Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 30

< 29 April	1 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep Cheers. I'^mperator 12:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yukishiro

It has no real people in, and no links. Should be improved or deleted. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Two related characters from Rurouni Kenshin have the same family name. Whodathunk? Delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Remove the 2 fictional entries and leave the sentence explaining it's a family name, could be useful. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of family names and whatnot are called out in WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a valid disambig page to me. Does have wikilinks -- did the nominator mean the article is lacking some other kind of link? -FrankTobia (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it serves a purpose. I would also like to know what the nom meant. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 11:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't nominate something saying it should be improved. AFD is not for clean up. Dream Focus 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Googling the name has 83,400 results. The name in Japanese characters will probably have even more than that. Dream Focus 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sunday Night Project. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lee Collins & Alan Carr

These two co-present one TV show but otherwise don't perform together as a "comedy double act" and do other notable projects solo. Not sure a page linking them is required also want to nominate Justin Lee Colins & Alan Carr which is a redirect with a spelling mistake. Holkingers (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Should be mentioned in their current individual articles, not in this standalone that fails to meet inclusion criteria. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sunday Night Project Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sunday Night Project. Obvious choice. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Base factor

Contested prod. Article is unsourced; explanation of topic is very unclear; appears to be either patent nonsense or original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no references are provided because of our verifiability policy. For what it's worth, I think I understand the definition in the article, but it does not seem very useful. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article can be re-written so that it clearly says something. I'm pretty good at deciphering unclear writing on mathematics, but I can't figure this one out even though it seems pretty simple. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oikophobia

No expert evidence of existence of this phobia. The term does occur in some dictionaries, but one may coin a "phobia" therm from every noun. In other words, nothing beyond dictionary definition. Mukadderat (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It may also be subjest to speedy deletion (copyvio), since it is cut and paste from answer.com. [1]. Mukadderat (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com mirrors WP content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But not this page. When it mirrors wikipedia, it gives attribution. Mukadderat (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pseudolatin-a-phobia dictdeffiness that we don't need. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. That's pseudo-Greek, AMiB. Actually, this article conflates two distinct definitions: The "fear of the home" sense does turn up in some dictionaries of psychology and psychiatry, but I'm not finding any substantive discussions of the putative disorder on which an article could be built; the sense in which it's "the direct opposite of Xenophobia" appears to be an unrelated coinage in a recent book by Roger Scruton. Googling also turns up evidence of a third sense—the word appears to have been employed, in a semi-jocular fashion, around the beginning of the nineteenth century to describe some people's penchant for foreign travel. I would suggest moving this to Wiktionary, which appears to lack a corresponding entry, but its content isn't really suitable in its present form. Deor (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You learn something new every day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Deor: a number of occasional witticisms with different meanings noes not mare an encyclopedia entry. Mukadderat (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speed keep as a disambiguation page (nomination withdrawn)(NAC) --J^mundo 02:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Catherine of Siena Parish School

Not notable. Advert. Law_{type! snype?} 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Laguna Beach, California#Education as usual practice; also valid search term. I have carried out the merge. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It's a common school name ... Cunard (talk · contribs) has twice redirected it to Wilmington, Delaware#Education, where another school by that name exists. Is it appropriate to create a disambiguation that points to education sections of multiple city articles? I'm not sure what standard practice is for this type of situation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, good catch! I see no problem with a DMB page and it looks a nice solution. TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for catching my mistake, Barek. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page per precedent. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn DMB page looks great. Anyone wanna close this thing? Law_{type! snype?} 01:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Hoffmann

Even if he were the most famous "barista" in the universe it still does not make him notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the article reads somewhat like an advertisement for his coffee shop, "Square Mile Roasters," thus making it spam. Yardleyman (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended claim. Also, the line about him releasing "electronica" music does not make him notable under WP:MUSIC requirements. Yardleyman (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amended claim. If one looks at the edit history of the article you can see that the article has been heavily edited by a User:Jimseven, who has added the spam advertising and the references to Hoffmann's garage band. That user is probably none other than Mr. Hoffmann himself. Yardleyman (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO for notability, meets general standards as well as having won award for top barista in the world. There are plenty of independent references for it. The article could be improved but there is no justification for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The above poster is mistaken in stating that the article "[m]eets WP:BIO for notability. . . ." A WP:BIO general requirement for 'any biography' (there obviously is no category for "barista") states that:

"The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them"

As stated in the deletion nomination, being the top barista in the world is not a notable award or honour. Yardleyman (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about references. The user voting keep is mistaken when he says "there are plenty of independent references for it. There are 4 references listed -- one of which is the subject's own blog (who cares), another "reference" is the home page advertisement of his coffee shop (again who cares), and the other two are general home pages for the barista championship programmes. Yardleyman (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why is it not a notable award or honour? Best in the world sounds notable to me. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Because being the "best in the world" at something is only notable when that something itself is a notable, significant career, category, or calling. If someone named as the "best barista" in the world is deemed notable enough for an encylopedia article then why not have a biographical article on "Wal Mart Employee of the Year"? Yardleyman (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is a ridiculous analogy. This article subject has been judged the best in the world regardless of his employer. Anyone who had been independently adjudged to be, and reported by reliable sources as being, the world's "retail employee of the year", "refuse collector of the year" or "brain surgeon of the year" would be equally notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While personally not being able to answer the question 'Do you want espresso, latte or americano?' with anything more than 'I want a COFFEE', the World Title for baristas seems to be notable enough for an apparently Moldovan site to record the recent victory of another Brit in it - http://social.moldova.org/news/briton-named-worlds-top-barista-198271-eng.html And I don't regard the article here as being particularly spammy. (If he uses tobacco infused ganaches I won't be going there anyway - whatever a ganache is. Sounds like a cross between an adult practice and waterproof footwear.) Peridon (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have just had time to look up Ganache. Sounds delicious - without people adding tobacco to it.... 195.128.251.153 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I agree that winning a 2007 barista-off does not confer sufficient "notability" for an article here. The article seems a sly advert for a "businessman" trying to schlep his coffeehouse and CDs. Silk Knot (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real justification has been given for saying that winning World Barista Championship is not a notable award. The wikipedia article says (sourced?) it is the current premier barista competition. No reason apart form personal bias has said that being is barista can not be notable. (I have removed unsorced statements about his music and his coffeehouse. Spam in an article is a reason to improve, not a reson to delete) Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user has earned numerous warnings for disruption and sockpuppeting. Yardleyman (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been warned for sockpuppeting. As for the warnings for disruptive editing any idiot can issue warnings with no valid reason. The "warnings" I have been given have been baseless and investigating administrators have stated I have done nothing wrong. And Yardleyman should stick to the topic. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pentax K-7

