevant quotes section and the undocumented incidents the little that remains could easily be incorporated into Lee's biography (if it isn't already there). Papaursa (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Given that the contents of this article have already been cleaned up and merged into a relevant section in the main article I see no point in continuing with this.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, with no prejudice towards merging to parent article, if anything worth merging can be found. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squeeky Kleen

[edit]
Squeeky Kleen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, unsourced minor cartoon character from the 80s. Wikipedia is not a fansite.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge not a major character, if I have it right, and therefore should not get a separate article. But needs a section in a more general article, with a redirect. No reason given why a merge is inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing substantial to merge here, we do not merge material which violates WP:NOR policy. JBsupreme (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to improve or merge and redirect with edit history intact per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. No valid reason exists whatsoever for needing to redlink something that we can verify with a reliable source and that has on obvious redirect location: C.O.P.S.#CROOKS. At worst, we would merge the reference verifying the actor who plays the character to that cast list on the main page and no good faith editor would ever argue against improving the main article by merging a published book reference from this article to something that is presently not footnoted in the main article and certainly not when this article is neither a hoax nor libelous. The character is notable in the fictional universe in that he is the yes man and personal servant of the main villain, i.e. is a recurring character seen over and over with the principal villain. Now obviously this article matters to those who created and those who come here to read about. Thus, per Wikipedia:Editors matter, there is no reason why we would inconvenience these members of our community by not at worst merging the reference to the main article and leaving a redirect behind. Because the source is from a published encyclopedia it is not original research and it actually is consistent with our First pillar of being not just a general encyclopedia, but also what you find in specialized encyclopedias. The reality thus remains that this character has at least one reference from a reliable secondary source; he comes from a mainstream franchise that spawned toys, a cartoon, and comics; he was a major recurring character in that franchise; he is listed in a published, print encyclopedia; the edit history of the article is not libelous; a valid redirect location exists; we have at least one mergeable reference to that redirect location; etc. Thus, per all of our policies and guidelines there is no reason nor need to delete anything and nothing that cannot be handled by usual editing of a talk page discussion or just being bolded and looking for sources first per WP:BEFORE (and actually adding any you find as I did) and then either starting a merge discussion on the talk page or being bold and merging and redirecting and then starting the merge discussion if the redirect is challenged. We should in these instances approach things in such a reasonable manner as to 1) look for sources; 2) if we find any (as yes they do exist) proving it isn't made up or lies either incorporate them or if they are insufficient to source more than a sentence or two, then look for a merge or redirect location; 3) if being bold is challenged, then start a talk page discussion. AfDs are for what we cannot source at all and what has no even debateable redirect location or for material that we must legally protect ourselves from. But clearly in this case, we would be doing our project and readership alike a disservice by not at worst merging the sourced casting material to the main article and leaving behind the redirect. And no reason exists why we would not at worst do just that. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to the show. The "published encyclopedia verifies the actor who plays the character" is the only reliable source that mentions this character at all, and that actor is listed in the main article. Otherwise the article consists of plot regurgitation with nothing to preserve. Abductive (reasoning) 08:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks fine, plenty of valid information which someone interested in the show and its characters would find interesting and useful to read. Wikipedia doesn't just exist to show things that some reviewer thought worthy of mention. Dream Focus 14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Who ordered the massacre of C.O.P.S. characters? It is a bit amusing to step back and see how heated these deletion discussions about emphemera (but which some people care about) can be. Looks like no consensus here, so i vote No consensus. Is that possible?--Milowent (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe merge-- no sign of independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Just as Dream Focus uses the same language to vote !keep in this AfD as he does in the Bowser and Blitz AfD, I will make a similar point. There is not only minimal reliable sourcing for conferring notability on this topic, such sourcing is nonexistent -- and nobody above appears to even dispute this. We have rules here, people. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge into character list. A notable enough character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have preceded this but we're here now. There is a reasonable point that our readers may benefit from a reorganization where instead of one main and multiple individual character articles that a main article plus several supplemental articles combining many of the major characters and likewise for the minor characters. This would also be a useful suggestion for writing about fictional series if we are doling out suggestions for other editors. -- Banjeboi 13:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Define or defend "notable enough character" -- I haven't been able to find any evidence at all that this is the case. As for integrating into a character list, I am dubious about how doable this is, otherwise I would certainly support based on the character's verifiability. I don't think the COPS article should end up being 1MB long when every single character has to have its own epic "highlights" section, although I have no issue with incorporating a brief description of each character (which makes this less of a true merge, if you will). But, sure, by all means include some additional info on the characters in the COPS article. There has been some good faith discussion in that article's talk page about how to effectively merge the content. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 C.O.P.S.. Any sourceable content can be merged to C.O.P.S.#Cast and Characters at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bowser and Blitz

[edit]
Bowser and Blitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, unsourced minor cartoon character from the 80s. Wikipedia is not a fansite.

