< 26 October | 28 October > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jamaicans in Switzerland
- Jamaicans in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable group. No improvement to article since last, no consensus, AfD nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per nom. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Amazing that this survived as a no consensus back in January, but part of that seems to have been based on the premise that someone was going to add to it. Basically, it's a factoid-- there are 800 persons of Jamaican origin or descent among the 8 million people or so in Switzerland; and there's a link to an article that didn't really have anything to say about a Jamaican community, other than that there was going to be a Bob Marley celebration in 2005; and there's a "when you have nothing to say..." intro that says: "Jamaicans in Switzerland is a Swiss-born person of Jamaican descent, or a Jamaican-born person with Swiss citizenship." This looks like a variation of the Groubani "Random nation x - Random nation y relations" articles, like Japanese Costa Rican and Palestinian Peruvian, that has nothing to report. I'm not in favor of keeping for the sake of keeping, and this could probably be mentioned in Jamaican diaspora. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to be able to satisfy notability criterion. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 1.) Numbers-wise this would not be significant, as 800 people in this world of billions is unremarkable. 2.) This is not an ethnic group (just a nationality choosing another place of residence) which seemed to be--for whatever reason--the main argument in favor last time. 3.) The article doesn't assert its notability other than to say, essentially, "Jamaicans live in Switzerland" which isn't significant. 4.) 3 Google news hits isn't enough to satisfy "widespread coverage" to meet notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable permutation of countries/peoples. More simply put, not any RS sources talking about the group to indicate notability. Shadowjams (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled My Chemical Romance album
- Untitled My Chemical Romance album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:HAMMER, No official tracklist, name, or release date. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom and WP:NOT A CRYSTAL BALL. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER, nothing's confirmed yet. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This album was the subject of a previous Afd which resulted in 'no consensus' and 'rename'. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the Sins.... J04n(talk page) 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No extensive coverage that gives cause for an article right now. No tracklist, title, or release date. It's too soon. talkingbirds 20:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCould not find reliable sources to confirm definitively, therefore fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I don't see a problem with merging the information in this article with the band's main article. The band's article already has a section for the upcoming album. Assuming the band continues working on the project when it meets WP:NALBUMS (I believe it will in the near future) then an article for the album itself will be in order. Narthring (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: it's WP:HAMMERTIME. Notable band, not-yet-notable album. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Adequate coverage already exists. At the very least it should be merged into the band's article. It's a little shocking that nobody else in this discussion has considered that option.--Michig (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to the adequate coverage would help change my opinion and allow it to be verified. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven sources are already linked in the article. We know that this has been recorded and has already received plenty of coverage. Why would this not at least be merged into the band article?--Michig (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence ≠ Notability. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 18:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven sources are already linked in the article. We know that this has been recorded and has already received plenty of coverage. Why would this not at least be merged into the band article?--Michig (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Flood (EP)
- The Great Flood (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. Neelix (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not individually notable; didn't receive any reviews, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could not find enough information to establish notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Omar Hafeez
- Omar Hafeez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is unreferenced and a google search shows no real evidence that any of this is either factually accurate or (if it is factually accurate) notable. Jhbuk (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources, written like a 5th grader. I would reconsider if I saw sources or something that looked like a Wikipedia article. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Poorly written, unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first saw this, I put it up for WP:PROD, but User:Nerdluck34 removed it for some reason, which is why I decided to come through AfD, as I wasn't sure for what reason he removed it. It may well not have been a particularly good reason. Jhbuk (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to verify, notability not established. Since he is supposedly a Pakistani actor better sources may exist in a language other than English, but those sources still need to be cited. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E21C
- E21C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a spiritual centre which fails our notability guidelines as I cant find any significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The article currently doesn't evidence any notability, but I think the content is a little too substantive for an A7 speedy. It is also written with promotional language and does not discuss the subject from an encyclopedic standpoint. ThemFromSpace 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any reliable sources to prove this passes notability standards. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources mentioning E21C outside the publications mentioned in the article, and those are all self published. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: I found hundreds of sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between Google hits and reliable sources. When I did a Google search and looked at many of the hits I wasn't able to find any verifiable third-party resources. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This fails WP:N and the search results supplied above simply return basic cross-links (all with the same company-generated description), and not actual media coverage Transmissionelement (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J.C De Leon
- J.C De Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear at the UCLA offical roster, and cannot be verified Singularity42 (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any coverage of him in reliable sources, Appears to be a hoax. The creator's username is similar to the initials of the subject. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Talmud
- Steve Talmud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actor (described as "best known" for a current ad.) Google search for "Steve Talmud" and "actor" finds zero relevant pages. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any reliable sources to establish notability. The one "reference" in the article doesn't even mention his name. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm unable to find neither any other roles he has taken nor even a fan page, large or other, as mentioned on WP:ENT. TheTito Discuss 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – No GHits of substance and zero GNEWS entries. ttonyb (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Best known for his role in a Windows 7 commercial? Sorry, you're not Mr. Whipple or the Geico lady. Mandsford (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing#Account_managers. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BOINC Account Manager
- BOINC Account Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (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) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing#Account_managers no reason for a separate article. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge+Redirect The account management program is trivial, not notable in-and-of itself, only within the context of BOINC. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I get 294,000 hits when I Google it, but I doubt any of that is notable, outside the context of the BOINC itself. Dream Focus 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per above. Many of the other BOINC related pages are fairly informative and rich in detail; if this is all that can be said about the account manager, it probably does not rate a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Article has some decent reliable sources. Although it needs a lot of work, that is not a reason to delete. Also, although this is not simply a vote, I note that no one besides the nominator has explicitly stated they feel it merits deletion. Any merge or redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Windows Police Pro
- Windows Police Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non notable software. Article contains long lists of registry keys and files that software creates, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Possible COI, as user has only created articles on the subject of malware that use the same website as a source. The source provided is not reliable. Netalarmtalk 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 21:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Arbiter★★★ 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This virus gets plenty of mention, along with others of its kind, in the media. http://www.softsailor.com/how-to/6793-how-to-remove-windows-police-pro-virus-windows-police-pro-virus-removal.html Did you bother to Google? [1] Over four million results! And you can spot Bleeping Computer and other reliable sources straight away. Dream Focus 22:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions says at WP:GOOGLEHITS, simply having google results doesn't make it notable (or not notable). Are there reliable sources to establish notability? Wikipedia is not a howto. tedder (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the virus is notable, they don't just talk about it, they tell you how to remove it in the same article. And as I said, Bleeping Computer's results showed up, they a well established reliable source commonly referenced on Wikipedia. I added two reliable sources to the article. Also, Wikipedia arguments to avoid in deletion, is just an essay. Anyone can publish an essay saying anything, it totally meaningless. Google results show that over four million people are talking about it, so obviously its something we need an article about. This virus affects a lot of people. Dream Focus 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions says at WP:GOOGLEHITS, simply having google results doesn't make it notable (or not notable). Are there reliable sources to establish notability? Wikipedia is not a howto. tedder (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with WinFixer --HamburgerRadio (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Is there a general page about this kind of hoax anti-spyware or anti-virus malware? Redirection of the individual titles to such a page would appear to be the best option to me, perhaps with headings for the more notable individual ones. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there's Rogue security software. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Methinks I see the problem. The Rogue security software page has a long list of some bluelinks and some redlinks inviting the creation of articles on each of these variations on a theme. I'm not sure that individual instances of this sort of scam really rate separate encyclopedia articles, even if reputable sites document the malware status of each individual name and offer instructions on getting rid of them. Few of them would appear to have independent historical or technical significance in their own right. What happens to this one probably should to the other one now under consideration, and all the rest of these as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there's Rogue security software. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This certainly destroyed my computer, ended up having to get a new one. Of all these rogue softwares I've encountered, this was the one I was unable to remove. The article is horribly written, but I'll try to improve it. The Arbiter★★★ 00:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that you were affected by this piece of malware doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. Just a note, you'd have to find reliable sources to prove notability. I'm thinking this article should be redirected? Netalarmtalk 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but I am trying to find sources. Just give me time. :) A redirect would not work. I really don't think this is very similar to WinFixer. The Arbiter★★★ 23:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bleeping Computer has made this an independent article, and the article meets WP:NOT and three core content policies. I've just added a category by using HotCat to make the article more complete. By the way, they're more and more Wikipedians nominate articles for deletion since they regard them "non-notable", but in fact have certain notability. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per RekishiEJ's solid arguments. If Bleeping Computer has made this an independent article, that's almost sufficient evidence of notability by itself in my book. And, as RekishiEJ wrote, the article complies with Wikipedia's policies as well. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non admin closure, The result was Keep. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this article to pass WP:GNG, which several editors demonstrated. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kibology
- Kibology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unreferenced article that I don't think meets WP:N, and I'm not sure if WP:WEB would apply, because it is related to the non-WWW Internet, but I don't think it meets that one, either. Best case, there might be something salvageable to merge to James Parry, a.k.a. Kibo. If not, and no viable references can be found, it should be deleted or redirected. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources to assert notability. Usenet is not reliable. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to James Parry. I was pleasantly surprised at how many sources Google turns up (e.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], numerous book references). At the very least, there's enough for a well-referenced section in James Parry. I'm leaning towards merge, but I have no strong opinion. It's definitely a good search term for Kibo. --Chris Johnson (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to James Parry. The article may be unsourced, but reliable sources are available; there was a Wired article on Parry, and Google news archive search produces many sources, including San Jose Mercury News, Boston Herald, Arizona Daily Star, The Register, etc. Since the Wikipedia standard for notability is that information exist in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I conclude that Kibology meets the standard for notability. In fact, I wonder why the nominator didn't check for notability before opening the AFD. —Dominus (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable, verified for independent sources. Saying "Usenet is not reliable." is a sweeping generalization of little relevency, akin to saying "The Internet is not reliable". -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usenet posts can under certain circumstances be reliable (in sense of WP:RS) as primary sources, but they aren't reliable secondary sources (again, in Wikipedia's sense of "reliable".) WP:N requires significant coverage in secondary sources. The point is moot here as there is coverage in newspapers and whatnot. --Chris Johnson (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears that the nominator has not notified the frequent contributors to the article of the AfD, as is customary. —Dominus (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the AFD was set up with Twinkle, the article creator was notified automatically. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Erwin85Bot seems to have it under control. —Dominus (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the AFD was set up with Twinkle, the article creator was notified automatically. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dominus. Not notable? This AFD is a joke, right? --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the granddaddy of Internet memes. Dominus and Chris point out plenty of sources. Kmusser (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy close - AfD started by a banned user with no other delete !votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Integrated Environmental Solutions
- Integrated Environmental Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Written like a advertisement with no major references. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This company is notable and has some references. The tone can be improved, no deletion needed. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but fix tone, add sources, and wikify. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atheist Universe
- Atheist Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Im not sure, but it seems that this one does not pass WP:BK. Tim1357 (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ulysses press is not a major publisher (though not a vanity press), and i could find no reviews outside firmly atheist websites. of course, this is not a reflection on whether the book is valuable, meaningful, truthful, just that its not currently notable by wp standards. original article was written by author of book, so COI complicates this, but it could still stand if it had any reviews in PW, NYT book review, etc. even Discover, SciAM, you name it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Improve Google turned up plenty of reviews both from atheists and from angry religionists. This suggests controversy which suggests notability. Agree article as it stands is poor but believe it can be brought up to snuff. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody but the nom seems to support deletion. Can we get a close please?Simonm223 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article was created by the author of the exact book. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That may well be but this version has been heavily edited since the original. Notwithstanding a CoI-ish beginning do you dispute the notability?Simonm223 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Still not notable. No reviews in what could be considered reliable sources. No hits on Google News. --Whoosit (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails to satisfy any of our standards for notability of a book; one of the hundreds of thousands of books published that year. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet WP:BK. Horselover Frost (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. An unusual situation here, with a string of "deletes" following the relisting; prior to this the debate appeared to be trending clearly towards "keep". Going by numbers, it would appear that the 6k-7d situation might be "no consensus", but there are some serious issues of verifiability, and the lack of citations, which have not been adequately addressed by those supporting keeping.