Procedural nom for IP editor, rationale: based upon rumour and speculation; no reliable source; in fact, no source at all. no opinion from myself. ascidian | talk-to-me 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as crystal ball speculation. There are almost no concrete details regarding this product. Once released, then it could justify it's own article. Also funny that according to the article, this camera was announced on May 21, 2009. Surely a typo, unless Pentax found a way to manipulate time... JogCon (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is likely April 21: [2]. Anyway, I am deleting the unreferenced date. Mukadderat (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, first ref link is broken. second and third refs do not even have a word "K-7". Mukadderat (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. For this reason I deleted, like, 97% of the text. Unreferenced crystall ball has no place here. there is enough rumor and speculation on the subject in blogs already. Mukadderat (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! audition process

Overly detailed and unsourced information; reads somewhat like a how-to guide. Doesn't seem to warrant a merge, except for a couple points. Was kept back in 7/07 on the condition that sources be added, and that ain't happened. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary and vain article. Yardleyman (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I would agree that the article is a bit of a how to at the moment, a quick search indicates that there seem to be a reasonable number of decent sources out there (gnews search, article in paper) that it could meet WP:GNG. I'd suggest that trimming out the unsourced and unencylcopedic sections would be better than sticking it up for AfD. Quantpole (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending evidence of failure to find sources. Oh, nevermind, I'll do a bit: Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar (although that last bit has some obviously false positives). Overall, there's plenty with which to build an article. Note that this is actually the third AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! auditions was the first. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Evidence of failure to find sources" is, by definition, impossible to present, and Google searches are not sources. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Jeopardy! audition process is covered in multiple reliable sources. Concerns with style should be addressed through WP:CLEANUP, not AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a Jeopardy! fansite nor a how-to. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not clear how this is worth including in an encyclopedia. Maybe some of the content is worth serving as the basis for Game show selection process. FWIW, I participated in the Jeopardy! audition process last fall, & the article differs significantly at several points from my experience, & from what I was told would happen. Too bad sharing that information here would violate WP:NOR. :) -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordin Sparks forthcoming album

Another for the WP:HAMMER. No title, no track list, no release date. The singer "has not commented much" about the album - there are teaser-snippet interview quotes about who may be working with her and "possible songs that could make" it, but this is an encyclopedia not a fan-site, and articles need to be based on facts. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the perfect example of TenPoundHammer's Law. JogCon (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I even need to say it? Strong delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A certain MC Hammer song springs to mind. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It serves no purpose. It contains no information. But if does get deleted - we all know that it most likely will be recreated so you're taking a gamble deleting it. 83.70.74.111 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets re-created with no more solid information, it can be speedy-deleted WP:CSD#G4. And one day there may be enough material for a proper article. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one (which I found when looking for a different page that I contributed to)? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might justify {{db-g4}} for this, but now we're here the AfD may as well run its course. JohnCD (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It fails WP:NALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:CRYSTAL; WP:NALBUMS --mhking (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Stop... HAMMERTIME--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a release date in July is now included, sourced to an Amazon listing, but with no title or confirmed track listing there is still not enough reliable material to make an article that meets WP:NSONGS. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Easter (album). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Dance (song)

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There IS the cover of this song. --The Watusi (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was recorded independently by two notable artists - Patti Smith and Marianne Faithfull. --The Watusi (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Easter (album). Although recorded by Faithfull, it wasn't released as a single and isn't notable cover in itself. Anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines may use this is a search term. --JD554 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 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 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Agree with JD554. Can be merged into the article for the album. Germinscout (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Easter (album). Though not notable by itself, the content can certainly be useful to the album page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 For Your Pleasure. I redirected the rest of the songs from this album, might as well do this one too (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Confidential

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to For Your Pleasure. Useful information may be lost by deleting. --JD554 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 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 20:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge/redirect should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladytron (song)

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Roxy Music (album). Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. Anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines may use this is a search term. --JD554 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Namesake for the very notable band Ladytron.[3]. The Times calls it one of Roxy Music's "best loved songs."[4]--Oakshade (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could the article be expanded beyond a stub with multiple reliable sources discussing the song in detail? These are the requirements of WP:NSONGS. If so, I'll happily change my !vote to keep. --JD554 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article already appears beyond the scope of "stub" and there are literally thousands of more song articles that are much smaller than this and without references that are valid stubs. Not all articles need to be as long as World War II --Oakshade (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and also partly from pragmatism/consistency: the rest of the songs on the album have their own articles; either most should go or all should stay - I can't see that this is any less notable than any of the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with Oakshade's addition of a personnel section, the article is still a stub and I remain to be convinced it can be expanded beyond one. Just because other songs, which may or may not be notable, have an article is neither here nor there as this AfD is about Ladytron (song) and any other non-notable songs may be deleted/redirected in the future. --JD554 (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this article seem already beyond the scope of "stub", evidenced by too much topic-specific content in this one to be merged to Roxy Music (album)), but there is no banning of short articles or ones that don't have apparent potential to be long ones.--Oakshade (talk) 22:29, 30 April 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 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G12 copyvio by Closedmouth (Non-admin closure). JohnCD (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Homayunfar

The article is a very long, unreferenced list of films in which the subject has appeared. The article would have to be basically re-written in order to meet even the most basic of quality standards. HJMitchell You rang? 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That the article is of poor quality is reason to improve the article, not delete it.Drawn Some (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability asserted, no reliable sources and incomprehensible as is.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as exact copy of this. (I think this is a copyvio but don't know if that applies when it is essentially just a list). Quantpole (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment- I concur, not sure how I missed that or I would have used WP:CSD G12

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glossary of basketball terms. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One trillion (basketball)