  • DELETE or merge there is a lack of reliable third person sources which discuss the character to demonstrate significant coverage of the character to justify an article and the YouTube videos fall foul of copyright usage use per WP:YOUTUBE Dwanyewest (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether someone has invested WP:EFFORT into an article is irrelevant PamelaBMX. The question is does the article have or can there be found reliable third person sources to show that Bowser and Blitz which discuss the reception and significance of the characters which is basic wikipedia criteria. I feel like many of C.O.P.S. articles it doesn't follow this criteria and using YouTube videos doesn't count. I am willing to accept a merge to the main C.O.P.S. article but the issue I have with merge is this has been done with the likes of Buttons McBoomBoom and Rock Krusher and from what I can see no notable information from either article has been merged because they like this are merely plot summaries and nothing worthy merging except character names.Dwanyewest (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...not from what I see - the subsection of Cast and Characters on the main article page is names only. It could easily be converted into a table with brief characteristics of each character. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Nothing but plot summary and original research. Reyk YO! 09:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this unoriginal research per What Wikipedia is in some manner or other, whether that means continued improvement or redirecting with edit history intact this valid search term that is not a hoax nor libelous per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. We can verify with the most reliable sources we have: our senses. Using our sense of sight, we can see that this character appeared both on TV and as a toy. We can even purchsase the character to hold in our hands in the real world. No actual reason exists for a need to redlink something that is not something say I just made up. Rather this is a character from a memorable mainstream toy and TV show franchise that has relevance to those who study toys and cartoons alike. Per Wikipedia:Editors matter, we are considerate to our fellow editors and readers rather than wanting to get rid of simply what we personally don't like. And in this case, there is just no reason why at worst we wouldn't redirect with edit history intact. I hope the article can be improved instead, but any reasonable admin would at worst redirect to a relevant cast list in the main article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure plot regurgitation, no secondary sources. None of the keep arguments above have the faintest shred of validity. Abductive (reasoning) 08:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and work on sourcing. Too big to merge, and it appears to be a standard fictional biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete grossly violates our policy which disallows original research. JBsupreme (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks fine, plenty of valid information which someone interested in the show and its characters would find interesting and useful to read. Wikipedia doesn't just exist to show things that some reviewer thought worthy of mention. I just reverted an edit which someone tried to delete 99% of the article. Wait until the AFD closes, before taking such drastic action if consensus decides that is to be done. Dream Focus 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Redirect/Merge In reading the above comments in this debate, I haven't seen a single person even attempt to justify this article's inclusion based on the standard criteria for inclusion. I suspect this is because there is no way to actually justify including this article based on notability. In fact, I more than suspect this -- a GNews, GScholar and GHits search confirms this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I mean, it doesn't even get more than 2 or 3 Google hits that are about the topic and aren't mirrors or Wiki products. The two GNews hits are the character names appearing in credits or a plot summary (and one mention per hit), and there are no Scholar hits at all. Clarifying: I support a redirect/merge of content as well, although any merge needs to be handled carefully and with an eye toward not overwhelming the target article with a ton of information on one character. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major/main character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have preceded this but we're here now. There is a reasonable point that our readers may benefit from a reorganization where instead of one main and multiple individual character articles that a main article plus several supplemental articles combining many of the major characters and likewise for the minor characters. This would also be a useful suggestion for writing about fictional series if we are doling out suggestions for other editors. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll make a similar comment here as I did on the related AfD for Squeeky Clean (since closed and deleted). What you describe above is not a reason to keep. Notability of each character is not inherited by having appeared in a notable show -- them's the rules. There needs to be evidence of notability, plain and simple. I have looked for some, and am turning up literally nothing. I would support merging a small amount of this content into the COPS article, but this article should be deleted if nobody can find literally any reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability (I have tried -- it's just not out there, although if someone finds something I'll naturally change my vote!). By "small" I mean that the character descriptions could be fleshed out a bit, similar to many other TV show articles on Wikipedia. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there is wide disagreement on the best way to handle character articles but my opinion remains the same. In many cases we should simply re-organize the content and there is not a good reason to delete the content. If you pulled all the content into one massive article you would quickly look to how to split it out in a commonsense fashion. Some editors have gone the traditional route and created a stub for every character that seemed needed. i think a character list would make more sense and serve our readers better. In either case a thoughtful and constructive merge is the way to go, not deletion. -- Banjeboi 06:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am more than fine with a thoughtful and constructive merge :). Modifying my vote above to make that clear. My hesitation with simply voting "merge" is that you can't really merge more than (arbitrary percentage inbound) 5% of this article's content into the target article and have it still be "thoughtful and constructive," if you get me. But, again, fine with merging, think that is the way to go, and that's how the Squeeky Clean AfD turned out, more or less. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with car wash. I will be redirecting, anyone is free to merge pertinent material there. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 03:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waterless car wash

[edit]
Waterless car wash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. No reliable sources with significant coverage found to back up article. :Majen27 · talk 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Jerry Moore, 12th Baronet