The article contains a large list of references, but connections between the content and the source material is not present, nor has the reliability of these sources been fully examined. I looked at the Google Books links mentioned by Phil Bridger, and while it is true that some of these books cite Villanueva Collado's work, they do not describe Villanueva Collado the person. Many other sources appear to be books which Villanueva Collado has written, again not material about him.
Due to this article being a biography of a living person, fixing matters related to verifiability of the content are more urgent than with other articles. With no movement to fix the problems listed in the past week, the outcome must be to delete the article for not adequately meeting the strict policies which govern such articles.
I will also mention that the article appears very similar in structure to the counterpart at the Spanish Wikipedia es:Alfredo Villanueva Collado, the original versions are probably a translation of that material. People who want to write up something better may want to look at that article for inspiration, but keep in mind that the English Wikipedia's demands for proper sourcing of the content are generally practiced in a more restrictive (even draconian) manner than on other Wikipedias. Note that the decision here is not due to the source material being in Spanish, discussions have repeatedly, recently, and overwhelmingly rejected proposals that sources must be in English to pass verifiability and notability requirements. The problem is that the references listed have not been tied adequately to the content in the article. On the other hand, nothing in the article is by any means defamatory, and I am willing to provide the content upon request if someone wants to work on fixing the concerns listed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alfredo Villanueva Collado
- Alfredo Villanueva Collado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unregistered user requesting assistance in deletion process. Entry does not seem to fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. Further, a look at the page's history gives a strong suggestion that the page was actually started by the subject of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.21.130 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 21:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't have access to the references cited, but basing on the list of references, there appears to be significant coverage in multiple sources. Unless someone confirms the sources are not reliable or adequate must assume they are reliable and verify the information in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the entire biography is also completely unsourced.65.119.21.130 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is sourced, there are no inline citations but there are many references. Inline citations are preferred, but there is no requirement for inline citations. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unless someone confirms the sources are not reliable or fake all up.. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Google Books search linked above leads to plenty of coverage in reliable sources. The subject's main notability appears to be as a poet rather than as an academic. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the consensus from those with more experience is that he's notable enough for the article to remain, perhaps it would be appropriate to suggest that they work to eliminate what appears to be some conflict of interests in parts of his bio. It seems pretty clear he wrote it himself, leading to some likely unprovable claims like the reason why he was fired from a college position and the reason why an article he wrote wasn't published. It could stand to be a bit more neutrally presented.65.119.21.130 (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. GS gives cites of 6, 5, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1. That's all. To pass WP:Prof #1 many hundreds of cites are usually required so it seems that notability is not achieved here or in any other categories of WP:Prof. Article may pass on much weaker standards of WP:Author but it has to be demonstrated. However, searching GB on 'author:"Alfredo Villanueva Collado"' gives fifteen hits. For notability it is not how much is published but how much it is noted. Input from Hispanic scholars and poets about reviews, awards etc. will be valuable. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- there is no cutoff figure, and hundreds are not normally required. It depends on the subject, the time period, and the distribution of cites. notability is not a numerical function of GS cites , though they can be when carefully interpreted very valuable information in judging. He's in the humanities, and such counts are almost worthless there. Further, he write is publications that by and large GS does not cover--there is an extremely strong English language bias. not that this shows he;s notable, just that GS counts are not by themselves a valid argument. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are more references than there is information. They've also been cut and pasted from something else, as some of them have a succession of numbers in brackets. The whole thing looks suspect. Lara 13:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Searching for the full name, i.e. including his two last names, on Google Books may miss some results. In Spanish-speaking countries the second last name usually carries less weight, and is sometimes not used at all. I did a search for "Alfredo Villanueva". The problem is that the name is not uncommon. However, I was able to find this English-language review. I'm not an expert on the topic, so I'm unable to make a judgment on notability. As a final comment, the Spanish-language hits that show up in a Google Book search seem to be of three kinds (content-wise): 1. Poems or other literature written by Villanueva, 2. Critical writings by Villanueva on others, 3. Critical writings on Villanueva by others. From the hits I looked at (consider that I did not do an exhaustive analysis) only a minority belonged to the last category. For those belonging to this last category, unfortunately snippets were usually unavailable. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the third category that is important for notability. Would you be able to give numbers? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- After looking at all the hits that result from this search the count is the following. There are 74 non-repeated hits. Of those, 13 are on other people, so that leaves 61. Of those, 12 are publicity for a collection (such as this one). Of the 49 left, I counted 4 as belonging to the third category. The title of one more book suggests that it may fall in this category as well, but I wasn't able to find the reference to Villanueva. CronopioFlotante (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My review of the Google Books hits found at least these five which appear to fall into category 3 and provide more than passing mentions:[6],[7],[8](an 18-page essay with the subject's name as its title),[9] and [10]. Google Books also tells us that the subject is mentioned in The Oxford encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States, but there is no preview available. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think all of them are in the third category. Link 1 seems to be on work of Villanueva Collado on José Asunción Silva as a critic and link 4 also mentions Villanueva Collado in a role corresponding to category 2 above. Note: my search above included only items for which previews are available. CronopioFlotante (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- My review of the Google Books hits found at least these five which appear to fall into category 3 and provide more than passing mentions:[6],[7],[8](an 18-page essay with the subject's name as its title),[9] and [10]. Google Books also tells us that the subject is mentioned in The Oxford encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States, but there is no preview available. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at all the hits that result from this search the count is the following. There are 74 non-repeated hits. Of those, 13 are on other people, so that leaves 61. Of those, 12 are publicity for a collection (such as this one). Of the 49 left, I counted 4 as belonging to the third category. The title of one more book suggests that it may fall in this category as well, but I wasn't able to find the reference to Villanueva. CronopioFlotante (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the third category that is important for notability. Would you be able to give numbers? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —CronopioFlotante (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And clean-up. Lots of sources but their relativity is unclear. By any measure this person seems to be an accomplished poet but having some bilingual poets help show the notability would be helpful. -- Banjeboi 21:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of references for this person, proving their notability. Dream Focus 14:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No BLP conflict. Sufficiently notable. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I act as devil's advocate and vote delete, although I am prepared to change my mind on presentation of better evidence. The subject clearly fails WP:Prof and has to be assessed on the weaker standards of WP:Author. One editor says that the subject is an accomplished poet. I am not able to dispute this as I have only a limited knowledge of modern poetry and of Spanish. However the issue for an AfD is not whether the subject is accomplished but whether the subject is notable, specifically whether the subject has been noted. The deep digging of CronopioFlotante and others has bought up very little material and some of that is of doubtful import. An argument has been put by others that because of the distance of the area that the subject operates in from the knowledge of many contributors to the AfD pages of the English Wiki, sources will be hard to come by. The article has been at AfD for more than a week and if good sources exist they should have emerged by now. Notability should not be determined on the basis of sources that are assumed to exist but which cannot actually be produced. The supporting evidence at present relies on a handful of sources of mostly marginal validity. For a research scholar, three or four hundred independent sources from the mainstream literature would not necessarily guarantee a pass at WP:Prof so it seems to me that, by accepting this subject as notable, the standards of WP:Author are being set too low. Finally, if the article is kept it should be pruned down to a few lines as its present form is too overblown and indulgent. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. "Notability should not be determined on the basis of sources that are assumed to exist but which cannot actually be produced" – this is a fundamentally important point made by Xxanthippe. I note that a very similar situation existed in another very recent AfD, i.e. several proponents repeatedly promised reliable, convincing sources, but never delivered. This sort of problem is a deal-breaker. (That article was deleted.) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. I had refused to !vote before because of my limited knowledge of the topic but Xxanthippe and Agricola44's reasoning makes sense. Notability requires verifiable evidence. I would change the !vote to keep if the evidence surfaced. CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Second the above sentiment. Eusebeus (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After all this time at AfD this is still a mass of unsourced and unsourceable details. There are a few inline citations, supposedly sourcing the publication of his poetry collections, but the quality of the sources is very poor (many not reliable, not about him, etc) so I have no confidence that the many non-online references listed are any better. Fails WP:V and WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair eleven days is not a lot of time. Given that an interpretation is needed to suss out what sources say what, which are more RS than others for which info etc. I personally don't expect overnight results. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject of this BLP in the depth required for an encyclopedia article to the extent that they would help establish notability and allow for independent verification of its claims.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions argue that a page with this subject is desirable in Wikipedia. That's fine, but ignores the fact raised in the nomination that the current content is based only on a weblink to a self-published page labeled: "This trivia page is submitted by Mrs. Ewasiuk's Grade 1A class." Per WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", and "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." During this AfD, the material was challenged, and no reliable source was apparently found, so WP:V – which is core policy and not subject to overruling by local consensus – mandates the deletion of the article. It may be restored or userfied as soon as a reliable source is provided. Sandstein 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of provincial and territorial nicknames in Canada
- List of provincial and territorial nicknames in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List is based on answers from a high school trivia test. Fails RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are loads of similar lists in Wikipedia (see Category:Regional nicknames). WP:PILLAR: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This is a typical almanac feature, and it's hard to believe this is based only on that one source (or are you arguing it's not a reliable source? I assume you're arguing lack of notability). JohnWBarber (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment all nickname articles that are lists could probably be transwikied to Wiktionary as appendices. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment LOL that Ontario has no nicknames. I guess "that damn province that Toronto is in" doesn't count. :D Delete or Transwiki. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't really see the relevance of the information within the list. None of it is sourced, and the nicknames themselves are dubious. There is really no scholastic tie between them and I'm forced to concur with the nominator who assessed the list as high-school trivia. Looking at the category pointed out above, there are only three other similiar lists on Wikipedia, one of them is highly appropriate because of its clearly defined criteria for inclusion, but the other two, as with this, suffer from serious original research and notability problems. ThemFromSpace 00:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per JohnWBarber--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep This could easily be sourced to something other than "Mrs. Ewasiuk's Grade 1A Class". Dubious? No, first graders are very honest! Seriously, this needs to take a cue from List of U.S. state nicknames, and I can't help but wonder if it already exists somewhere else on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Don't provinces have nicknames? I don't know much about Canada but I assume that if we have List of U.S. state nicknames there should be one for Canada too... in most ways Provinces are roughly like US states, don't see why nicknames would be different. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are number of similar lists in Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World sales and certifications for Madonna
- World sales and certifications for Madonna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This had been tagged for afd, but the user who was tagging didn't do it right (instead relisting the discussion from 7/08) and of course, no one could be bothered to fix the mess the user made. Anyway, I asked another admin if this fell under G4, to which he said, quote, "This version has *FAR* less in it than the old version!" So, yeah, here we are. Unsourced crap by some n00b user who can't be bothered to figure out what a lead section or sources are. At least they put a category in, but yeah — this stuff's covered elsewhere, we don't need this dumb list, it's redundant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then redirect to Madonna albums discography which contains more information and is sourced, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , I agree with Metropolitan90's suggestion. Onopearls (t/c) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lars' Adventure
- Lars' Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability critera, one mention in a games blog does not make it notable Axis schmaxis (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the provided citations do not demonstrate WP:Notability. Marasmusine (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: With the only thing almost counting as a reliable source being a 2-line info bit from an known site to show notability with a very blank and non-flattering opinion given? Sorry. There are 6 google news results, but all to that same non-news tiny blog entry. Every last google search results just sends me to play. Don't care about playing here. Need reliable sources to show notability. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saghir Akhtar
- Saghir Akhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(article for deletion submitted on behalf of the IP, below) tedder (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is essentially an unsubstantiated CV. There is no suggestion as to the importance of the researcher or research undertaken in their career. Industry prizes are not in of themselves a measure of a noteworthy scientist, merely perhaps that they worked on one of that companies projects, were funded (directly or indirectly) by them, or attended particular congresses / conferences.