Slang term with little evidence of notability as a phrase. The only reference provides a brief explanation but no in-depth analysis is present -- or possible, for that matter. No evidence that the actual phenomenon is notable, either. Powers ^T 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have this, this, this, this and this- downloadable PDF, plus Mark Titus' blog. There's certainly a lot to work with, plus Doug Smith has written about basketball long before the Raptors were a reality, so I doubt he's just "making the term up". -RomeW (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anyone was "making the term up." Whom are you quoting? Regardless, my point is that there just isn't much to say about the term -- all those sources basically say the same thing, and none of them explain how a "1 followed by 9 zeroes" is somehow a "trillion". (To be fair, some do say it's a 1 followed by 12 zeroes but don't explain what the extra three stats are.) Yes, the phenomenon exists; yes, it's been written about trivially; but I don't see how a full encyclopedia article could possibly be written on the topic. Powers ^T 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary newspaper boxscore, has 11 stats columns (I'm guessing the 12th one comes from 0 field goals attempted... I feel like I read that somewhere but the link's escaping me right now). A lot of newspapers don't bother with all of those in the print edition, of course, but a full boxscore would include them. BryanG (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Glossary of basketball terms, which basically just means add the explanation about the name to the already existing entry there. Per RomeW's sources it's not a made-up term, but it's not a particularly notable one either, and I don't really see room for expansion. BryanG (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. Oh, excuse me. DELETE. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Glossary of basketball terms, not useful to have a separate article about one minor term such as this. JGHowes ^talk 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommies Till I Die

Contested PROD; article's author deleted prod notice without comment. Article is about an alternative school song written by students of one school; doesn't come close to meeting WP:NSONGS. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:MADEUP, references not available for notability or verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - just not notable and already referenced on the school article anyway -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave comment regarding the deletion notification, it was on the discussion page for the article though which I believe now is the wrong place. I am new to wikipedia editing, I don't think my lack of experience should influence whether or not the article should be deleted.

I also slightly rewrote the article following the notice, this appears to have been ignored; Tommies Till I Die is a theme which has an accompanying song, and as such should not be bound by the notability regulations for songs. In terms of whether or not the theme is "large" or "famous" enough to warrant its own page, I'd like to start by pointing out that the theme affects more than the students of the school, it also affects the old boys and as it seems set to become an established motto of the school, I can infer that it is likely that thousands of people will be affected by the content, and as such it is not merely a personal article. Furthermore, there are far smaller topics that exist on wikipedia, including one I found using the random page tool concerning Povilas Šarūnas who I doubt many people have heard of!

Most importantly though, wikipedia has a role to fill as a way of passing information from one sphere of one society to many other cultures and situations. If articles are deleted because they are considered not "notable", how will this knowledge and information spread? Moreover, notability is an inherently subjective criterion, and as such though some people may not be interested in this article, I feel and I suspect that most of my school colleagues would agree that this topic has as much right to be a part of the global accumulation of information on wikipedia as many of the 12 million other articles. Thanks. Jaldmn (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content must be verifiable by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia has guidelines on notablity, see WP:NSONGS. Drawn Some (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as noted above by Blue Square Thing. Wikipedia is not for things some students just made up on a road trip. I'm not saying that the song isn't relevant to the students of the school where it originated, but it pretty certainly isn't relevant to people beyond that from an encyclopedic standpoint. Furthermore, the article lacks a neutral point of view. JogCon (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the article states, though this was made up initially on a Rugby tour to Australia it has developed since then. I'd just like to know what wikipedia loses if articles like this are allowed to persist? I can't really see how it can have a negative impact. Jaldmn (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not established as notable by independent reliable sources. To author - sorry, but read WP:NFT and WP:NOHARM. Wikipedia does not set out to have articles about everything that exists. JohnCD (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not properly sourced from reliable third party sources. No evidence this is notable to an audience beyond this particular school. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a school history project - there are plenty of places on the web where this material would be appropriate. Wikipedia is not one of them. Sandolsky (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many of the keep arguments were based on WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Math is Cool Championships

Non-notable state academic competition. No sources given to prove that it is notable outside of those people who compete in them. either way (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant third party coverage Google news. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As you can see, it is being created, so some links have not been added. It is noticeable outside of the people that compete in them.--Math Champion (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources will be given after the page is finished being constructed. Math Champion (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The best way to avoid deletion debates, is to provide sources from the get-go. When you've finished writing, it is only harder to provide inline citations to specific facts. I once wrote something which I knew came from a source, but I could no longer find it. Adding the source immediately avoids such problems. (Also, the common practice is to build an article on a subpage of your userpage until it's all ready to go live. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High news coverage. -down load | sign! 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Cunard (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per either way and LibStar. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Google, Google News, and Google Books return no reliable sources with which to source this article. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources for notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your logic, Seattle Marathon and many others could be deleted. Seattle Marathon doesn't even have any sources other than the official website. -down load | sign! 01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable local competition. M C 10 | Sign here! 02:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete not notable, no references. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Pierpont

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:BIO for scientists and authors both. The article and a sister article Wind Turbine Syndrome are used to promote a theory and books by the subject of the article and are edited primarily by an account and an ISP account that may have a conflict of interest. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. Promotional article based on flimsy sources. Much overlapping content with Wind turbine syndrome. Johnfos (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Smartse (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legitimate doctor with very precise and painstaking research, also one of many, who is saying industrial wind turbines are hurting some people. That research is verified here in Ontario. Over 53 people have come forward complaining of adverse health effects from living in proximity to these turbines. Wind companies are notorious for discounting any people who come forward with problems, stating that there are no health problems from wind turbines. They are wrong and thank goodness Dr. Pierpont has decided to believe the symptoms people have come forward with. The tobacco industry also denied any problems for a long time as did the manufacturers of leaded gas, asbestos insulation and thalidomyde. The reality is that the problem exists in spite of wind company denial and victims of the wind turbines are being re-victimized by this denial. restoring comment by Funnyfarm.ca (talk) (this does not represent the opinion of TheFeds)— Funnyfarm.ca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Even a "legitimate doctor with very precise and painstaking research" may not be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kEEP You have got to be kidding me. This is nothing short of suppression of the truth. There is NOTHING in that article that is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC) — Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment User:Grandma Moe is one of the creators of the article. Drawn Some (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non-notable fringe theorist, promotional. ukexpat (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When 'legitimate' and 'suppression of the truth' are brought into an argument, I tend to look for the angle... Whatever the 'truth' here, Wikipedia is not a vehicle (leaded or unleaded) for campaigning. It is the notability of the article subject that counts, not the justice of it, or the honesty of the campaigner. I am concerned that all the references appear to be from windturbinesyndrome.com, which I find hard to believe is a neutral third party source. (I haven't managed to get into these references yet - they don't seem to want to load.) The publication mentioned is not yet published, bringing WP:CRYSTAL into play, possibly. Peridon (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the references are to Nina Pierpont's website advertising her book or to pdfs of articles or talks she has authored. None of them are unrelated to her. This is clearly a promotional article. Drawn Some (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for promotion and non-notability. Tspine (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks reliable sources to show notability. There is a related AfD about the article on Wind Turbine Syndrome, which has the same problems. All the external links included here are to an activist website. If any of this material had survived the conventional scientific publication process, it would be more credible. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the Strong comes from the need for the {{Not a ballot}} tag. anyways, non-notable endorsement, lacking reliable sources.--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brainfacturing