[edit]
Sir Jerry Moore, 12th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking references to support notability. No Ghits or GNEWS of substance to support. Being a baronet or an aerospace engineer doesn't confer notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Provided external sources where subject of article has been referenced as a subject matter expert in his field. Additional documenation provided from NASA archives relative to work on Apollo missions. Continuing to provide additional references. Sterlinghind (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)sterlinghind[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. References do not support much of what is claimed in the article. Edward321 (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cusco (band). These don't appear to be notable per NALBUMS, but redirects to the main article are unexceptional and will retain the edit history in case any can be worked on to bring them up to a suitable level. Black Kite 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Sound of Cusco

[edit]
The Magic Sound of Cusco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:MUSIC and particularly WP:NALBUMS. No listing on amazon, first result on google is wikipedia, nothing on google news archive. This AFD could certainly be expanded to include other Cusco albums:

The exceptions may be Water Stories, which hit #1 on Billboard New Age albums, Inner Journeys, it reached #6, Ancient Journeys (#2), Apurimac III (#7), A Choral Christmas (which gets a rating on Allmusic - though I consider this dubious), Apurimac II (#8) and The Best of Cusco (#11).

Someone put a lot of work into producing a full set of album discographies, but that doesn't excuse the lack of sources and lack of coverage. There's also a lot of unsourced opinions about the albums on the pages I could see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge? Generally speaking, I'm of the opinion that if a band is notable, its commercially-released albums will be notable as well, on the grounds that an album by a notable artist will almost certainly have reviews somewhere, even if it's some niche music publication not easily accessable online. That said, if this truly is the exception to the rule and this is a notable band with a huge output of non-notable releases (as strange as that sounds), perhaps a merge of the lesser works into a single article might be preferable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not sure about the particular album that is the title of this AfD, but a number of other listed albums (in addition to those listed as exceptions) did chart,[45] so there should not be a notability issue for those. Further, the notability guidelines for albums are less restrictive than for song, and so charting isn't even required. Rather, per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." But I am not sure the album in the title of this AfD even meets that requirement (unless it was released officially outside the US), and so deletion may be appropriate for it. But a blanket deletion of the other listed albums would not be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was released officially outside the US (they do have a couple which were not, and they are not included in the discography), but I don't see a problem creating a single page for the compilations if this is found to be preferred by the majority of people. It seems that perhaps it is okay as it is, but if it is not, I can work on merging the compilation pages together. MXVN (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, if the nomination doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell because I misread NALBUMS then that's my bad - I don't do many music-related articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* All of the band's studio albums are available at Amazon, CDUniverse, etcetera. Granted, the compilation "Magic Sound of Cusco" in particular, while released officially, has been out of print for a long time, and what I could do is merge the band's compilations into one page (including Dreams & Fantasies, which is also hard to find), so that there would no longer be a need for a page devoted to an out-of-print and thus largely unavailable disc.
As for the other albums, the OP simply listed every album, then made a couple exceptions based on exceptionally high chart ranks. It is true that charting is not required for inclusion, and surely the band's entire work is still relevant as they are studio albums and are still available. I see no unfounded opinions presented on any of these pages, however granted there is a sore lack of source references, and this should be worked on as well. The sources do exist, even for the less immediately-available albums, and I can add them in with enough time.
A point I'd like to state is that the tracklistings and other information is of relevant interest to anyone curious about the band's input, and should certainly not just be thrown out entirely. As the proposed compilation merger obviously has not been done yet, I ask time to do so if any deletion is to be considered further. Thank you. MXVN (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Ring of the Dolphin isn't just a re-release; it was entirely recorded over again, and thus its relevance remains intact for both releases. MXVN (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another note I should add is that Apurimac and Mystic Island were also very successful. Apurimac was the breakthrough, and MI was top 5 on NAIRD but I don't have a source for that at the moment. The reason why Water Stories shows up first on Billboard is because they didn't have a New Age chart until that time. Other albums (Cusco 2000) also charted well; this information should simply be added if it is not already there. MXVN (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Cubs futility theories

[edit]
Chicago Cubs futility theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article consists almost entirely of original research by synthesis. The various items lumped into this page appear to have been connected solely by Wikipedia editors, not by third-party reliable sources. The various "curse" rumors can be best addressed in those specific articles, which already exist. *** Crotalus *** 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some clean up and the move/rename option on the article talk page seems like a better option than merge. Article deals with many broad issues (some requiring some clean up i think) as to why the team hasnt won for 102 years. But Id perfer it not to be futility in the name. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the equivalent of tabloid gossip. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just one large analysis of why the Cubs haven't won a World Series in a century, rife with synthesis and original research. Stuff like "In other years the Cubs have shown they can win, or at least contend, when their pitching is superior.", belongs on a baseball website, not an encyclopedia.--Atlan (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changing my vote from a redirect to the existing article about the curse, since there seems to be some opposition to that. The idea of an additional article to "explain" why the Chicago Cubs haven't gone to the World Series in more than 60 years sets a bad precedent. I suppose that we could do similar analyses about why a particular team hasn't made it to the World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, NBA Finals, etc. in for any stretch of time. The Chicago Cubs annual failure is a notable part of American folklore, but not such that it becomes a branch of science. This is a semi-interesting essay, with some citations to statements such as the weather being humid in Chicago in July, or the teams record in a particular year. It's not its own encyclopedia article. Mandsford (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Basil