This is not in any way intended to belittle the researchers work (they may well become note worthy or otherwise), but is an effort to clear a CV entry from the Wikipedia encyclopedia project. There are indeed other web portals where former students or colleagues of this individual can 'rate my professer', and indeed a great many portals where individuals can post their CV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.142.26 (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, Editor of a major journal, as shown by the JCR count for Journal of Drug targeting. This is one of the criteria for wp:prof, and sufficient by itself to establish the notability. The awards, though sponsored by drug companies are significant awards. I am not sure of the current standing of Kuwait university, but he is not only full professor there, but also at Cardiff University. More important, his work is accepte das authoritative in his subject, as shown by the degree they are cited, found in scopus: 107 peer-reviewed papers there, highest citation counts 181 , 128, 121, 109 ,108. There is no numerical cutoff, but even in pharmacology with it's characteristically high high publication and citation frequency,. H-index, a summary of this is 25: 25 papers with 25 or more citations--this to me is not as significant as that some of his papers have very high counts. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on basis of above thorough arguments. Anon nominator has minimal edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). The subject has a high h-index of 22; and a total of 1,578 citations on GS. The journal he edits has a high ratio of citations per article, namely 12, which indicates that the journal is well established.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of best-selling albums in Greece
- List of best-selling albums in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Variations of this chart have been around for years, always contradicting each other. IFPI also changes sale certification numbers yearly due to lagging sales, and as article use to state "No specific figures have been released officially by IFPI's board", which is still true. The only source given for the individual numbers is compiled by a private TV show that is not related to IFPI, the official album sale compiler in Greece. And even then, the way the TV show compiled the numbers is considered questionable at best, as they say for example "It has sold over 160,000 copies". It seems that it is more speculative based on certifications of the album, (And adding up threshold numbers to form a conclusion on total sale numbers) rather than officially endorsed numbers from IFPI. Greekboy (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, IFPI keeps mucking with the numbers so such a list will be forever useless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, IFPI Greece has never issued such a list- they only issue certifications but almost never indicate specific sales numbers beyond the certification thresholds. Furthermore even the sources in the article contradict themselves. Imperatore (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The numbers here are very contradictory with all other sources in the media and they seem very high for Greek sales. If you see the Gia (album) page you will see that ANT1, owner of heaven has cited Gia as having sold 170,000 copies, while Allmusic has cited Notis Sfakianakis' album 5o Vima as the best-selling album of all time. These sources do not only contradict mainstream ones, but also contradict themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekStar12 (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JamieS93 01:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northern United States
- Northern United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTOPINION and does not appear to be salvageable or recognized as a region appropriate for treatment on WP other than at most an amalgamation of already covered smaller regions. Hoppingalong (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No: This is a distinct region in American history and politics and notable enough for an article paralleling Southern United States. --JWB (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unlike the articles Northeastern United States and Midwestern United States, this has zero sources. I suppose that the Census Bureau could combine the two to describe a region of 113,479,422 people. I just haven't seen that they've done it. It parallels Southern United States up until the section called "Notes", I guess. Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article may indeed need to be completely re-written, but the subject is certainly suitable for wikipedia. Britannica's equivalent article could be used as a model for improvement. Kmusser (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In recognition of JWB's and Kmusser's comments, I have significantly shortened the article to mostly remove the essay-like, personal opinion problems. I'm still not convinced that it is a definable region that has a coherent meaning and that would be able to resist the sort of personal opinion material that has plagued it since its creation. I would still delete. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge - The Britannica article defines the North's meaning quite coherently. I don't think risk of POV-pushing is a good reason to delete. We could merge to Union (American Civil War) though, since the term is kinda anachronistic. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think Explodicle's idea to merge the article into the Union (American Civil War) article is interesting. This certainly makes sense for the phrase "The North." I've edited the disambiguation page for The North to reflect the idea. But I think that Explodicle's comment also highlights the near impossibility in defining this idea in a verifiable way that would allow for consensus. If it is only an anachronism, then redirecting the page and being done with it makes sense. But it appears some people also think the phrase applies to a geographic area today, in which case redirecting the phrase to an historical concept doesn't work as well. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that it's anachronistic, but don't think that necessarily changes it's notability. List of regions of the United States contains plenty of historical regions, and "The North" and "The South" were the main cultural divisions of the country for much of it's history. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge but am not sure Union (American Civil War) is a good target as the region pre-dates the war - what would be ideal is if we had a Regions of the United States article to merge it to instead of just the list, sadly I don't have the time to write such a thing though. Kmusser (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough information present to even merge with Union (American Civil War). The current sources do not assert notability as a distinct region of the United States. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Encyclopaedia Britannica has an article name "the North", which means Northern United States.--RekishiEJ (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the Encyclopaedia Britannica article titled "the North (region, United States)" seems to carry so much weight with some editors (with its focus on historical uses of the term), would one way to go be to do the following? Move the page to The North (United States) and then make it a diambiguation page noting that "The North" can be an anachranism referring to the Union (American Civil War) but can also possibly refer to one or more of the U.S. Census Bureau-designated Regions or the states making up those regions, other than and generally in comparison to the South. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but fix. This is a complementary article to Southern United States which is still relevant and rather well-known. Explain that "The North" is seen as a contrast to the South at the time and use a map to indicate what reliable sources show would be included. Explain how the idea of the North used to be quite relevant but has largely become meaningless for various reasons whereas the South continues to be seem as somewhat homogenous. A good article is here but we can't, as nom states, invent ideas of what is currently meant - keep to the historical references and why the concept was used and when it generally went out of use. -- Banjeboi 21:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie Trollope
- Sophie Trollope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about a South African zoologist whose notability is not confirmed by Google, Google News or Google Books research. Warrah (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nom is correct regarding results of searches, not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm afraid this is nothing more than a fan-page. Her webpage indicates she's properly considered as an activist rather than a behaviour expert / researcher / zoologist, etc. (Her quals are that she's a primary school teacher and evidently completed a 4-day "wolf behavior course" in 1998.) So, I don't think there's much we could even discuss regarding WP:PROF. Indeed, the wide net of GS turns up not a single hit, no books, etc. The listed achievements, e.g. "the first woman from South Africa to visit Wolf Park" and the 4-day seminar, lend no significance whatsoever. One source is listed, a short article in a local paper, but this appears to be a feel-good puff piece. For example, that article paints her as an established researcher, which she clearly is not, with statements like "Following her second visit to Wolf Park in 2002, Trollope came back more determined to finish her research on wolf-dogs". Plain googling doesn't turn up much else besides the epxected facebook/myspace/posting type hits. There simply isn't anything notable to speak of. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not found as explained above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, claims of notability are false. Abductive (reasoning) 08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete meets neither WP:PROF nor N:BIO. No papers listed in Scopus. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and clearly not a consensus to delete. Note that the result here is somewhat different than the clear keep consensus from the previous AFD discussions, in that there was significant disagreement here, but I cannot really see a consensus for mergin either since several people have argued that the concept can be expanded. Given that the term has been used in a number of political works, I think a future consensus for merging is a more likely prospect than a future consensus for deletion, and I ask editors to consider that before proposing a fourth AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angry white male
- Angry_white_male (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. John Asfukzenski (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This nomination was created by a user with a questionable edit history. Just a point of note. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The term describes about 90 percent of the people in the AfD Forum. Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly how does that comment contribute to a meaningful and productive discussion? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Meaningful and productive discussion" only applies to meaningful and productive articles. The history of this one suggests that it keeps getting changed by white guys who are easily offended. The latest version is that it's a "stereotype which typifies a reactionary, white male, especially in the context of U.S. politics and opposition to policies of affirmative action which favor other groups in society such as women or blacks." Half of the article is about Michael Douglas's character in the movie Falling Down. When there's nothing to say, put it in wiktionary. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly how does that comment contribute to a meaningful and productive discussion? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The term describes about 90 percent of the people in the AfD Forum. Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Stubs often look like dicdefs, but this one has potential for encyclopedic expansion. The angry white male is a supposed political demographic (like soccer mom) that's received substantial discussion by the media and political pundits. Angry white males were the big thing for commentators on the 1994 midterm election just like soccer moms were the big thing in 1996. Many Google Scholar and Google Books hits discussing both the phenomenon itself and the media's framing of it. --Chris Johnson (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Its more than a dictionary definition, the concept has been covered by reliable sources in depth: [11], [12], [13],[14],[15], etc.--Milowent (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article wasn't very neutral, so I restored a more NPOV version, but it does seem to be a sufficiently notable concept, as shown by the references above. Robofish (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys are completely missing the point. this is not the place for dictionary entries. Reliable sources does not matter for this. John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a dictionary definition, it is a stub-class article. There is a significant difference. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - Non-dictionary stub-class article with a potential for expansion shall someone wish to undertake the task of doing so. It is a notable legitimate concept. Also, keep per Chris Johnson and User:Milowent's explanations. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge to Stereotypes of white people per others since it's a logical search term. Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an embellished dictionary definition, that never has graduated from stub-class. . Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree this isn't place for these type of entries. The Red Peacock (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The goal here is to create an encyclopedia. Our sibling project Wiktionary has the goal of creating a dictionary. Showtime2009 (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Mandsford. There may be some encyclopedic value here, but I think it would work just as well as part of Stereotypes of white people. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article may be little more than a dicdef now, but it has potential for more. I'd say that the article should be expanded, not deleted. -- Atama頭 20:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Changing my opinion to merge per my previous points, however, Mandsford's point of merger with Stereotypes of white people seems much more appropriate. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 03:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's a major demographic and a significant voting bloc, particularly in the U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would like to see this expanded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge seems logical. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This isn't the place for dictionary entries. 172.163.150.240 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge WP is not a dictionary. Reywas92Talk 23:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dayavuseithu
- Dayavuseithu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No content, no sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innatepirate (talk • contribs) 23:44, 26 October 2009
- To be fair you need to go back a few edits, what little content the page included was deleted. There was still nothing to establish notability and no sources to back up the claims in the article. I'd be in favour of deletion but if there is a linguistics team or a Tamil language team they should have a chance to save the article. -- Horkana (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This isn't even a candidate for ta.wikt (although the entry there isn't much better). Looking through the article history, there isn't any salvageable content either. -SpacemanSpiff 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOTDIC. Agree that the versions in article history are no better keep candidates. Abecedare (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kris Allen (album)
- Kris Allen (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article should be deleted because it has no sources to back i any of the information, and when I searched for it I found to reliable sources. also, there is not enough information for the page. ---Shadow (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added and whole track listing is now made available. 124.105.251.54 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The track listing with the writers and producers for each song on the album has been released to the public. The album is going to be released in a few weeks anyway. There's no sense deleting it now and reconstructing it later. Also, Adam Lambert's debut album, For Your Entertainment has even less information available right now, and, yet, its page is not currently being considered for deletion. Paintedblack (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's because no one has nominated it yet, that doesn't mean it was allowed to stay on the site. ---Shadow (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple reliable sources that confirm the name of the album, the release date, the album cover, the tracklisting and even a review of some of the songs. More reviews of the album/songs would be nice, but are not necessary for this article to stay. Aspects (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There weren't sources when I nominated. ---Shadow (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This nomination is quite ridiculous. Every winner's album has warranted its own page. And just because a page DOESN'T have the proper sources doesn't mean you should take this route. The more constructive thing a good editor would do would be to locate proper sources and contribute to the article to help its overall credibility.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No it wasn't. When I nominated the article had barely anything. And my search for sources brought nothing up other them "album except by year's end". Not to mention winning American Idol doesn't mean anything to the artist's album page. ---Shadow (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This guy won American Idol, there's no way this won't be charting and have even more coverage. As much as I detest the show, its notable.--Milowent (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's sufficient information now and there is no reason for the album to be up for deletion.Adam 94 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: American Idol winner, debut album with a single already released and album cover & street date available on amazon.com. Just because an article is bad doesn't mean nominate it for deletion. Tag issues with the appropriate tags and correct them if you have the information. Ejfetters (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ejfetters (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article release date (17 Nov) and other details are already known, so WP:CRYSTAL isn't an issue, and its notability isn't really in doubt. No constructive purpose would be served by deleting an article which would be recreated almost immediately after the album's release if not before. The article is already in pretty good shape after recent improvements, and infant articles with obvious potential like this shouldn't be nominated for deletion. WP:BEFORE: "Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered." Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per above six votes.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it appears to be sourced and has enough info already. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Media bias in India
- Media bias in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's original research. It was originally prodded for this reason, it wasn't contested, and I deleted it. After it was deleted, I restored the article per request, but I still feel that it is all original research. hmwith☮ 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian news reporting more importantly TV news has visibly changed. This is acknowledged by massive outbursts in news forums. I agree that the article needs a face lift. Until references are added it is fit to leave this information and, "allegation" and "counter allegation" so this very important topic gets the attention and credible content pores in. Please do not treat lack of references as a proof for original research. Allow this article to mature. While media has been speaking about freedom of speech there are clear instances where media corporations have threatened individuals for criticizing them (Chaitanya Kunte. The allegation is that NDTV threatened Chaitanya Kunte after he published a blog post criticising NDTV and specifically Barkha Dutt's reporting during the Mumbai attack). Let us please not scuttle our own freedom and let media run over peoples voice. Please allow this article to stay and mature. Thank you.