Article about a neologism. Few Google hits, and, oddly, the vast majority of them are in Portuguese. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism, WP:NEO. Drawn Some (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. The guide, wise to read the signs of nature, observes the ground and quickly reaches the conclusion: "cattle have been here". — Brainfacturing is the term given to the collection of economic activities in which the product (real wealth generator) is created through an intellectual activity, using for its raw material a previously existing knowledge base. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per neologism.--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was a suggestion to extend the discussion for a few more days, but I feel there has been sufficient time to develop a firm consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wind turbine syndrome

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This appears to be a legitimate article at first glance but is actually original research and synthesis used to promote a theory and books by Nina Pierpont and edited primarily by an account and an ISP account that may have a conflict of interest. Drawn Some (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Drawn Some[reply]

Keep. This is about a new phenomenon, because large-scale installations of industrial wind turbines are new. It can be strengthened by more news reports, which continue to increase. The CBC has been reporting on these problems for years, first in Nova Scotia, now in Ontario. As other physicians see the same symptoms, which are relieved when the subjects leave the area of the wind turbines, they are coming to agree with Pierpont's findings rather than question them. Nissenbaum in Maine and McMurtry in Ontario have gone on to duplicate her findings, as Pierpont herself followed the work of others, such as Harry in England. This is emerging science. As far as the article rigorously sticks to the facts (which it does -- there is no anecdote or exaggeration), it should be kept. Kerberos (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Kerberos is an anti-wind single purpose account (see [5]) who has pushed his comment in here at the top of the discussion (see [6]). Johnfos (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. Evidence for syndrome is anecdotal and exaggerated. No peer-reviewed medical journal articles on this. Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the reference links are actually dead. The only references that do anything to establish notability are links to two local newspaper articles on claims by some people that wind turbines are hurting them. There are no reliable sources to document the theory itself; therefore all of that material would have to be thrown out to keep the article. What would be left would simply be a report that some people claim that turbines hurt them, but given the low level of references this isn't really notable enough for its own article. However, it appears to me that adding it to the wind turbine article would be undue weight due to the low notability and reliability of these claims. There is therefore not preservable material in this article. Delete.
Delete - non-notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Smartse (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Cosmo0 that the article should be reverted back to an earlier date and improved. There do seem to be plenty of sources to use. Smartse (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fringe/coi/nominator etc... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is mistaken in the provenance of the article. A glance at the history of edits shows that many editors have worked on the article over the last year. Furthermore, I must say that the article is well written. No opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted however have I. Yardleyman (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yardley, it's not quite that simple. Firstly the article has not been around for a full year. Secondly, one IP user has made major expansions in the past week (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.71.80.249). Thirdly, the article is not well written as it exaggerates the case for WTS. Johnfos (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. Just because people want green energy, it does not follow that the truth be snuffed out. As the evidence continues to pile up across the country with people who have had 400 ft turbines foisted on them, we must demand from our federal government regulations to protect people and wildlife from an out of control industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.146.165 (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC) — 204.96.146.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and rewrite. In the present form of the article, all the arguments given by the nominator apply. However, the phrase "wind turbine syndrome" appears to be notable, having quite some news coverage, e.g. [7] and [8]. So as such, it is a notable phenomenon. But the article needs to be rewritten to clearly state the scientific consensus on this; and remove the synthesis, original research and bias. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because this is new emerging information is no reason to censor it. Don't be afraid of the truth! This cannot be suppressed if an intelligent argument is to develop. What part of Nina Pierponts, cases in Canada, Japan, US, Nissembaums or McMurtry surveys, etc. is untrue? The biased has gone way too far the other way for too long. For instance in the photo, it states the cows continue to graze under the turbines. What else do you expect a cow to do? Run screaming from the field? Roll on the ground with their hooves over their ears? Sit down and write a strongly worded letter? This propoganda has got to stop. Do not try to suppress the opinions of these solid medical professionals simply because it does not match your political goals or your narrow paradigm.
Also a prior comment says most of the links are dead. That is simply false. I've checked and they all work for me.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)</small —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) — Grandma Moe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - User:Grandma Moe is one of the creators of these articles. Drawn Some (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more of the links are working for me now. Perhaps they have been fixed? Nevertheless, many of them are to apparently self-published and/or fringe websites. Only one seems to link to anything like a reliable site, which is the link to the WFAA-TV article. Nevertheless, this article only establishes that some locals have made claims that a turbine made them ill. It does not establish any kind of broad notability or reliability for a general claim that turbines make people ill, and it certainly does not establish reliability and notability for some kind of widespread syndrome or theory about the syndrome. A second borderline link is to a Japanese page, but its not clear whether this is a reliable source or a fringe one. As in the other case though, this article does not establish notability and reliability for claims of some general widespread syndrome as this article claims. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: this article contains no reliable content, and we can always create an article on the topic later if it actually becomes notable through reliable source