[edit]
Priya Basil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This author does not meet notability thresholds per WP:N, WP:PEOPLE, or WP:AUTHOR. While she has one award win, and several award short listings, it appears that only the long listing is for an award that itself it notable. The awards involved are:

  • Second place for the World Book Day "Book to Talk About 2008" competition. This award is only mentioned on three Wikipedia pages[46] and only seems to be reported in the media as part of book publisher's announcements.[47]
  • Short-listed for a Commonwealth Writers' Prize. It appears the Commonwealth Writer’s Prize is not notable though is gaining momentum. It’s mentioned in seven Wikipedia articles.[48]
  • Long-listed for the Dylan Thomas Award. The Dylan Thomas Award is not notable though is mentioned as part of 23 Wikipedia articles.[49] There is moderate media coverage though it all seems to be from book publisher announcements.[50]
  • Long-listed for the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award. While the award’s Wikipedia article does not document its notability it has enough coverage that it likely is notable. There are 153 mentions on Wikipedia[51] and 810 media mentions[52].

To sum it up, there is one long listing for a likely notable award and then a second place, short listing, and a long listing for non-notable awards. This does not seem to mean notability per Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Any biography which includes “The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.” --Marc Kupper|talk 23:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the Guardian article none of those were the "significant coverage" of the subject from sources "independent of the subject" that WP:N asks for. I have added the Guardian article as one of the references for the Priya Basil article. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added most of the references you are seeing as they contain quotes from Priya Basil herself. If the consensus is keep then the references can be used as source material to fill out the article a bit more. However, other than the Guardian article the references are not the "significant coverage" of the subject from sources "independent of the subject" that WP:N asks for. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of it is quotes from Priya Basil herself and thus is not coverage of Priya Basil. The lead before her quotes is her standard author blurb. I've added it to the list of references. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable. possibly when reviews of her next book come out, then the article could be rewritten. worldCat shows only 113 holdings of her first book, which is not enough for a single novel. the actual amount of content on it in the Guardian is small, just inclusion in a group review of first novels. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I researched and found some more independent references: [53], [54], [55] and [56]. She participated in The Hague in a project about translating, called "The Chronicles" (2007), which, I think, is another possible source for the article: [57] Atonement100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atonement100 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Atonement100. [8], [9], and [10] are book reviews with no coverage of Priya Basil, [11] and [12] are a book review and photo caption that both include one sentence of coverage which WP:N classes as "plainly trivial." Please see WP:N. As she was participating in the Hague translation project it's expected there will be coverage of her by the project itself. That would not be independent coverage. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Marc. May I asked you why book-reviews are not independent? And [8] is a rather long review in the magazine India Today, which has just one topic: "Ishq and Mushq" and the author Priya Basil; the same can be said for [10], a review of the book in The Lumiere Reader. Maybe have a second look. Atonement 100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atonement100 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Employers Using Social Networks for Screening Applicants

[edit]
Employers Using Social Networks for Screening Applicants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay that appears to be WP:Original research, Disputed prod. noq (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Not a deletion issue. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis James (musician)

[edit]
Dennis James (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article has been posting fradulent information about his firing from the Seattle Paramount both on this page and on the Seattle Paramount Page. Wurlitzertheatreorgan (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Dirt Landscape Architects

[edit]
Women in the Dirt Landscape Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems non-notable  Chzz  ►  00:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google and GNews searches turn up no reliable sources that discuss the film directly in detail and in a non-trivial manner, providing no evidence that the film meets WP:N. The lack of sources also means no proof that the film meets notability criteria #1, #2, #4 and #5 of WP:NF. The article does state that the film has won an award from American Society of Landscape Architects, as evidenced here. However, this awards does not qualify as a "major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" as required by criterion #3 of WP:NF since the award is not given out by a body related to the film industry nor was it awarded for filmmaking as much it was awarded for its subject matter. There exists no indication that the film meets any of Wikipedia's notability criteria, the article should be deleted without prejudice towards recreation should the film become notable at some point in the future. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Completely unnotable "student" film that was clearly created by someone affiliated with the film. The single claimed award is not a major one in any way, and it has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:N and WP:NF -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 F♯A♯∞. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Hastings

[edit]
East Hastings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub status, WP:OR ("Arguably their most iconic track..."), I see no significant coverage of the song via a Google search to warrant a redirect to F♯A♯∞. The sole reference can be integrated into that article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefani Valadez

[edit]
Stefani Valadez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minimal Google News archive hits for this singer, and almost all are just quick mentions in local publications that Valadez will be performing in the area. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, so seems to fail WP:GNG. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Ralph