- Keep for now. Media bias is an important subject. Give a chance to source and work on article.Turqoise127 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. While I have no doubt that bias exists in the Indian media and an article can be written about it, this is not a starting point for an article. A rare case where I advocate applying WP:TNT, since letting this article stay out there in its current form will just result in a soapboxing forum. -SpacemanSpiff 19:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: but needs work - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. - The article is completely unsourced, full of unverified content and merely seems to represent someone's POV on the topic. Also seems to lack notability in its present form - reads suspiciously like a fringe theory made up of random anti-establishment rantings. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteOnly one dead link reference. Article seems to be OR, not to mention a possible COATRACK page that leads to highlights the editors personal opinions about the 2008 Mangalore pub incident , specifically the complait about "liberal bias" --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unadulterated OR. The only reference is to a (deadlinked) article in Faking News - if the name doesn't give it away, read the disclaimer, "Content of this website, unless categorized as “Editorial”, is a work of fiction. Readers are advised not to confuse the "news reports" of Faking News as being genuine and true. ". Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was procedural close. From the discussion it is clear that these articles are not sufficiently similar to permit a bundled nomination. The close is without prejudice to renominating each individually. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naveen Perwani
- Naveen Perwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The player only reached the quarter-finals of the 2006 IBSF World Championship. The article was only created because the tournament has an article.
I am also nominating the following related pages because these player articles exist only because the 2006 IBSF World Championship exists:
- Angélique Vialard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Anuja Thakur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kathy Parashis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Philip Williams (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jaique Ip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hanna Mergies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Anita Rizzuti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armbrust (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was modified to add {{Find sources}} for all targeted articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at least Jaique Ip: Amateur quarter- and semi-finalists are perhaps not overwhelmingly notable. Ip, however, is a doubles world champion, thus clearly notable. I have to note that the {{Find sources}} "News" link does provide numerous valid major-media hits on Perwani, establishing at least multiple, independent, reliable sources, the primary notability criterion. A similar template for each of the others probably would show similar results, too, unless some of these players have dropped out of the sport. I have taken the liberty of adding the templates so that people can see for themselves. Finally, it is not very civil to insist that the "only" reason that someone might create an article is to just make a willy-nilly link from another page. There are plenty of WP:SNOOKER participants who would certainly feel that any of the top 16 or so (i.e. world quarter-finalist) amateur players are notable enough for articles. It must also be kept in mind that most if not all of these players have had (hopefully progressive) careers since the 2006 event, and some may now even be pros. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Kathy Parashis, found some sources on her here and here. I'm no snooker expert, but a national champion probably meets the notability criteria, as far as I'm concerned. I was able to find these without too much trouble, so I recommend that all of these biographies be similarly investigated to see if any of them are viable before being deleted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otis Wiley
- Otis Wiley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He does not meet WP:Athlete, never played in an NFL game, and he did not have a notable college career Yankees10 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wait a little bit Just because he doesn't have notability LISTED on wikipedia, does not mean he isn't notable. He had a very notable college career. I'm working on expanding the article right now, which should meet notability guidelines after that.RF23 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Never played with Detroit, odds of having a pro career are slim. Fails WP:ATH.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy if result is delete or Keep I think mid-season all-american and first team all big ten is notable enough. (And is it me or does WP:ATH need to be expanded? I've seen articles that have been kept because it's a freshman starting at some huge school like USC or OSU). Wiley started at MSU in a season which went to a BCS bowl.. which should be "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". RF23 (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because he started a bowl game also doesnt mean hes notable, there was also 21 other players who started in that game, are they all notable to? I dont think so.--Yankees10 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No WP:ATH doesn't need to be expanded because players like Tate Forcier, Matt Barkley and Terrelle Pryor are notable per WP:GNG which Wiley isn't.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything WP:Athlete needs to be re-worded so that a bunch of no name college players dont stay created when they are nominated. Example Brandon Jackson (wide receiver), there is no reason whatsoever that this player should have an article. Non-notable college career. Hasnt been on a roster for over a year. But people still believes hes notable.--Yankees10 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think having major awards like all-big ten and mid-season all-american make him notable.. but anyways:
- If anything WP:Athlete needs to be re-worded so that a bunch of no name college players dont stay created when they are nominated. Example Brandon Jackson (wide receiver), there is no reason whatsoever that this player should have an article. Non-notable college career. Hasnt been on a roster for over a year. But people still believes hes notable.--Yankees10 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage": a Google search of "Otis Wiley" gives over 21,800 results, which seems like significant coverage to me. the others seem good, can you explain how he does not meet GNG. RF23 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, WP:GNG is a partial concern - I'd be more concerned with WP:ATHLETE at this point. Examining now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note, Google hit counts are usually not a count of notability. Those constitute how many times the name occurs on the 'net - which can mean anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff)
- Delete. Coverage is lacking as far as his playing. Doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. I know there's the college career, but ATHLETE doesn't account for this, and WP:OUTCOMES seems to hint that these tend to go away. Frankly, college ball players don't tend to be notable unless they have something in WP:BIO to warrant it, and I'm not seeing anything here. I will also grant that he's been drafted by NFL, but he never actually competed, as per the article - he was dismissed pre-season. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His being cut pre-season is kind of irrelevant due to the nature of it. He had a lingering knee injury, and failed his physical. Most players who fail their physicals don't make it to another team. If it wasn't for the knee injury, he would likely be a backup or a practice squad player. RF23 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rainbow Lodge
- Rainbow Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fishing lodge, and no longer exists Fremte (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A fishing lodge, as with any place, can be notable. In this fishing lodge's case it has received significant coverage from multiple independent sources. [16][17][18][19] (these are only a few of what I found with a 2 second g-search). According to The Guardian, it had become "the most popular camping lodge west of the Rockies." That it no longer exists is not grounds for deletion (I dare the nom to put the Hanging Gardens of Babylon up for AfD).--Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Don't dare the nom to put the Hanging Gardens of Babylon up for AFD...Stranger things have happened! In any event you won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the first major building in the Alta Lake (whistler) area is not significant? someone needs to re-read their history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.240.212 (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC) -Preceding comment copied from article talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would be great if the sources were added into the article so someone doesn't mistakenly renominate this two years later down the road. (Yes, that does happen.) JBsupreme (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade et al, sources are present and need to be added. Oh well, as usual it's always someone else's problem. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above discussion. Add the sources, please. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per dennis the 2 et al. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and I added two of the references to the article, slackers.--Milowent (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Everybody seems to agree that this software isn't sufficiently notable on its own. While merging is a valid suggestion, looking at the article there doesn't appear to much to merge at all. However, if requested I can temporarily restore the page so a merge can then be completed. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Windows Protection Suite
- Windows Protection Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'd like to nominate this article along with it's corresponding image File:WindowsProtectionSuite.jpg - not every single rogue anti-malware program is notable. There are hundreds and hundreds of these in existance, and many of them are wiped out over time as real anti-malware programs are updated to recognize them. Just as not every virus or spyware is notable, not every rogue app is notable. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree. While I thought it was pure vandalism initially, a Google search proved that it is, in fact, a rogue antivirus software, so I removed the speedy tag. However, existance is not notability.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Malware Wiki: This might suit their standards a bit more. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Non notable malware. Netalarmtalk 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to MS Antivirus (malware) --HamburgerRadio (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into single article listing examples of counterfeit malware removers Digilante (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Wang
- Sarah Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
tagged for over a year, no citations, potential COI The Zwinky (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor journalist, does not pass WP:BIO. GlassCobra 17:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Hedge
- Peter Hedge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS - non-notable run of the mill child rapist. There is nothing about the case or individual that makes this notable for our purposes. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete classic BLP1E, Wikipedia is not a news aggregation project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does every criminal whose crimes are reported deserve an article as notable; I don't think so. ww2censor (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from article creator (moved down by Belinrahs): I created this article because I found the crime and perpetrator quite shocking and extraordinary. I heard about it on BBC-4 radio's Sunday morning news report on religion issues last Sunday and could not believe my ears. I was disappointed to turn to Wikipedia and find nothing there about this criminal. How could such crimes occur after all the brouhaha over child abuse by Catholic priests? Was this because this occurred in England and they were unsuspecting? Was it because it was in the COE not the Roman Catholic church? This man was a vicar and curate (responsible for the 'cure of souls' in his parish). He was convicted of multiple rapes and more than 30 other charges of sexual abuse of 6 boys. There is noting "run-of-the-mill" or non-notable about this case. It is not consolidating news but providing Wikipedia's only reference to a man who has deeply wounded 6 young men, two populous communities, and arguably the Anglican Communion. I am sure there are some who would prefer to look the other way, to pretend things like this don't happen, to not include them because it embarrasses and hurts people to think that priests can be so horrible. But Wikipedia is about the world as it is; not the world as we might wish it to be. Let people make of this what they will, but don't just delete it.Celia Kozlowski (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey Celia - thanks for commenting. I understand how you feel about this, however Wikipedia has rules and policies which must be followed. We're not trying to "look the other way", as you say, by voting this article for deletion; however Wikipedia policy states that this type of article doesn't belong here. For a thorough explanation why, please read the policy by clicking here: WP:BLP1E. We'd love if you'd continue to contribute; if you have some more subjects that you'd like to write about (and judging by this article, you do have good writing skills), I'd recommend using the Article Wizard; see WP:NAW. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. As per Scott Mac, this fails WP:BLP1E. While it looks like the author put in a good effort, the person is not notable enough for this encyclopedia. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although perhaps it could be made appropriate for Wikinews. For purposes of Wikipedia, this fails to meet WP:BLP1E and the guideline for notability of criminal acts. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not see evidence that this is a landmark case which led to societal changes, new legislation, or to secondary coverage such as books or motion pictures. PerWP:BLP1E the essay Wikipedia:News articles, and the recent proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (news events). Edison (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Don't Delete and Comment from article creator -- FYI this article WAS created using the wizard and guided by what it says about newsworthiness. BLP1E and specifically newsworthiness of crimes/criminals are satisfied in this case. It is not that this case lacks national coverage -- but I did fail to site it. I have now redressed that, adding national coverage of the case and putting it in the larger context of how the Church of England is coming to grips with child sexual abuse.Celia Kozlowski (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This may just be one of the rare times that I say Weak Keep and work on it by wikifying, or merge somewhere. Although I do see WP:BLP1E here, it just may be encyclopedic as far as the notion of an emerging wider problem of the church. I will not be too saddened if this is deleted, but that is my 2 cents. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep mul;tiple rapists are notable if there's sufficient press coverage, as there is here. BLP1E does not apply, as it was not a single event. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The single event was the trial. There are 100s of cases like this in the UK. It's simply not notable, no laws were changed, no media outraged was raised, no child safety policies were changed. It's completely run of the mill. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- strong Keep from article creator -- If you listen to the Bolton interview, which is the first item on the BBC soundfile, you will certainly hear national media outrage. But in addition I have added further national news coverage. (I see the long list of international blog citations that I added -- more "media outrage"-- was deleted). I have added more wiki links. I have added more information about the church's response, which includes changes in child safety policies. It is not run of the mill to have a vicar, supposedly a model of ethical, nurturing leadership for his flock, violate trust and harm children so extensively-- especially after years of warning incidents like this in the Roman Catholic church in other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celiakozlowski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite, possibly rename. Well-sourced content in the article suggests the case led to significant changes in the relevant policies and practices of the COE. The cited BBC commentary indicates that the case was unusually prominent, and was discussed nationally in the way that events of this sort are not. And BLP1E is not applicable, since the subject's role was central; the discussion should focus on the principles involved iwith NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per BLP1E. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Although the article is well sourced, it was still a single event within the wider context of the various abuses documented at the time. I would suggest a framework similar to the Catholic sex abuse cases in order to unite the material together and describe how policies evolved over time, instead of relying on piecemeal one-event BLPs that go against policy and only show a small fragment of the larger picture. Many thanks, Gazimoff 12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't hold with the argument that this is not a single event. A series of crimes followed by a trial is close enough to a single event for applying WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on indicia of notability (media coverage, church reaction). I can see the BLP1E concern, but that policy says that "a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." Deletion would lose this information. Retitling this article to be an event article would be easy because, except for the title, that's what it already is. There's no bio information about Hedge beyond what's related to the scandal -- no birth data, education, etc. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. No problems with userfying, as the sourcing and information may be useful in articles about either the individual events (trial, rape, etc) should they pass notability in their own right, or more generally in articles that touch on recent scandals relating to priests in England. RayTalk 20:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Trials of child abusers are neither uncommon nor inherently notable. Unless there is significant and ongoing media coverage of the case or a resultant change in the law, which there hasn't been in this instance, I do not see how the case moves from the realm of news into one of encyclopedia-worthiness. That said, the article is well researched and sourced—I would have thought it could be modified for the purposes of WikiNews. Rje (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I (Cheryl Cole song)
- Didn't I (Cheryl Cole song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
B-side song that is not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. The article is mainly about the A-side, "Fight for This Love". AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - When were B-sides notable? It should (barely) get a mention on the Fight for This Love article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fight for This Love. The article on the single already mentions the B-side: the only datum which belongs on Wikipedia which was unique to the Didn't I article was that Klaus D (Klaus Derendorf) produced it. I have now added that information to the Fight for This Love article. There is no reason the short stub Didn't I (Cheryl Cole song) should exist as a separate article. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a result of Contains Mild Peril`s changes; no need for a WP:coatrack Josh Parris 06:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some B-sides are notable, but this isn't one of them, especially if the distinct info is covered on the A-side article.--SabreBD (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was going to say merge but the works been done! Cls14 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Humanx Commonwealth races#Thranx. Virtually everything in this article is covered in the list already, so I don't see what else is to merge. Spinning out the material again and expanding with the sources discussed may be done at editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thranx
- Thranx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge or redirect, as above. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, merge or redirect as above. Simonm223 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- dmr per nom and simonm223.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject is a fictional alien race, not a planet. Edward321 (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Humanx Commonwealth#Major species. I think that if someone wanted to spin that section out to an article called "Species in the Humanx Commonwealth Series" would be okay. It's a notable science fiction series and the various planets and humanoid aliens are an important part of the setting, but none of them-- except for the human race and the planet Earth -- are individually notable on their own. Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, secondary analysis can be found. [20] [21]. The main point Foster was making; hideous resemblance to insects, but they have good souls, has been discussed in secondary sources. I won't cry if this is merged, since the information should be covered in Humanx Commonwealth, but it is not like the others nominated today. Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Humanx Commonwealth#Major species. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Got enough content to fill its own article, and it has secondary analysis in the books found by Abductive. Dream Focus 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even the nominator isn't sure it should be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur M. Menadier
- Arthur M. Menadier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think it's failing the WP:GNG. Main author has a definite WP:COI, referring to themselves throughout article. Mostly unreferenced. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Sounded like a very nice gentlemen, and seems to be very notable within his family. However, for inclusion in Wikipedia, under our current guidelines, there is a need for 3rd party – creditable – independent coverage from reliable and verifiable sources. Sorry to say, I was only able to find one reference to the Gentlemen, as shown here [22] from 1959. Just not enough at this time. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 14:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found a bit more information by searching on other variations of his name (Arthur Munroe Menadier, Arthur Menadier). This is one of the cases where I think that the person was notable, and if we could find references for the claims, notability could be proved. But the only reliable source references I can find do no more than confirm that he was an executive at a major advertising agency and that he had at least three daughters who got married (on the basis of engagement and wedding announcements which mention his name) and that (at keast at one point) he lived in Rye, New York. If press clippings about his accomplishments could be found, then those would probably be valid references as long as they had enough bibliographic detail to allow the material to be verified. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From user Jphogan >>> this page should not be deleated at least in next ninety days as "notability" further established for such whose spirit and sense of "art" and "marketing" for twenty five years is reflected in near every piece of Johnson and Johnson advertising in radio, tv, and commercial product placement and print for whether baby powder or "no more tears"... His decendents make him even more notable and more notable than brother three in Menadier Otto, Fritz and Rudolph that preceded in Menadiers in America and fought in our Civil War. I am just one of over thirty of his grandchildren and with one that passed maybe still memorialized in room dedication at the Boston Children's Museum. I think I tried to respond on a diffent "talk" page than this that I hope is also linked for your considerations.
Oh, what happened to the page I once found here for Joseph V. Connolly Sr.?
Thank you whom found the articles and info on my grandfather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphogan (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AArgh! Sorry. This page slipped of my watchlist. Okay. I've read the article again. Some of the info has changed my mind a little. He seems to be just notable enough. I'm not quite sure what Jphogan is on about with the relatives. What do you mean? His descendants don't make him any more notable unless they themselves are notable. I think much of this article needs to be removed, as it comprises of irrelevant info about his relatives. Sorry. Also, we really need to have sources/references for articles. Your own knowledge is probably correct, but we need stuff that appears in "reliable third-party publications". I'm gonna clean this article up a bit, but I'm not going to withdraw this nomination just yet, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okayyy. I was about to clean it up. I got to fixing the image, but I couldn't really get my head round the grammar. Don't take offense at this, but some of the sentences are a bit, uh, weird. For example "He is known to have at least missed on daughter's graduation for being on a fishing trip with Robert Wood Johnson II." "In such's character is a notable history as the last known student of Boston Latin School to arrive at school still wearing knickers." Some of it drifts of topic too, detailing the lives of his relatives. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the article is about Arthur M. Menadier, not his family. But these in themselves aren't reasons to delete. His involvement with J&J is probably the only notability-creating factor. Thing. Sorry. I'll wait until somebody else comments. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AArgh! Sorry. This page slipped of my watchlist. Okay. I've read the article again. Some of the info has changed my mind a little. He seems to be just notable enough. I'm not quite sure what Jphogan is on about with the relatives. What do you mean? His descendants don't make him any more notable unless they themselves are notable. I think much of this article needs to be removed, as it comprises of irrelevant info about his relatives. Sorry. Also, we really need to have sources/references for articles. Your own knowledge is probably correct, but we need stuff that appears in "reliable third-party publications". I'm gonna clean this article up a bit, but I'm not going to withdraw this nomination just yet, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- user JPHOGAN >> I am working on the type of sourcing you may be used to for non-creative professional and his time with BBD&O with part of Johnson & Johnson account. Need to confirm still that with his "character" and friendship mentioned poetically is also of Johnson and Johnson having had their business spread across more than one agency until A.M.M. moved some to J&J to be with rest and under his supervision. His third party sources are there but slightly removed as nature of such marketer with "oversight" and involvment in all ad copy. How do you separate a story of a man from his patriarchy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jphogan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very week Keep We have a problem with careers such as this, because unless people in advertising win major awards of some sort , there is great trouble documenting them. I have my doubts though about some of the writing in the article, such as "Husband of relative of Buffalo Bill Cody through Cody's parents' generation. Arthur married Mary Lucile Menadier, born on November 14, 1904 in Massachusetts, daughter of Mr. Edward Joseph Slamin and Elizabeth Josephine "EJ" Prendergast, four years after first making her acquaintance in 1926." which I cannot actually decipher. I think it means that either Edward Slamin or Elizabeth Prendergast is some unspecified relative of Buffalo Bill, though I don't see how it could possibly be relevant except the their family. The overall tone is that of a obituary for a family newsletter. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I could find no secondary sources online. I found a few primary sources, such as the little announcements they put in the business section of newspapers to say that someone has been promoted. If offline secondary sources are found, there should be no prejudice against its recreation. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pebbly Mammogram
- Pebbly Mammogram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet again our illustrious admin force us into wasting our time. This is a non notable band that has no claims to fame. Has already grown a sockfarm and speedy should have been granted. Thank you for wasting our time Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Does not meet any criteria in WP:Band and can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 14:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, following proper procedure is not a "waste of time." Nor is the use of a prod tag a waste of time. If anything, senselessly converting a prod into an AfD because you didn't like the admin's decision is the waste of time. The article clearly claims importance which is all that is required to avoid speedy under A7. That said, it seems like it might be a hoax given ZERO Google hits. I would be tempted to speedy delete under that criteria; failing that it is a clear delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a complete waste of time. go look into the history. The article has garnered a new sock farm and speedys were gting removed. How long do you think that it would have taken for someone to remove the prod? Yes in this acase CSD was the way to go on a non notable band. Now what would you have done different? Admin do have the ability to decifer a claim to notability and if clearly that claim is not valid it does fall within proper deletion procedure. Zero Ghits demonstrate it is a non notable band hence the tag was correct. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "importance" and notability aren't the same thing. The article makes a couple (likely false, but that is irrelevant) claims of importance: "they have influenced many in the Nebraskan indie music scene", "achieved notoriety", etc. I would have most likely handled it the same or deleted it as a hoax, but definitely not as an A7. An admin you is speedy deleting articles based on lack of notability isn't doing their job right. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'd avoid arguments based on Google hits (see WP:GHITS) but even so, the article only claims importance but not notability, so it fails A7 for speedy deletion but also WP:MUSIC to be kept. Regards SoWhy 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find any reliable sources to verify a neutral article. And while I'm tempted to point out that the real waste of time on a project that isn't working on a deadline might be bickering at admins who actually follow policy, I'll abstain in favour of suggesting that the nom might want to consider bringing the discussion about the appropriateness of the speedy decline to WT:CSD and let the AfD run its natural course to a most likely inevitable end. MLauba (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment when there is disagreement how to proceed, AfD is clearly the way to go--it is quicker to resolve it in a discussion here than debate about alternate procedures. I cannot judge notability for this topic, but I'd think we should try to find references to some reviews. I don't see how a creative artist of any sort could be shown to be notable without them. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep per unanymous votes. (non-admin closure)--Krazycev 13 other crap 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.A.