Weak keep, for now This is (or maybe isn't) an emerging issue and cites some things from overseas. A lot of work has been put in in the last 2 days, let folks keep adding to it, tag as a possible COIN, weed out all the bad/dead sources, cut out the outsourced material and then prod it again in a couple weeks. - Schrandit (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fringe theory unsupported by any peer-reviewed research. ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete...this is a really important subject. Not enough is known about how turbines interact with teh environment around them...RESEARCH is desperately needed. And the real human devastation needs to be acknowledged and addressed - possibly by simply putting a bigger distance between turbines and humans. To delete is to deny the existence of a real problem. Wiggyjane (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC) — Wiggyjane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I write as an expert on sleep physiology and sleep medicine. The article is entirely accurate and is not anecdotal. It describes a collection of symptoms associated with exposure to wind turbine noise which have been reported at multiple sites and from multiple countries. The physiological basis is being unravelled. This is a real phenomenon and must be retained.> Sleepexpert (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)— Sleepexpert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sleepexpert, 'experts' have never been given any kind of special consideration on Wikipedia; it is assumed that any expert is capable of producing adequate references to verify their claims. If you can provide peer reviewed articles in mainstream journals to help establish notability, please do so. Otherwise Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and an article on the subject can later be created if the subject attains sufficient notability and verifiability to warrant it. Locke9k (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: People are finally starting to hear about the problems with wind turbines. To delete this article would be a major insult to those suffering terrible living conditions thrust upon them. They are routinely dismissed by the wind corporations and by government officals alike. The reports from all over the world are similar in description. How many more people do you need to hear from to be convinced there is a problem. Why would Dr. Pierpont spend endless hours on a subject that has no merit? Who would be so foolish? The noise and vibration emitting from these turbines is horrible and only those living daily in the wind farms can understand it. Don't squelch their voices now, just when people are finally starting to listen.7brats (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)— 7brats (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and revert recent original research and POV edits to e.g. this edit. Whether it should remain as a separate article, or be merged with wind turbine, is another question, but the phenomenon of people attributing health problems to wind turbines is itself fairly notable. Cosmo0 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an argument for changing the title to something less POV such as Health effects of wind turbines or Wind turbine#Health effects since the term Wind turbine syndrome seems to be used exclusively by proponents of this particular theory. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response:You assert that it is notable, yet last I checked the article contains virtually no third party, reliable references establishing notability. If you could produce some such references to validate your claim, I think we could make some progress on saving the article and balancing it. Otherwise, I think it has to go for lack of notability and unverifiability. The problem is that given the present lack of reliable sources for the topic, it is not possible to write an article on it in an NPOV manner. Locke9k (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on effect of new references: Kerberos has added a bunch of new references to the article. Unfortunately, I do not believe that these references really impact on this AFD, as they don't really do anything to establish the notability of the subject. First, they certainly don't establish the notability of even verifiability of something called "wind turbine syndrome" as they are generally just addressing unnammed anecdotal reports of ill health without a named syndrome or disease related to them. More importantly, they don't really establish sufficient notability for claims of health effects of wind turbines to have their own article. A number of them are in fact entirely self published journals with no evidence of notability or reliability (I am removing these as they have no business being on Wikipedia at all). Other are more links to the same self-published POV fringe site that has already been linked to. The "News reports" on their face seem the most promising; however, upon reading them we see that they do not actually establish that these beliefs are actually notable. Rather thee articles are typically just an isolated report consisting of an anecdotal account of a small number of locals, occasionally with a claim by a non-expert. This is typical local news 'local interest' reporting that doesn't establish broad notability of a fringe claim. In essence, these are not reliable sources for establishing broad notability or for an NPOV coverage of the topic. As a side note, there is already a section of the wind turbine article on criticism. Even though this material isn't really notable enough for its own article, if verifiable material can be found it could be included in that section of the article or in a new section; there is could be given a more balanced coverage in the overall context of Wind Turbines. Right now this article, in addition to non-notability, seems to constitute a POV fork. Locke9k (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Its also a POV fork from the article environmental effects of wind power. Locke9k (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reliable references are needed and are pretty thin on the ground (the best I could come up with is this report by the UK Government - they mention an article in the national press, which they took seriously enough to commission an independent study - all of which is not really sufficient on its own). But the issue of NPOV is a completely separate one to verifiability: the version I linked to, while unreferenced, was entirely NPOV in that it merely stated that claims had been made which weren't accepted by the scientific community. I also agree that the subject likely doesn't merit a separate article, at least not under this title, but you can hardly call it a POV fork since neither Wind turbine#Criticisms nor environmental effects of wind power mention the subject at all. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of coverage in a national newspaper which may be the one mentioned in the above source. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article makes no mention of the neologism "Wind tunnel syndrome". Drawn Some (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is such a fringe theory that the article on wind turbines does not even mention health effects on humans in the criticism section. It talks about the danger to birds and bats, environmental issues, etc. The article Wind turbine syndrome doesn't even link to the article on wind turbines, nor vice versa. This is not what one would expect to see. Drawn Some (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't because historically Wikipedia has deleted anything that like that. See what is happening now.Grandma Moe (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Drawn Some" can easily remedy those shortcomings if s/he wants. As evidence of what "Grandma Moe" says, I added the following to the Environmental Effects section of the Wind Power article on Nov. 17, 2008: 'For human neighbors, the noise created by large wind turbines is often a nuisance. Some people claim that the noise, consisting of both audible as inaudible low frequencies, makes them sick -- not just from lack of sleep. The consistency of this complaint and the symptoms described led the physician Nina Pierpont to call it "wind turbine syndrome."' It is not there now.