[edit]
Yung Ralph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rapper, no coverage of substance that I could find. Has released one studio album on a minor indie label. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion-io

[edit]
Fusion-io (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising for non-notable company. There was a PROD on this at one point which got removed. There are no reliable sources for this article, just self-published PR reports. Woogee (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet case closed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jodimardesich/Archive Jodimardesich (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gush

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kim Kardashian#Television producer. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Cheban

[edit]
Jonathan Cheban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publicist. A Google search shows little to no write up in reliable sources outside of social networking sites and celeb/gossip sites. Starting a (non-notable?) TV show and having notable clients is not sufficient since notability is not inherited. Astronaut (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A four page Washington Post article has been included that from 2005 that demonstrates notability. You will note the requirements for entertainer biography are as such, "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." SPINdustry certainly unique as it is the first reality show of such a public relations business. Cheban is a prolific celebrity as he is regularly a part of Keeping up with the Kardashians, and has gained notoriety in the Washington Post for his business. While many people don't believe Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton deserve their fame and notability, one cannot deny they are famous and notable -- the same is true of Jonathan Cheban. This seems to be more a matter of personal taste, than a matter of whether this post is truly notable. jwolfe2 Significant changes have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwolfe2 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC) — Jwolfe2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment It is not "a matter of personal taste"; it is a matter of finding significant coverage in reliable sources. At present the only reference is to a promotional page on the web site of a company belonging to Cheban. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*MERGE with Kim Kardashian. badmachine (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why? Jonathan Cheban's involvement with Kim Kardashian is one small event in Kim Kardashian's career, and not notable enough to warrant space in the article about her. I have found little coverage in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i meant a redirect to something like Kim Kardashian#SPINdustry, Kim Kardashian#Producer, or Kim Kardashian#Other endeavours or something like that. badmachine (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as nominator, I would be happy with a redirect. Astronaut (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4Digital Asia

[edit]
4Digital Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no assertion of notability, particularly considering the parent company was repeatedly deleted. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was able to find some ([60], [61]) reliable sources that mention the company in relation to a film they represent. However, WP:N requires that the "sources address the subject directly in detail" which they do not; I was unable to find any such sources. Should the subject meet the notability requirements in the future, I hold no prejudice towards recreation at that point. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very well-reasoned discussions above. Policy requires deletion here. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triks

[edit]
Triks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, notability in question, bit of an advert. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTibia Server

[edit]
OpenTibia Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prey for Nothing

[edit]
Prey for Nothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band lacking references to support notability. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Binhendi

[edit]
Ali Binhendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mid-level director of an airport terminal does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Speedy tag was removed by author; probably not speedyable due to assertions and minor awards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above Freikorp (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Being mentioned in multiple places is not enough to ensure that someone meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. The research done persuades me that there is nothing at this time to indicate notability. Also, the fact that several editors indicated that they had found multiple references to his notability but only provided one does not help. something lame from CBW 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Daniel

[edit]
Mohammed Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. The subject was only mentioned in one independent source, al-Watan. Linked-in, youtube and Cardoba Inst. hardly constitute reliable sources. Supertouch (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just Googled him in Arabic as you suggested (here are the results: [62]). A link-by-link translation: the first is to someone with the same name at Friendster, the second to the story of MD's religious conversion, the third is to another person with the same name at Facebook, the first video link to emanway.com is simply video footage of his conversion story, the second video is to youtube dealing with a person named Muhammad accepting Christianity, the next is to the Myspace page of a musician named Muhammad Daniel Farees, after that is a link to yet another recording of MD's conversion story, following bb another link to the Muhammad who became a Chrstian and the remaining links are about the Prophet Daniel. In summary, in Arabic, only three links are about MD's religious conversion which it seems safe to assume are all links to the same lecture—the first works fine, the second is a "dead link" as we say at WP and the third requires registration so I couldn't view it.--Supertouch (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As non-notable. I've been one of the main contributors to this article (#2 in edits, and the nom here is #3), editing it since November 1 in an effort to clean it up from what originally was a great deal of puffery and reflect whatever notability the subject has. Unfortunately, I agree with the other editors who have opined above that the subject is simply not notable. BTW, if/when the page is deleted, someone might make sure to delete as well all the lists of notable people that the subject was added to.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— BintAmeen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I second my previous delete as BintAmeen has resolved nothing her above quote. In fact, the desperation by which she is trying to prove notability is in fact confirming the exact opposite.--Supertouch (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interviews don't count towards notability at all. Nor, for example, do a LinkedIn reference and a Youtube reference -- both of which should be removed, as should the text they "evidence". I don't see RS coverage of the subject at a level that meets Wiki notability standards. Furthermore, BintAmeen is an SPA with a total of 10 edits, and AFANOF is an SPA of the same ilk, with only 8 edits before this AfD. Finally, Dlohcierekim only spoke up suggesting that in his/her opinion it met the lower criteria it had to meet to survive a speedy -- but did not say he/she thought it met the notbility criteria needed to survive an AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many more references have been added to the article and yet more will be added. The challenge is that most of MD's work is reported in published press and not on websites as the region he resides in are not too internet friendly yet.AFANOF —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
— AFANOF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment I think that lately a big effort has been made to conform to the notability guidelines as can be seen by the many references that are now provided on the main article. The unverifiable information such as mention of Cordoba Initiative has been taken out and replaced by information with sources. The sources that are not wiki complaint such as Linked In have been removed. I would also like to add that being fluent in Arabic, I have also done a search for Mohammed Daniel with his various titles as mentioned by editor BintAmeen and found numerous links in Arabic that cover the subject. One such example is by the Qatari newspaper Al Sharq that covers his ideas extensively and can be found at: http://www.al-sharq.com/articles/more.php?id=165786 Not to mention a search in English brings up dozens of results related to the subject. I feel that a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist has not yet been made as it is clear there is still much that can be said. I don't see how the sources are unreliable as they meet the criteria set out by Wiki which say:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