- P.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Ghetto Street Funk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Straight No Chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- My Life, Your Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No albums have any proof of charting, page represents a brief summary of a group, and does not appear to establish notability. Also nominating all albums by the group for deletion as well.----Krazycev 13 01:05, 13 October 2009 (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) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I dunno, there are a lot of sources, Vibe, Billboard, etc, and they were on a major label, DreamWorks, for at least 7 years. The guest stars are known artists. I certainly have seen much more deletion-worthy groups on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 06:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They meet criterion 5 of WP:BAND by releasing 2 or more albums on a major label (2 on DreamWorks and 1 on MCA Records). J04n(talk page) 16:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All Charting albums, hit single. Chubbles (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per Chubbles and JO4n.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loose Logic
- Loose Logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails all the criteria at WP:NM and a clear COI. It had been deleted as a prod but the artist himself requested it be remade. Wikipedia is not free webspace. Pentadecimal (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: I deleted (and undeleted) the PROD, and had been meaning to start this discussion with the undeletion, but was called away from the computer. I don't see any evidence of notability, but I'd certainly be fine with keeping the article if someone can find some decent sources. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and for the record, a conflict of interest (COI) is not clear here: the main contributions that suggest COI are those of User:Looselogic, whose main contributions were to add images that were later deleted. That the subject requested undeletion is trivial, as it doesn't directly impact the article's content or ultimately, state of existence. I don't think that any COI should be a significant reason for deletion here. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:01, 11 October 2009 (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) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i have supplied some links to start off with.. and will search for more.. in the next few months there will be a large amount of external mentions in print/web media and i will make sure to add the links here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.124.173 (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep When this AfD began, this rapper's notability was extremely doubtful. Now I would call this a borderline case, given the external links since added to the page (eventually someone will have to wikify the article). The article is badly in need of a rewrite, but I think its subject might be just notable enough for inclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtank Productions
- Bigtank Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
My rationale for this nomination is, if you take away all the spam element of this article, you will be left with nothing to write in this article, plus fails WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY Donnie Park (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination; no historical information or other indicia of significance here, only a laudatory self-description and a list of clients or products. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 22:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albanian Association in Middle East
- Albanian Association in Middle East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested WP:PROD, the article has only one external cite and doesn't assert notability or pass WP:V Mifter (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to etablish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep To delete the associations pages does not seem to be a good idea unless there's a conflict, wrong claim or so on. It might connect people who need it. Improvement of the page and keeping it is recommended. Olivemountain (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You are essentially saying it's userful which isn't a good reason for keeping an article. Significant coverage about the association is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im the author and as external information becomes available in English this article will be updated. So, I strongly recommend that this article is not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBuchi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But if there are no sources now, then there isn't material to support the inclusion of the article in wikipedia. If those sources appear in the future, then would be the time for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since the article's subject does not meet the notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no third party coverage found in gnews. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vince Gotera
- Vince Gotera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-serving autobiography of a not-notable-enough writer User234 (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Think I'll leave my deletionist hat off for this one. The awards received plus the small amount of press coverage are enough to show notability. Kevin (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there is enough there to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 11:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I would agree that there is notability (He had me at Editor of North American Review), and this article seems to be reasonably structured and sourced. It's also remarkably neutral, given that it was written by the subject. Indeed, had I not looked into the images, I would not have known that the author was also the subject. Issues with the authorship aside, this article in and of itself meets our criteria for inclusion. I have notified the author of the AFD nomination, and cautioned them to review our COI and Autobiography policies - something that no one had asked them to do, as yet. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to what has already been said above, he also probably meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). One of this books, Radical Visions, is held by 439 WorldCat libraries. COI issues aside, it is a well written and organized article.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manuel P. Asensio
- Manuel P. Asensio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO - non-notable fund manager. Cameron Scott (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject is a well-known short-seller, the subject of voluminous press coverage in the 1990s and author of a book. The article requires expansion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A well known and notable activist and author, with massive coverage in the media. The nomination seems to be based on a version of the article that was in place for less than a day, introduced by a party related to the article's subject matter. When a bio is written like an advertisement by a COI editor, it needs to be fixed, not deleted. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This version [23] was the actual "last good version" before the COI editor changed it into an advertisement, the point where Cameron ran across it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The New York Times article easily proves notability. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:SNOW. I completely understand why Cameron Scott nominated the article, it was in awful shape, but he should have either looked at the article history or done a quick search on the author's name. The notability is pretty clearly established in the article in its current form. -- Atama頭 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if JohnnyB is willing to keep after it for NPOV. Cameron is probably right that the subject is now “non-notable,” as there appears to be little independent material published about him in recent years. But the subject is notable for past coverage.--Wiki-nika (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's kind of you to say that but I think that other editors need to pitch in to expand this article. It now has an "undue" tag on it and it's hard to argue that far too much of the article is focused on his regulatory issues. In fact, I believe I raised that point myself on the talk page a while ago. Lamentably, the man himself or a proxy appeared, and behaved in such a way as to make it hard to focus on content. There's a lot on his career that needs to be added. I think that the best source for that is the news articles that are out there, and not the ones cherry picked by Asensio for his website. Frankly I found dealing with this article exhausting, and would much prefer if other editors weighed in, particularly in expanding. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure how much help I will be in expansion, but I will keep this article on my watchlist for any further trouble from IPs or new accounts. I'll try to expand it if I can. -- Atama頭 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can only mirror JohnnyB's sentiments. When I started the article almost five years ago, I knew it would be controversial, but I didn't expect it to undergo constant total POV-based rewrites. The article has been deleted once before via OTRS action. Having to waste time on this current AfD, despite the obvious outcome, just adds to the growing feeling that editing any BLP is an exercise in futility. However, I do appreciate the effort of all those who strive to improve the article. Owen× ☎ 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 22:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detour (video game)
- Detour (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an upcoming game by a studio with no prior releases. At the moment, independent coverage consists entirely of rehashed press releases. Suggest deletion per WP:GNG. --Muchness (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Muchness (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN game with no release date by NN studio. Get the hammer. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - some press releases are doing the rounds, but there's no significant, independent coverage. Therefore delete. Marasmusine (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Newnham
- Scott Newnham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appearance on [country]-idol program alone is not enough to have a stand alone article. Maybe could be merged into the article for the particular season, but not notable stand alone. Shadowjams (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, would appear to not meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calico grounds
- Calico grounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:COMPANY; I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HOMEOBUZZ Let's Make Anaemia a History
- HOMEOBUZZ Let's Make Anaemia a History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article that reads like a brochure or how-to list of how to combat anaemia. Being that we already have an article on Anemia, that Wikipedia does not publish original research nor how-to guides, I don't see why this article should stay. TheLetterM (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom; looks spammy. Shadowjams (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ditto; adds nothing to the page on anaemia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 03:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Titan Robotics Club
- Titan Robotics Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
School club. Many schools have many clubs. It participates in some competition. Many schools compete in many competitions. But is this club/team itself actually notable? I would have speedied/A7 if it weren't for "won many awards including the 2006 Chairmans awards", but I can't figure out what that award even is (though it doesn't sound like a top winner of a national-level competition). DMacks (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Club unique to the school, article needs expansion —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.pyke (talk • contribs)
- Delete I see nothing whatever unique about it. It is not the only HS robotics club. That it may be the only robotics club at International School (Bellevue, Washington) does not seem to warrant an article. I'd consider this a speedy A7, for no indication of notability as all. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to school's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf(talk) 09:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TalaWockeez
- TalaWockeez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete WP:N HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - no assertion of importance. 7 04:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as A7. E Wing (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Straightforward {{db-web}} case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WOMEN'S FORUM, Azerbaijan
- WOMEN'S FORUM, Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Promotional article. Both of them -- see also: (Women's Forum Azerbaijan) HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. MuZemike 07:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 boroughs
- 3 boroughs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a bad title, one of the reasons I PRODded this in the first place--prod removed by author without explanations. Now that the number is corrected, the title makes even less sense--but to put it blandly, that an area have a certain number of boroughs (or skyscrapers, lakes, etc.) is no reason to have an article called "3 boroughs," even if it were three. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A1/A3 - This article does not contain sufficient context for me to identify the subject of the article. Also, this article does not appear to contain any meaningful content. (Further concerns are that it does not assert notability, contain any sources, or provide sufficient information to allow other editors to meaningfully expand or improve the article.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding 10 boroughs, also de-prodded, basically same reasoning. If someone can verify this information, then it should go into the main article for Gandhinagar district. Delete both per nom.--Chaser2 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not a fan of one AfD hitting multiple articles (too easy to confuse issues) but for what it's worth my Speedy Delete vote above would also apply to 10 boroughs, for the same reasons. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Chaser. I hadn't thought of combining them, and I also am not generally in favor of that, but here it seems appropriate. I think there ought to be some speediable way to get rid of an article like 3 boroughs, certainly the way it looked originally. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but add verified information to Gandhinagar district. According to the article about the district, there are "three boroughs" rather than ten, and the other seven are cities. No merge, since it's an unlikely search term. Mandsford (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 07:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belle Elliott
- Belle Elliott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not able to locate any independent confirmation that Belle Elliott is a dog movie star, as the article claims. Warrah (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the IMDb accepts credits for animal actors if they are listed in a cast listing [24], this particular dog actor does not have an IMDb entry, nor does the IMDb page cited mention her. Hence, there are no sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion that this (adorable) dog is notable. Also, I agree with Metropolitan90's comments above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forrester Creations
- Forrester Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lots of plot, but no evidence of notability.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion that this fictional organisation is either notable or independently notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge useful information into The Bold and the Beautiful. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP: GNG. Rocksey (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 07:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NVP Retreats
- NVP Retreats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is just a summary of plot. No way that this is a notable subject.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable fictional subject. Possibly redirect to The Young and the Restless. Netalarmtalk 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; a redirect may be appropriate, as Netalarm notes. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP: GNG. Rocksey (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 06:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Woodbury
- Michael Woodbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Dominic·t 02:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing in the article indicates more than a WP:BLP1E. Approaches notability as mass murderer by killing three in the crime. Edison (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - another crime-related BLP1E case - Alison ❤ 05:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chancellor Industries
- Chancellor Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Nothing in the article suggests that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no evidence of notability. --Blargh29 (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above; no real evidence of independent notability. Any useful information might be merged to The Young and the Restless, if an editor were so inclined and if it works with that article - which it might not. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 06:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevin Millan