Wikipedia is not the place for advertising a book, a fringe theory, or any sort of original research or synthesis. It is an encyclopedia with guidelines for verifiablity and notablity that must be met. And "Wikipedia" doesn't delete anything, the editors do. Drawn Some (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and rewrite. This comes up often enough and has been mentioned in the news enough that it is notable, but the article as it currently exists has serious NPOV problems. Keeping this article neutral will require vigilance. I support changing the name to something more in line with a NPOV as was suggested by Cosmo0. Tspine (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after reverting POV edits from the last few days merge this with either Wind turbine#Criticisms or environmental effects of wind power using NPOV language. Tspine (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable fringe theory, NPOV issues. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indeed familiar fringe science, being pushed without any reputable 3rd party evidence, or acceptance by any mainstream medical or scientific communities. Instead, just a variety of anti-wind propaganda that's familiar from a variety of anti-wind sites. I am thinking about reverting the article to an earlier version, before all of this questionable (albeit voluminous) material was added. Withnail68 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above entry by Cosmo0, dated 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC). -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Environmental effects of wind power#Safety with explicit deference to the regular editors there if they want to edit it out. This is no electromagnetic hypersensitivity where the social effects of a discredited fringe hypothesis have generated enough in-depth independent coverage for an article, but there is at least some verifiable information. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. POV issues are addressed by editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding the reliable sources that might show that this topic has received general attention. Certainly 'Wind turbine syndrome' should not be the title unless WP:MEDRS is satisfied, but if there were enough sources to show it could be neutrally covered, the material could be referenced in some other article. I'm not seeing coverage in mainstream media such as newspapers. It looks to me that the citations are nearly all to activist web sites. The closing admin should look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grandma Moe before doing any vote counting. This debate was mentioned at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article clearly falls within the definition of syndrome." The peer reviews are clearly listed on the Wind Turbine SYndrome homepage and are verifiable. The telephone calls and emails I get on a regular basis are evidence of the existence of WTS. This is an on going clinical study and is widely accepted. The only conflict of interest that I am witnessing is in the comments. These comments mirror actions of the same individuals that have a financial interest. Public awareness of this issue is of the utmost importance, especially to anybody facing the possibilty of having wind turbines installed nearby. Deleting this will be a detriment to society as this has become a global dilemna.WitnessofWTS (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)— WitnessofWTS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: another meatpuppet or sockpuppet that needs to be blocked. Drawn Some (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is further evidence that this article is essentially serving as self promotion of a single person's self-published claims. The primary website for this "syndrome" is [9], which is a website by someone who is trying to publicize their book and their claims. Furthermore, I have done a database search of Web of Knowledge, which is a comprehensive database of scientific publications, of Medline, which is a comprehensive database of medical publications, and of google scholar, which of course is just highly accessible and can access at least abstracts for most publications. None of these searches turn up a single article with this syndrome name in any mainstream publication[10][11][12]. A complete lack of publication on an allegedly medical/scientific topic is essentially incontrovertible proof that the material is not notable withing the scientific community. Nor does the fact that one person is trying to publicize these claims and does not make it notable within the general community (as per the GNG). General claims of ill effects of wind turbines might possibly be notable (although not clearly), but those would belong in a different article. There is no evidence of notability of a syndrome with the name "Wind turbine syndrome". To those of you state that there is evidence of notability, I urge you to consider whether a syndrome of this name has evidence of notability. If not, the page should be deleted. Locke9k (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this I'll change back to Delete The only mention of WTS in anything on google scholar ([13]) says "Wind Turbine Syndrome claims are predominately a North American phenomenon. This is not surprising asthe web site promoting this claim is based in the United States.". I think that sums up the situation pretty well if WTS is only complained about in the US it seems likely that it is a fringe theory. Smartse (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request AFD extension for further comment: Some edits and work have been done over the past few days, I believe in an attempt to remove unreliable or unsourced content. This may affect the AFD and I think the discussion would benefit from some additional community input. Locke9k (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs run for seven days now - will that be sufficient? - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that a few additional days on top of that would be helpful given the additional recent discovery, based on the recent sockpuppet investigation related to this AFD, that this AFD has been somewhat sidelined by a number of meatpuppets. Maybe an extra two days, up to nine, would be best. Thanks- Locke9k (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While definitely a fringe theory, I'm not sure wind turbine syndrome is notable enough to merit its own article. I get 41 news stories from google news using "wind turbine syndrome" in quotes with the "all time" setting, but I'm not sure any of them are particularly notable. I like the idea of making a new section in Wind turbine#Criticisms or Environmental effects of wind power about wind turbine syndrome and keeping it short to comply with undue weight and leaving it at that. Sifaka ^talk 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If this particular named article is deemed to be jumping the gun on notability and is therefore deleted and its material folded into another article on the health effects of industrial wind turbines, will that prevent it from being created at a later date should "wind turbine syndrome" indeed become notable as such? If so, then this article definitely needs to be kept, because Dr. Pierpont's work is increasingly recognized and corroborated by other physicians. It actually attests to her clinical rigor that she has not rushed her study into print, not only as a self-published book (with peer reviews included), but also a planned series of articles for the medical literature. It is more likely than not to become well established, so it would be unfortunate if this AfD request were to preemptively prevent a future Wikipedia article on this prominent aspect of the growing problem of ill effects from industrial wind turbines.

It should also be noted that nobody associated with Pierpont started this article. Its history since its creation in August 2008 was fairly quiet until this past month, when a few people following the issue thought that it could be expanded, triggering a backlash and finally the AfD request. It therefore seems that the article was not worthy of inclusion only when it started to include more information and supporting material that could not easily be dismissed by people who would appear to have a bias against the publication of adverse facts about large-scale wind power. Kerberos (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, no, something can be deleted as non-notable and later become notable and have an article. Even fringe theories and other ideas that are non-scientific that are well known can be included as such if they are notable, such as the belief that the Queen Elizabeth II is a reptilian humanoid.

I will caution you though that legitimate, reputable scientists (and physicians are scientists) almost always publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals well before publishing books about their findings. The general trend is for journals to be too inclusive rather than exclusive, with falsified research being published. Genuine contributions to the body of scientific knowledge are rarely excluded. I can name several incidents of the former off the top of my head but no modern examples of the latter. Drawn Some (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above apt response by Drawn Some, I'll add one additional response: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Essentially, this means that we don't keep an article around based on the prediction that the material is likely to become notable. We only base these decisions on present notability. Thus, if the material is ever published in mainstream journals, that will then help establish its notability. Your assertion that Pierpont is planning a series of journal articles is of no help; not only is that claim unsubstantiated by references, but even if she does submit such articles we have no way to know that they will actually be accepted and published. Finally, I'll make a side point that almost by definition a 'self-published book' can't have legitimate 'peer-review' included, because the author is controlling the source of the 'peer review'. A major element of peer review is that the reviewers are not chosen by the author of the work (in some journals the author can recommend reviewers but the journal editor makes the actual decision). Locke9k (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE, coi, NOTVOTE, WP:RS ect... Not sure how discussion got this far...--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Dlabtot (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- One of the problems of emerging science is that there is little accepted peer review at first. Groups that stand to profit from the technology want to suppress negative info. Groups that are opposed take the opposite stance. Health impacts from vibration, especially low frequency vibration are not unknown. Untill the returns are in it would not serve the public interest to be too eager to suppress this potential health problem just because it is inconvenient and may even be a truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.11 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another meatpuppet? Locke9k (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, content-wise, we don't write articles on "emerging" material that haven't yet been covered in third party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Locke9k (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dr. Pierpoint's concerns are based on a relatively small sample (a dozen or so) of people living near turbines, of which there are tens of thousands in North America, and probably ten times that many around the world, so their statistical validity must be questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.246.57 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a coatrack to criticise wind turbines. Any reliable sources on the topic of annoyance or health problems from wind turbines (e.g. [14][15][16][17]) should go into Environmental effects of wind power. This is a POV fork. Fences and windows (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater pakistan