I also think that some of the editors need to act in good-faith and not bite the wiki newbies by talking about their personal edits and would recommend that everyone remain civil. Thank you and continue the discussion.AFANOF (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm uncomfortable offering more than a comment as I don't feel qualified enough in this subject area to find and judge sources. I do find this discussion acrimonious rather than simply and civilly helping editors understand why a source or subject does or doesn't meet our current guidelines. If a subject truly isn't notable then that should be obvious to all, and things change, they may be notable soon enough, sometimes a media article or two is the only difference. AFANOF, if you are pretty familiar with the subject, I ask you to consider a few options. If you're pretty sure there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject and they can be easily found then all that needs to happen is finding them. They don't have to be woven into the article immediately but we do have to know they exist. If you're not sure they exist or can easily be found then it may make sense to wp:userfy or wp:incubate the article off "article mainspace" until it's been cleaned up and sourcing added. This can be done instead of continuing this discussion here or fi the article needs to be deleted it can be userfied instead. Any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an issue w/it being userfied. I'm one of the editors who for months tried to improve the article, having made the most edits, all towards improvement. Supertouch has also spent time trying to improve it. After personal effort, and giving it months for others to improve it as well, it doesn't have any notability under wiki standards, however. As far as my esteemed colleague's comment above as to it "should be obvious to all", things don't always work that way when SPAs are involved. Here, all voters other than the SPAs are in agreement that it lacks in notabiity.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm not an SPA and usually I can offer more than an instinctual opinion. I neither agree it's notable or not, I simply can't tell and have to rely on those well versed in this subject area. If there is no way this person is likely to be notable then userfying won't make any difference as the article will never see the light of day. If they are borderline then other options may make sense. If they already meet sourcing and notability guidelines then we want the article but we need assurance that we want it. So encouraging those who are showing a vested interest in improving the article up to standards would seem to make sense. Worse comes to worse this article is lost but we keep those editors who go on to do good work in others areas. -- Banjeboi 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the non-SPA editor in this discussion most versed in Islamic scholarship is Supertouch, who has improved a great number of hadith articles. I've enough knowledge to believe N has not been evidenced, but his review of Arab sources suggests that N does not appear there either. It may well be that it will never be N. But I can't crystal ball that. If I can discern notability I'm always happy to vote for keeping an article, and if I can improve one to save it, I'm happy to do so, and have done so many times. This article just hasn't had the substance, despite my effort's and Supertouch's. I've even held off myself removing some of the questionable links, such as linkedin, preferring to point out that they do not belong and letting others do so. I've done what I can for this article, without acrimony, but don't think that the SPAs opinions under the circumstances ... which are the only ones claiming notability (and have even added the subject to the list of notable Isamic scholars) ... are accurate or should be given deference given that they are SPAs. I'm happy for the SPAs to do good work in other ares, though to date they seem to have made very few such other edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. let's see if they have an opinion on userfying or anything else pertaining to finding sources. if not the article will likely be deleted and they can later ask for userfication if so desired. thank you for your thoughtful reply which answered my concerns minus the further input from AFANOF who I hope will see the efforts here as a bit harsh but well-meaning at the end of the day. -- Banjeboi 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AFANOF, I read your above comment and have the following comment. I am fluent in Arabic as well and have translated the results of Google search for MD above and the only ones mentioning the MD that we are concerned with here (believe it or not there are others with this name) are all links to video of his conversion story so your comment that you have found other sources via web searches is less than believable—adding the word shaykh to MD's name is simply not going to result in more search results. The article in al-Sharq does not at all cover his views extensively, it simply mentions his views among others about a particular conference he was participating in the length of which is perhaps 20 lines of text—hardly extensive. Perhaps you could have succeeded here with your misleading statements were it not for the presence of another Arabic speaker. (PS—I re-Googled MD a few minutes ago and got the same results as translated above.)--Supertouch (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supertouch, Interesting that you mention 'misleading' as I am not the one misleading anyone. I have already dispelled the accuracy of your search previously by providing the reference you are referring to (SHARQ) as well as adding new Arabic sources to the main article. I sincerely doubt your good-faith effort to find sources in Arabic or your ability to read Arabic. If you had done a proper search you would have found those sources as they are dated from 2009/2008 so it seems that you either have a bias (as can been seen by your edits to articles on Ibn Taymiyah/Albani) or need to be more meticulous in future. To further stress my point, I have just done a google search for MD in Arabic and have found half a dozen more links mentioning him; two that appear in verifiable bona fide Kuwaiti newspapers today. Here is the link to one today http://www.alraimedia.com/Alrai/Article.aspx?id=190500AFANOF (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you a sock-puppet for User:Rob lockett? And if so are you still bitter about me discovering your copy—paste violations in the two article you mentioned above? The article you mentioned in your above post simply mentions MD's name once that is it. I just searched using the above Google news search as opposed to the Google homepage as I did previously, and yes more articles came up, however, the first article simply mentioned his name, this is notability? Perhaps if I get time I will look through the remaining articles. As for doubting my fluency in Arabic, grow up kid and learn some respect.--Supertouch (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest to Super that he ignore AFANOF's baiting. If there may be a sock at work here (AFANOF and/or the other SPA--I've wondered the same myself, given their edits), a sock check may be in order. Otherwise, I would suggest not letting AFANOF's language get your goat.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Summing up what I have seen in this discussion I have found the following:

Supertouch nominated this article for AFD based on "The subject was only mentioned in one independent source, al-Watan. Linked-in, youtube and Cardoba Inst. hardly constitute reliable sources" However we find numerous other sources to the subject now as extensive improvement has been made to the article.

Secondly, it is obvious to any prudent person that the only 'misleading and less then believable statements' mentioned in this discussion are those of Supertouch, who instead of acknowledging their weakness in the Arabic language or lack of effort in web searching the subject, tries to circumvent the discussion by claiming that AFANOF is deceiving others (SOCKPUPPET), when it is quite apparent where the deception emanates. It has been comprehensively proven that your web searches lack substance and as for your Arabic skills, I would recommend that wikipedia have more stringent guidelines or criteria before awarding language proficiency titles to editors.

Epeefleche, I understand your sentiments towards Supertouch and your sycophantic tendencies towards him; one need only look at your talk pages and side edits to see the strong bonding you have done. But, please don't make sweeping statements such as "At this point, after 13 days, all editors other than the SPAs suggest delete (Supertouch, Bartlett, Mkativerata, and I)" when this is clearly not true.

AFANOF if you are really concerned about this article then just add more sources to it. We could all do with learning more respect, but we respect those whom respect themselves.

I think we need to leave out any emotions and bias that we may have and look at the article impartially, so that we can end the discussion soon.91.140.181.159 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete both -- Flyguy649 talk 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogfight flight simulator

[edit]

Nominating for deletion two related articles:

Dogfight flight simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Electronic Sports (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating for deletion two related articles -- Dogfight flight simulator and Electronic Sports (disambiguation). The first article is about a brand of electronic exercise bicycle that has a built in flight simulator, and the second is about the company that makes the exercise bicycle. I am nominating these articles for deletion because I believe that neither one meets the general notability guideline. I have done some searches using Google and I can find pages about the exercise bicycle, but, besides blogs and discussion forums, they seem to be on sites that are selling exercise equipment. Editors will notice that both articles read like advertising intended to promote a specific product, but in my view that's not the real problem -- that is, both articles could be rewritten to have a neutral point of view without too much trouble. Additionally, the second article is named incorrectly, but, again, that could be fixed pretty easily. It's the notability that's my concern here. I am prepared to change my opinion if someone can establish that these topics have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that are non-commercial in nature. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it sounds pretty interesting actually. Heymid (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 22:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mashflob

[edit]
Mashflob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Extremely few reliable sources. Request AfD. Thanks. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 14:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP OK the most responsible reason to keep this listing is the ability of the web to bring people together. It's not really notable, not really used by huge numbers of people, i.e. FACEBOOK, but the site has brought together some groups to do novel and some hopefully unique activities. If the internet, and Wiki, and in a small way, this web site, and therefore this listing can make the world closer and friendlier, then by golly, what's a couple meg of server space and a link? Or more likely, if this drops off Wiki, then the hope for a free web where people make new things happen, even those that don't generate revenue, i.e. taxes, will turn into a corporate 'big brother' nightmare. Well, somewhere in between Freedom in Fields of Flowers and Slavery to Corporate Masters is the space we all like to live in and MashFlob needs to be here with us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.69.40 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's promotional of the website, and lacks notability. Nuujinn (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Baaje

[edit]
Guru Baaje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonnotable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 14:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Osborne Hughes

[edit]
John Osborne Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is going to come up for AfD sooner or later, so we may as well start the debate straight away. In my opinion, this is a biography of a non-notable person. I am unable to find a single non-trivial source to support notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards music station

[edit]
Backwards music station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Good faith search identified no coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers station doesn't have a list of numbers stations, less yet a list of non-notable numbers station with no historical significance. Unlike some articles for deletion, this one has no content worth preserving. Bongomatic 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Editors,

I believe that this information should be preserved in Wikipedia, but I'm kind of new here, and I have no idea how to write an article. I tried to ask for help with writing the article, but no one would help me. Perhaps I could move this to my User Page or something?