- Nevin Millan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor/producer with no major roles in a notable production, nor any awards for short films. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete.How can you claim that there are 'no major roles' in a 'notable production'? That is a matter of opinion. There are several films, both independently produced as well as studio produced, available for purchase in major chains like Blockbuster, as well as on the internet, not to mention, several television shows. Please remove information you cannot verify, but do not delete the page. Where does it say in the Wikipedia rules that a person has to be a major superstar with "major roles" to be listed? If you follow your proposed guidelines for deletion, literally half the artists on Wikipedia should be deleted. Please explain your rationale further, or edit the article to meet your requirements and please remove it from the deletion queue. Thank you.User:Nevpan —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC). — Nevpan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You'd be asking about WP:ENTERTAINER then. As for the need to delete half the artists on Wikipedia, you may be right. Feel free to nominate them as WP:AfD. Josh Parris 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – You said, "Please remove information you cannot verify," (as is required by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), but you keep adding IMDb as your reference that the subject belongs to Mensa International, even though it is not considered a reliable source because it cannot be verified. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Thanks for informing me about alot of this, I'm relatively new to these discussions and not aware of many of the sources and rules issues. Personally, I'm astounded that IMDb is not a 'reliable source' because I am aware that they have quite the rigorous verification process for projects and credits that are added (perhaps it is a source that should be re-looked at by Wikipedia to be made verifiable?), and besides, I know I've seen IMDb as a source for many postings on here. In any case, it is duly noted and thanks for letting me know. So, to remedy this, if additional sources are provided, the article should remain, correct? FYI, I'm still figuring out the signature stamp thing. Thanks for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevpan (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point … IMDb is an acceptable source that the subject had a role in film Xyzzy, but you can not trust any of the biographical information because that is not as closely monitored … for example, they modified my father's birth/death date/location based solely on a memorial Web page that I posted … in other words, they took my word that (a) I was related to him, and (b) that the information was correct … that's the kind of information that cannot be trusted on that site. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, as I'm understanding it now, the actual performing Credits are verifiable with IMDb as a source, but not any additional information. What about 'Trivia' information for films/Performers? What about other listing websites such as IBDb.com (Internet Broadway Database)and Inbaseline.com (which is the system used by all the major studios)?--Nevpan (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point … IMDb is an acceptable source that the subject had a role in film Xyzzy, but you can not trust any of the biographical information because that is not as closely monitored … for example, they modified my father's birth/death date/location based solely on a memorial Web page that I posted … in other words, they took my word that (a) I was related to him, and (b) that the information was correct … that's the kind of information that cannot be trusted on that site. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd be asking about WP:ENTERTAINER then. As for the need to delete half the artists on Wikipedia, you may be right. Feel free to nominate them as WP:AfD. Josh Parris 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per nom, no reliable sources establishing notability. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appearing as "Tennis Ball Victim", "Surfer Guy #1" and "Caterer" don't scream "major roles" to me. Article missing WP:Verifiability too. Josh Parris 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the more prominent films and television shows listed in his IMDb filmography, every one appears to be an uncredited or unconfirmed role. It does not appear that this actor has achieved notability yet. The article can be re-created later if he does achieve notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete.Can someone PLEASE put a link to the Wikipedia rule where it says that actors/artists have to be 'Notable' to be listed and what is the determination or qualification for when someone has achieved 'Notability'? It all seems very arbitrary and some guidance to this for reference would be very useful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevpan (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 October 2009
- You'd be asking about WP:ENTERTAINER again. Please WP:sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who said what when. If you disagree with the criteria for notability, build a consensus for changing it (at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (people)) and it will be changed. Josh Parris 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – To quote Wikipedia:Notability:
This is in case you haven't figured out that you should click the words highlighted in blue … BTW, Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, so you only need post Do Not Delete once (subsequent "votes" will be ignored.) — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
- Comment – To quote Wikipedia:Notability:
- You'd be asking about WP:ENTERTAINER again. Please WP:sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who said what when. If you disagree with the criteria for notability, build a consensus for changing it (at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (people)) and it will be changed. Josh Parris 04:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:Notability (people) or WP:Biographies of living persons notability criteria. Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) 05:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of meeting our notability and verifiability standards. Prolog (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I have a suggestion for a total revision of this actor's page that I believe will qualify based on aforementioned discussion, please let me know if this will work. I would like to suggest that the article remain listed based on the fact of the actor's appearance in the television series 'Battles B.C.'. He starred in an episode as Pharaoh Ramses II, qualifying him as notable AND significant and this fact can remain linked to the Ramses II article where the film/TV portrayals are listed. And since there are very few portrayals of Ramses II listed in history of film/tv, this is a significant fact that should be listed on Wikipedia. In addition, there are 4 other distributed films, 'Didgori: Land of Sacrificed Knights', 'Whitewall', 'Last Exit', and '10,000 A.D.: Legend of a Black Pearl' in which the actor has significant credits, which I believe would qualify him as notable, given the current criteria for "notability". All other unverifiable biographical information can be deleted. Thoughts?--Nevpan (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you state that there are very few portrayals of Ramses II in films and television. IMDb lists more than two dozen of them. [25] Besides, playing a notable historical/Biblical figure is not an inherent guarantee of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the Wikipedia article about Ramses II and the people it mentioned who've portrayed the character. Regardless, throughout a hundred years of filmmaking, being one of just over two dozen humans ever to portray a prolific historical character such as Ramses II on film or TV is quite significant, wouldn't you say? This is where the 'notability' requirements become arbitrary, but I think its pretty safe to assume that most people would say this is a notably worthy of mention. Especially since the program airs in millions of homes in the US as well as Canada, making the proliferation of this portrayal of this historical character quite far reaching.--Nevpan (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You really don't understand Notability, do you? See this Example of a stub with good WP:V to establish WP:BIO … for now, just create a sandbox version in User space at User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan (click the red text to create it), and then have some experienced editors review it before moving it to Article space. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure I understand what Wikipedia calls 'notability', however, I'm of the opinion that the Wikipedia provided guidelines regarding notability are not only ambiguous, arbitrary, and vague, but also quite antiquated given the breadth and plethora of electronic sources and means by which 'notability' can be confirmed and defined. That being said, I really appreciate your information and guidance in this matter and will try revamping the article best I can to better adhere to the current accepted protocols. In order to gain approval, would I post a link to the revamped article in my sandbox to this Afd?--Nevpan (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you state that there are very few portrayals of Ramses II in films and television. IMDb lists more than two dozen of them. [25] Besides, playing a notable historical/Biblical figure is not an inherent guarantee of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can establish notability, the article will be preserved, but after changing the article you will probably need to contact the people who have voted thus far and ask them to reconsider.
- It might be easier for you to create an article at User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan, work it up until you're satisfied with it, contact a few of the editors who have made comments here to see if your new revision is acceptable for an encyclopedia, and once it's in acceptable condition, move it into the article namespace (any editor will help you with this if you ask) - accepting that in the meantime, the existing article will be deleted. Be aware of WP:COI, and read Wikipedia:Your first article; articles which establish notability in their introduction ("Steve is famous for both causing the 2004 US Army invasion of Brazil and inventing the telephone") along with providing WP:verifiable references from WP:reliable sources supporting these claims will have a long, healthy life. Josh Parris 08:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NEW ARTICLE – After taking the advice of several editors in this discussion, I have rewritten the article and cited all sources of information as much as possible. Please see the following sandbox article: User:Nevpan/Nevin Millan. If you approve, it would be great if you could support the re-posting of this article with the updated version. Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevpan (talk • contribs) added 11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and ignoring the arguments of the COI (subject's agent), who doesn't understand notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:ENT. Skarebo (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have read the new draft article referred to above. Clearly Nevpan has put a fair amount of work into the job, but sadly he has still missed the point of Wikipedia's notability criterion. The draft article gives clearly verifiable sources to confirm various facts about Millan, such as which high school he graduated from, and the fact that he has worked on certain films. However, there is absolutely no evidence given that either Millan or any of his work has received significant coverage in independent sources, reliable or otherwise. Unfortunately Nevpan does not seem to have realised that, while verifiability is important, unless the verifiable information is shown to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria it is still no use. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 06:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Katha Books
- Katha Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was created by someone who evidently has a conflict of interest with the subject (admins: see creator's deleted contribs in addition to extant contributions). Notability unclear. Because of COI needs to be thoroughly vetted anyway. Chick Bowen 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability not asserted Josh Parris 03:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All right, I've done a little more research on this, and I want to slightly amend my nomination. The organization Katha, which has had several articles in different places in the last few days deleted as either copyvios or advertisements and currently has a new (slightly better) article at Katha NGO, appears to be genuinely notable; see this story in the Times of India, for example. Obviously that article needs a lot more work, but ultimately the best thing is probably for Katha Books to be merged to Katha NGO (which should itself probably be moved elsewhere). I'm not withdrawing the nomination, however, as I think the COI here is worrisome and the best thing would be that someone else comes in and more or less starts over. Furthermore, I think Anuradha Sharma Pujari (see deletion discussion directly above this one) probably does need to be deleted outright, as there's nothing out there and this article amounts to promotion performed by her press. Chick Bowen 15:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A leading name in translation in Indian publishing, after Oxford University Press, run by Katha NGO, see Gap years in India: discover a land of wondrous variety The Independent, and Translation as reclamation: It is boom time for translation in India in The Hindu, and Literacy in communities - Slum haven UNESCO. --Ekabhishektalk 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite notable. Could possibly be merged to NGO parent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a stand-alone article per improvements made by User:Ekabhishek. Abecedare (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 06:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amygdala scripts
- Amygdala scripts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only usage that Google shows for the term "amygdala script" is in an advertisement for a forthcoming book by Timothy B. Stokes, the apparent author of this article. It looks like the book will be published by Rutgers University Press, which will make it a reputable source once it comes out, but it isn't one yet. In short, there might be a valid article on this topic in a few months, but the current article is premature. None of the sources listed in the article use the term at all; it is an invention. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sometimes academics come up with non-notable original ideas too. Google Scholar finds nothing on "amygdala scripts" or "amygdala script". The cited references would appear not to support a separate article under this title, although something on emotional memory or a less idiosyncratic and more obvious term might support an article. Delete this; but given the lack of current discussion of the title phrase, I doubt this will support an article even after the book appears. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Possibly merge somewhere? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable, and given the lack of other sources using the term, also seems to violate WP:NOT#OR. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Brave Little Toaster. Kevin (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy E. Day
- Timothy E. Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - IMDB lists three credits to his name, none of them notable, so therefore he doesn't meet any of the three criteria at WP:ENT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is one notable one which is the voice of a major character in The Brave Little Toaster. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; it's true to say that he did provide the voice for the fifth-most-important character in a 1987 animated Disney film. Still doesn't get him past the WP:ENT criteria. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is one notable one which is the voice of a major character in The Brave Little Toaster. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Brave Little Toaster where Day had his notability and where folks might expect to read about him voicing the blanket. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per MichaelQSchmidt, if that was his claim to fame, then a re-direct and his inclusion in the cast should be all that's required. Frmatt (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Josh Parris 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transformers 3
- Transformers 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CRYSTAL and Wikipedia:Notability (films). Nothing has been officially announced about the movie other than the 2011 release date and a few comments from the creators as to their thoughts on what to include in the story. Principal photography has not commenced yet and the cast list is pure fan speculation. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:CRYSTAL Josh Parris 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Revenge of the Fallen, as is I believe the standard procedure in cases like this. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NFF. This seems to be just a copy-paste out of the Transformers 2 article.--Chaser2 (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The content of the article is pure nonsense. In any case a redirect could be created to the corresponding section in the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen section. --uKER (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kurt could have redirected as a simple editorial decision without bringing this to AFD. The purpose of AFD here is to get a clean consensus that the topic is not (yet) notable, thus making a subsequent G4 deletion straightforward. Are you !voting for deletion? If so, please make it clear. We can make a redirect even if we've deleted an article at AFD.--Chaser2 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not enough information at the current date. Viet|Pham (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Opening paragraph is also a copy paste from multiple sources. HalfShadow (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If this page is recreated before a release is officially announced delete and salt to prevent recreation until the movie is released. -- allen四names 02:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This page seems to be mainly copypasted from Revenge of the Fallen. And anyway, this seems to be a favourite target of people who attempt to insert obvious fan speculation. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) (emergency editor shutdown (use only in case of vandalism)) 15:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now; there's plenty of time to create an article after there's some useful information available. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Theres not enough info right now maybe in a year or so but now is to soon and theres users trying to add uncomfirmed stuff it belongs in the Revenge of the Fallen page until more information is released The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any info here not listed in the Transformers/Transformers 2 area for sequel and Delete anything already there. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fabryka Industrial Rock Magazine
- Fabryka Industrial Rock Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail Notability for magazines Tim1357 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2009 (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) 00:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. The debate wasn't sorted so a second relist is reasonable. Also, when considering whether or not to delete, WP:WEB seems more relevant then Notability for magazines --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough evidence of notability. The first citation is to a google search! The rest of the citations are to the magazine itself. --Blargh29 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nigel Hopkins
- Nigel Hopkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy deletion was declined on the basis that the article asserts some claims to notability. I have, however, been unable to find any reliable sources that indicate that subject meets the criteria for inclusion, therefore this appears to fail WP:MUSIC. I'd welcome your thoughts on this. sparkl!sm hey! 15:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl!sm hey! 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the included sources mention Hopkins in passing (eg, "and on keyboard, Nigel Hopkins"). NN due to lack of media attention. Josh Parris 01:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Escape Route
- Escape Route (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obvious advertisement for a non-notable song (at least I assume it's a song; the article says it's a "project" [whatever that means]). Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not terribly advert-y; as a standalone album it does have a review on allmusic. At worst, redirect to singer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - No, the album is The Great Escape; this is apparently the first cut, judging from the track listing appended to the article. Frankly, I'm still tempted to delete the whole thing as incomprehensible due to lack of context. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an advance EP with songs from the album, not unlike The Way It Goes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - No, the album is The Great Escape; this is apparently the first cut, judging from the track listing appended to the article. Frankly, I'm still tempted to delete the whole thing as incomprehensible due to lack of context. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename if kept, to Escape Route (Joe Budden), since there are so many meanings to this. Then make Escape Route a dab page, listing the song, the promo, A Second Chance at Eden, List of The Saint episodes, fire escape, emergency exit, escape tunnel, secret passage, other escape routes like Ratlines (history), Underground railroad, etc. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect ... to artist article. Lacks siginficant coverage RadioFan (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I despair sometimes at this project. This has an Allmusic review already linked in the article, and loads of coverage elsewhere, including a prefix review, in-depth article in HipHopDX, article from Allhiphop.com, more from HipHopDX, article from Hiphopwired.com. Not difficult to find details on what this article is about, and not difficult to find sources.--Michig (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per Michig. (and you're not the only one).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have no problem with this topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fatal Hitchkoch