A content fork from Pakistan and Kashmir, consisting solely of one editor's view what of Pakistan's boundaries should be if the Kashmir dispute was resolved in its favour. The dispute is adequately covered in the Kashmir article, and disagreement over its wording should be resolved there by consensus, instead of by creating a rival article. Per the Content Fork policy the article was converted into a redirect, but this was reversed by its creator so I've brought it here for a wider set of eyes. Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator as well as WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. The author would have England claim all English-speaking regions as part of Greater England, or have the Vatican City claim all Catholic-majority countries as part of Greater Vatican City. Drawn Some (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as original research. --Ragib (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baxall business centre

building with no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable building named after a non-notable company.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, with a hint of spam on the air... Peridon (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal music in El Salvador

Article was created by a single-purpose account whose only contribution to wikipedia was to promote heavy metal bands from El Salvador. The only references in this article are to blogs and other non-reliable sites like the Metal Archives, through which the article boasts that the country has 59 bands. Just to keep things in perspective, countries with smaller population include Norway with over 1,000 bands and Finland with over 2,000 bands. Outside Europe, countries like New Zealand and Singapore also boast a larger number of metal bands (175 each, according to the same unreliable source) despite a smaller population to El Salvador. Need I say more? Article is clearly about a non-notable subject. Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Music of El Salvador. The heavy metal scene in El Salvador may not require its own article, but some of the information here can be placed in the existing article on the country's music heritage. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what exactly? It's all original research supported by unreliable sources. None of the bands mentioned are even notable enough for an article on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator: this is OR, the sources are not reliable and the article is full of weasel words and random factoids. I don't think there is anything to merge, and this is an unlikely search term. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pastor Theo. Even if not sourced, it is verifiable information that can be done later. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure there's verifiable information in the article? Have you tried searching for reliable sources to verify anything in the article because I have and I found nothing. --Bardin (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. There's nothing to merge after all the non-reliable references are removed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original nonsense. Nothing to merge. --Anarchodin (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this is no original research, fantasy or non-notable information. It's part of a country's heritage and culture. The argument used by Bardin is not valid because he is comparing highly developed countries with one of the latin-american countries with the lowest HDI. --Crimson33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- 60 non-notable bands do not make part of some country's heritage and culture. If that were so, there would be reliable sources in newspapers and books about heavy metal music in El Salvador but no, the article only have sources to unreliable sites like the metal archives and blogs. Most of those bands do not even have any album out. This is not a vote, your argument amounts to nothing more that "I Like It". --Anarchodin (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YobMod 14:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Google books has quite a few hits, for example in Zentralamerika heute Von Sabine Kurtenbach i find:" Many Spannish groups began the boom in Rock in the spanish language, known as Guanarock in El Salvador....Now Heavy metal, Trash and black metal have become popular in these lands, as interpreted by the bands Renegado and Tabu. In 1989, rock-fans organised a concert for peace for a youth the was sick of war." Kinder im Abseits Kindheit und Jugend in fremden Kulturen Kindheiten Von Manfred Liebel has "Music preferences cover a wide spectrum, from spanish-language melancholic music, to English language Rock, particularly Rap/Hiphop, Heavy metal and Punk...Since 1992, 8,000 El-Salvadorans atend the Annual Peace-fest.

No idea why sources appear in German, but I suspect other language (eg spanish) searches would also find enough sources to find at least enough for a section.Yob Mod 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would think any of those sources are relevant to this article's subject. None of those sources are about El Salvador or even heavy metal. One can find many results through a google book search by coupling two random words together like metal and a country's name. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by nominator I want to emphasize that the article is filled with nothing more than original research and that it is unlikely to ever be more than that. There are 11 citations at present. Three of them are to the metal-archives.com; two of them are to metalcritico.com; one of them is to spirit-of-metal.com; and another one is to resistenciamusical.com. All four are unreliable sites that rely on content are submitted by their users. Two other sites are to blogs (obolog.com and blogspot.com); one is to myspace; and another is to a fanpage on geocities. One citation is to some kind of forum that I cannot view without signing in. In response to Crimson33, El Salvador is actually in the middle range of HDI according to this list. Countries with lower HDI to El Salvador includes Indonesia (280 bands), South Africa (101 bands), Bolivia (105 bands), Philippines (119 bands), etc. There is nothing remarkable or extraordinary about El Salvador having 62 heavy metal bands, none of whom are even notable for an article on wikipedia. I went through each and every band entry on the metal-archive site: 30 of those bands have not released anything more than demos. 6 have managed to release an EP but have yet to release a studio album. 22 bands have only released one studio albums. 1 of those 22 bands (Vertigo) have also released a live album. 3 bands (Dreamlore, Kabak, Kabala) have released 2 studio albums. Only 1 band (Raices Torcidas) has released 3 studio albums. That's it. The grand total number of studio album released by heavy metal bands in El Salvador is 31. How anyone can possibly think that a heavy metal scene that has produced only 31 albums up to now is a notable subject is quite beyond me. It is not even notable enough for an entry in the Music of El Salvador. Do you think the music industry in El Salvador pays much attention to a genre that has only produced 31 albums up to now? More important than anything else though is the sheer absence of a single source that even treats as heavy metal music in El Salvador as a notable subject. Not even a passing mention, let alone a discussion. The subject is simply not notable to have a presence anywhere on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Nicaragua & El Salvador Von Paige R. Penland, i find "The music scene in El Salvador is thriving....Heavy metal and Funk are styles embraced and developed by younger Salvadoran musicians. Multiple general reference books mentioning that El Salvador has a thriving Heavy metal scene does indeed convince me that deletion would be a mistake. Note, i don't read Spanish, and there are likely many more such sources in the language of the land.Yob Mod 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that you are doing is proving the existence of heavy metal music in El Salvador, something that is not in dispute. Heavy metal is a global phenomenon and can be found in many countries around the world. There is nothing remarkable about heavy metal music being heard in El Salvador, a country that has only produced 62 bands with 31 studio albums among them. Many other similar sentences to your example can be found for other countries, eg. Mongols now have access to a variety of culture ... While some express a pride in their old instruments, songs, and beliefs, others are dripping the ends of their curly-toed boots into new performance arts, including heavy metal, rock and "world" music. here; An Egyptian teen's preference may range from popular to heavy metal. here; Bangladeshi band music was the precursor to modern Bangladeshi rock and metal music. here; etc. There is no source indicating anything notable about heavy metal music in El Salvador. --Bardin (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i am showing that general books about the region specifically mention Heavy metal being socially relevant in El Salvador, more than the vast majority of other music generes. Another: Seeing Indians Von Virginia Tilley has "the country (El Salvador) was simultaneously saturated with American pop, rap and heavy metal....The older Generation frequently complained that rock...were eroding traditional social values and leading to gang violence". Multiple general reference books mentioning that El Salvador has a thriving Heavy metal scene, and that its scene has a social impact does indeed convince me that deletion would be a mistake. Note, i don't read Spanish, and there are likely many more such sources in the language of the land.Yob Mod 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted wrongly. It's "American pop, rap, heavy metal and other music." It is also American heavy metal that this source describes El Salvador as being saturated with. No mention of an El Salvadorean heavy metal scene at all, let alone a "thriving one". --Bardin (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Would anyone mind if we asked some of the El Salvadoran wikipedians if they can do quick search? A spanish-reading editor saying there are no reliable sources would be convincing i think, but i don't want it to look like canvassing (eg. if people think that editors from the country would be biased to keeping), but the wikiproject is dead.Yob Mod 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, ask away. You can also raise the issue at the wikiproject metal talk page too. When the heavy metal scene of a country consists of just 62 bands with only 31 studio albums among them, I doubt that there would be any reliable source about it in any language. --Bardin (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Please stop relisting this. It seems that it's an attempt to force a deletion. If no input has been given in the original 7-day window, it should be closed as keep by default. Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with relisting an article to find consensus where there is none. This is not the only AFD that has been relisted more than once. Yes, an absence of consensus should result in keep by default though it would be a peculiar thing indeed if an article is kept when not a single person in the AFD has actually supported that. That said, I do believe a "no consensus - default to keep" would have be a more accurate closing decision than "merge". --Bardin (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Ashen