Thank you for your consideration.

Sean 0000001 (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean 0000001 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Illinois (album). JForget 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago (Sufjan Stevens song)

[edit]
Chicago (Sufjan Stevens song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song. The sole reference can be merged into the album's article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Catchdubs

[edit]
Nick Catchdubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article violates WP:NOT as it is blatantly using Wikipedia as a means of promotion. Also, the subject doesn't pass WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC as I haven't been able to find significant discussion about him in reliable, third-party sources, nor has he significantly impacted his field or won any major awards. The sole reliable source in the article only mentions him in passing. ThemFromSpace 05:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Watson

[edit]
Rodney Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coach of questionably notable team. No sources. Coaches aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**(A) Why is so-called "notability" relevant? (B) Assuming it is (which it's not), how is the head coach of a perennial powerhouse in D2 Men's Basketball not "notable" by any reasonable standard? (C) Only direct quotes and contentious statements need to be sourced; what direct quotes or contentious statements do you see in the article? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 14:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • I generally respond to strongly held beliefs like A with a question: If you could put odds on it, what would be the odds of me changing your mind about anything? I would put those odds at zero. If you're honest, you would, too. Based on that, what's the point of replying with any substantial defense? I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, and vice versa. Should we really go back and forth a dozen times just to prove that? (FWIW, I never disputed point C.) Şłџğģő 15:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanites

[edit]
Urbanites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

They have one notable media mention (and a number of event listings from newspapers) and one unreleased EP. I would make this {{db-band}}, but I figured I would get more feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Great band, great local following. I vote to keep. [64] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.123.228 (talk) — 70.95.123.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP The argument is not about how subjectively 'good' this band is, but Notability.

  • SXSW and Summerfest are MAJOR music festivals with internationally notable lineups. They significantly add to this bands noteworthiness. WP:BAND
  • Topspin Media (founded by former CEO of AOL Music), is much like a major record label, in that they market on behalf of an elite and exclusive roster of noteworthy musicians (Paul McCartney, Beck, Sigur Rós, etc.) WP:BAND
  • The record industry, as opposed to the music industry, is becoming largely irrelevant (not to mention bankrupt). The omission of financial barriers for studio recording and the lack of demand for physical distribution of units (i.e. the decline of compact disc sales) are changing the way independent artists become viable and historically significant.
  • Furthermore this page is well referenced with a variety of media - everything from newspapers, music blogs, and magazines (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Chicago Sun Times, The Chicago Reader, LP33, etc.) And while it is true that this band appears to have only one studio recording to date, the aforementioned accomplishments - independent of a multiple recordings or a 'Major' record label - make this band significant. - Ellie Southworth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.122.25 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC) — 76.77.122.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP It is also noteworthy that the band has an endorsement agreement with Paiste, a musical instrument manufacturer of great significance in music history; they wouldn't offer such an agreement, unless the band was remarkable and had reach in furthering the reputation of their products. band 63.237.35.227 (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) -Braden Reyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.237.35.227 (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC) — 63.237.35.227 (talk) 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, JForget 00:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team Bohe

[edit]
Team Bohe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion (WP:CSD#A7) declined, so I am listing here. This article has no assertion of notability , other than that it has apparently notable players, but notability is not inherited. Joshua Scott (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources at all are cited in the article. I checked the first couple of dozen hits on a Google search. Most of them were mirrors of this Wikipedia article, and others made only brief passing mentions of Team Bohe. No evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Hamelin

[edit]
Christine Hamelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, non-notable writer. Ridernyc (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a different person. Most of those hits seem to be about a biologist. Ridernyc (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough I don't find it at all difficult to tell. Many of them are quite clearly not this Christine Hamelin, and those that are (or may be) this one make only passing mention of her. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The two "references" given are merely links to google books search results. In one case it looks as though she has written a brief review included in the book, and in the other she is merely cited as a source for a quotation from someone else (Janette Turner hospital). There is nothing that remotely suggests she is notable in her own right. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly events, 2005

[edit]
Monthly events, 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominated: Monthly events, 2006.
It doesn't seem to be any usual sort of article, and hasn't been reproduced for 2007 and next years. Considered as a list I can't see encyclopaedic interest in it, this rather seems to be for maintenance or internal organization. I think that WP:NOTDIRECTORY is applicable and altogether justifies deletion. Cenarium (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noureddine Ziane

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Noureddine Ziane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This living person doesn't meet the notability requirements for chess players. SunCreator (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2010_March_6&oldid=1234126041"