- Fatal Hitchkoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable musician. Having a single featured on a radio station's podcast isn't sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC, neither are the other claims to notability such as having a song appear on DJ Woogie's Sippin Southern 13 Mixtape. Pontificalibus (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - fails all tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:39, 21 October 2009 (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) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The World Can't Wait
- The World Can't Wait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable group. The sources supporting this article do not seem to be anything more than allied groups. Where are the actual media reports? What we have is a group that had maybe a dozen rallies, and took a few pictures, but achieved no concrete ends - hardly sufficient to establish independent notability. bd2412 T 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are some independent news sources amongst these search results, such as [26],[27] and [28], and I found this paragraph of book coverage. This seems very much of a borderline case to me, so I'm reserving judgement until I see whether anyone comes up with anything else. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2009 (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) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found establishing notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was a major group in the anti-war movement and were behind the calls for several large anti-war demos in the US. I personally dislike the group a lot, but they are definitely notable. Ungovernable ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes little effort to be "behind the calls" for something, especially when there were plenty of politicians unaffiliated with this group making similar pronouncements. So far as I can tell this group had two goals, to end the war in Iraq and to impeach Bush, neither of which happened and the latter of which never germinated into a real movement and is now impossible. This sort of flash-in-the-pan does not establish enduring notability. bd2412 T 04:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - organization is notable, is covered by numerous sources including Time, ABC and CNN. The group is still active in human rights activism, including pro-choice and anti-torture issues. --George100 (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As one of Revolutionary Communist Party, USA offshoots. That should be mentioned and ref'd if possible. But someone SHOULD do the work of adding notable refs about. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 06:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sublime's fourth studio album
- Sublime's fourth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was proposed for deletion, but note removed by IP - reasons brought forward were: WP:CRYSTAL, no name, no release date, one reference goes to MySpace, and WP:HAMMERTIME Hekerui (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes, Sublime is back together, but they haven't announced plans for a new album yet. Alex (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hammertime, baby. I thought I'd be able to find sources, no luck. tedder (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL Josh Parris 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Stop… Hammertime (plus per nom). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. All that's been announced is that they're writing material. talkingbirds 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ...especially because someone will immediately create a page with the proper title and release date as soon as they are known. For now, the possibility of a new album is best left in the band biography. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Humanx Commonwealth. MuZemike 22:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Truzenzuzex
- Truzenzuzex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to the list of planets, as before. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Delete as per order of null. Simonm223 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, somewhere, I don't know where. List of planets is absurd since this appears to be a character, not a planet. Powers T 13:25, 21 October 2009 (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) 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and clean up Template:The_Humanx_Commonwealth which is the source of this problem Josh Parris 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Humanx Commonwealth or an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Bilotta
- Nick Bilotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiographical spam Orange Mike | Talk 04:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- non-notable.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2009 (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) 00:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Josh Parris 01:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Musician noted for outstanding record sales (RIAA certified gold), which meets WP:MUSIC. Arcuates (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)— Arcuates (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please note: this is apparently a sockpuppet of Bilotta's; certainly a role account, and has been blocked as such --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence he was ever a member on Natural (even the unreliable reference used does not mention him (but does leave open the posibility he was part of a the managers otherwise unreleated band of the same name), other reference does not support claim). Other band he is a member of is a coi article with no indication of real notability. Mixture of hoax, NN band and nn autobio. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep is a listed RIAA Certified Gold Record Sales member, which meets WP:MUSIC, also refer to SoundScan for proof of everything else he's doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.142.111 (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC) — 24.31.142.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arcuates
- Arcuates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band. Orange Mike | Talk 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Does not meet notability guidelines.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2009 (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) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Josh Parris 01:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lead player profile Nick Bilotta (RIAA Certified Gold), which meets WP:MUSIC. Arcuates (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) — Arcuates (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please note: this is apparently a sockpuppet of Bilotta's; certainly a role account, and has been blocked as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Nick BilottaDelete; for criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC the band would need at least two notable members. Can find no other claim to WP:N. J04n(talk page) 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Changed to delete, did not realize Nick Bilotta]] was also up for deletion. J04n(talk page) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[[[reply]- Delete No need to merge to article on non notable member (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Bilotta). No other claim of notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lead player is RIAA certified gold records member and his side project Holly Heist is subsidiary for lead vocalist Alex Roy Fearless Records. Bilotta has two-notable feats per this band, which meets WP:MUSIC.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.142.111 (talk • contribs) — 24.31.142.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No argument to keep Kevin (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huntington Majors
- Huntington Majors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a person with lots of non-NPOV facts, without establishing notability, without any major references. I failed to find any notable third-party coverage of his achievements. Google brings us mighty 151 ghits about him, which is, well, somewhat strange for a notable performing guitarist. The only review that mentions this character is Rock Music On Steroids, which is, IMHO, too little to establish notablity. The article itself is written in very advertising-like tone ("pioneered new and previously untried variations", "accomplishments in inventing new playing techniques", "novel methods", "startling and compelling melodic effects", etc, etc — without providing any sources). User:Rockstage, who created this article, contributed only to this article => most likely it was an attempt for self-promotion. --GreyCat (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2009 (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) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of the references are reliable, and no WP:MUSIC notability is asserted in the article. Josh Parris 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Face in the Hall
- Face in the Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM as a non-notable, unreleased album. Chasewc91 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL; "Planned Track Listing" is particularly telling. The lack of citations is also troubling. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:35, 21 October 2009 (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) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trevor Brennan. Kevin (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Bamford
- Patrick Bamford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. This is the very definition of WP:1E. This guy got hit by Trevor Brennan at an Ulster Rugby match a few years ago. That's it. Matthew Simmons doesn't have an article, so neither does this guy. No assertion of notability, outside of taking a straight right, has been made. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or merge - While close to BLP1E, the article details also a subsequent libel action and there was still coverage 21 months after the incident. A rename of the article could help, however. --Cyclopiatalk 13:36, 25 October 2009 (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) 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge, totally WP:1E, otherwise NN. Also note COI editing. Josh Parris 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Trevor Brennan. Non-notable except for the one event. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RYMCO
- RYMCO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Makes claims to notability, so not WP:CSD#A7, but doesn't seem notable enough. Rd232 talk 12:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seems to be just about enough coverage in reliable sources amongst these news sources and in this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (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) 00:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Concur with Phil's assessment. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with above, there seems to be enough to establish notability ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A consumer business with some historical and cultural interest; the prospect of operating a car dealership in Lebanon would appear to pose many interesting difficulties. Needs to be rewritten in a less self-congratulatory tone. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good work Phil--though it will be a drag to plow through that list and separate the wheat from the chaff. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pip (minidrag)
- Pip (minidrag) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to the list of planets now part of Humanx Commonwealth--this one seems to be omitted. Seems reasonably obvious courses to take. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is a fictional character, not a fictional planet . . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Delete as per order of null. Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject is a fictional character, not a planet. Edward321 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (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) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and fix the infobox Josh Parris
- Delete. Unlikely search term, and there is no content to speak of--and there won't be. What infobox? and who are you telling to fix it? Drmies (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is very short, so deletion is the best option. People who have read the books know what to look up; Flinx. Abductive (reasoning) 01:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Humanx Commonwealth. MuZemike 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meliorare Society
- Meliorare Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable fictional character, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to a list of characters, either as a separate list or a part of Humanx Commonwealth oor possibly at the page for whatever novel best applies. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Delete as per order of null. Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject is a fictional organization, not a character. Edward321 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2009 (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) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and clean up Template:The_Humanx_Commonwealth which is the source of this problem Josh Parris 01:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Humanx Commonwealth or an appropriate list. Edward321 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It played a notable role in 12 books, and in the universe of the series itself. Enough valid content to fill its own article. Dream Focus 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Humanx Commonwealth. MuZemike 22:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Order of Null
- Order of Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable fictional character, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to a list of characters, either as a separate list or a part of Humanx Commonwealth or possibly at the page for whatever novel best applies. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete fork of an unreferenced fork on a series of books by a very notable author. Simonm223 (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject is a fictional organization, not a character. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2009 (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) 00:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and clean up Template:The_Humanx_Commonwealth which is the source of this problem Josh Parris 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Humanx Commonwealth or an appropriate list. Edward321 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Was it only featured in two books? Did it have any long reaching affects on this series? All the organizations could perhaps be combined into a general page, if important to the series. Dream Focus 01:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Humanx Commonwealth. MuZemike 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qwarm
- Qwarm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable fictional character, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to a list of characters, either as a separate list or a part of Humanx Commonwealth or possibly at the page for whatever novel best applies. Seems 3 perfectly obvious courses to take which should not meet opposition . DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:54, 20 October 2009 (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) 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and clean up Template:The_Humanx_Commonwealth which is the source of this problem Josh Parris 01:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject is a fictional organization, not a character. Edward321 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Humanx Commonwealth or an appropriate list. Edward321 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did it have any long reaching affects on this series? All the organizations could perhaps be combined into a general page, if important to the series. Dream Focus 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taksi (software)
- Taksi (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (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) 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pr nomination. Also non-notable. -Snorre/Antwelm (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (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) 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 06:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Barry (playwright)
- Kevin Barry (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Searching for the subject's name in combination with the titles of his plays only finds mentions in credits and a few articles in the local Cincinnati press calling him, "local playwright, Kevin Barry". I don't think that this is enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Coverage is rather limited but does extend over several years. Examples of coverage include [29], [30], [31], and [32] which are from 2001, 2004, 2000, and 2004 respectively. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (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) 00:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Whpq. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MuZemike 06:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crony Records
- Crony Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable label per guidelines of either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC PKT(alk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PKT(alk) 22:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PKT(alk) 22:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2009 (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) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I found a few hits using Google News, but I am not yet convinced of notability--I'm going to hold off, for now, hoping that another editor might fare better than I did. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Forgotten (band)
- The Forgotten (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: practically forgotten by the media after looking through this GNews search page, filled with false positives. Alexius08 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Band has received significant coverage, e.g. Metro Silicon Valley (which calls them "One of San Jose's most important punk bands"), Allmusic bio, three Allmusic reviews: [33], [34], [35].--Michig (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2009 (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) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets Criterion 1 of WP:BAND in that it "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." (excluding "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories").--Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Michig has demonstrated that the subject meets criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.