Notability Capitalismojo (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC) This is a page about some young man who puts humor videos on youtube. He also has reviewed video games. It could be saved as an example of non-noteworthy pages. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Source. None of the sources are third-party; all the sources eventually take you to his own website or youtube page. Toad of Steel (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that Stuart Ashen is an actor (He played Noseybonk In Screenwipe, Appeared in many game review shows) and should be kept. Hayama317 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations can be found to show notability as WP:ENTERTAINER -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable sources have not been found to establish notability. tedder (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Value Engineering

A non-notable term, it seems. Outside of papers published by the creator it has been used twice, once in an unpublished masters thesis and once in an academic paper. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO. Drawn Some (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, and a one-man theory, likely inserted for commercial gain. Kemosabe, the herd has passed this way! This analysis methodology combines the late Dr. Howard T. Odum's emergy analysis with traditional value engineering. Environmental Value Engineering accounts for the inputs to built environment alternatives and can be used to compare multiple built environment alternatives over a life cycle consisting of 10 phases: natural resource formation, natural resource exploration and extraction, material production, design, component production, construction (assembly), use, demolition, natural resource recycling (feedback), and disposal. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pri-fi

unreferenced neologism RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NPOV, WP:NEO, WP:SOAP Cnilep (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO Drawn Some (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Pogan

Wikipedia is not a news source--this individual is only notable for one current event in NYC, already covered at Conflicts involving Critical Mass, which is what the Patrick Pogan article actually describes; any relevant content should simply be merged from the latter to the former. evildeathmath 16:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why not simply merge the article instead of having all the unnecessary drama of an AfD? Well referenced article, meets notability. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused as to what you're suggesting merging. If you're suggesting that the content of the Pogan article be merged onto Conflicts involving Critical Mass (which I'd supoport), I don't think that there remains any need for a separate article for Pogan, as there's nothing here that's unrelated to the Critical Mass incident, so I'm curious as to why Patrick Pogan should be retained as separate article.evildeathmath 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Proposed merges is that way. Please read WP:BEFORE in future prior to starting a deletion debate. Skomorokh 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merger would be fine but then the info needs to be checked for POV. Although I agree that merger should have been brought up before deletion it is really easy to have a knee jerk reaction when articles are created that clearly violate WP:BLP1E and do not even come close to meeting notability standards. Also, Pogan already recieves mention in the article devoted to conflicts during critical mass so it would be less of mergin and more of adding a few lines to that section.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check in here and see if I could get you to flesh out your POV concerns. I tried to keep it neutral as best I could and ensure that there weren't undue weight issues, but it sounds like I didn't quite hit the mark. If you're willing to elaborate, I'd like to take a look and see what I can do to improve the article. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BLP1E allows for biographical entries when an individual has a substantial role in such an event. That is clearly the case here. Merger might be appropriate, but that's a different discussion. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in Talk:Critical Mass and ‎Talk:Conflicts involving Critical Mass Ikip (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect. Well sourced, ongoing news coverage, so doesn't fall foul of BLP1E. Seems to be enough to justify its own article, but don't feel strongly against a merge. Quantpole (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge; upon closer examination, I believe I jumped the proverbial firearm by listed this for AFD; content is well sourced, reasonably balanced, and the topic is notable. evildeathmath 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Plan (band)

The article is about a band (comprised of one man), though appears to give no allusion to notability and cites absolutely no references. If the band had any significant achievements in its time, there is no mention of any ion the article. It appears to give no information besides a discography and links only to a radio station and to the band's myspace page, neither of which qualify as WP:RS and neither of which suggest notability. Other, reliable, sources are conspicuous only by their absence. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it fails Wikipedia:Notability for a band unless they have a single or album that made it on a chart. Toad of Steel (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware there are 11 other criteria a band can meet other than getting on a chart? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:MUSIC; I'm surprised CSD didn't work. Ironholds (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Keep, gah I'm an idiot.[reply]
Strong Keep. A good example of why we have WP:BEFORE. This Allmusic bio indicates members of another notable band and, to quote: "the Plan's self-titled debut album was hugely successful in Scandinavia. They received four Swedish Grammy nominations in 2001." The band's first two albums have been on Virgin Records and EMI, which passes another criterion of WP:BAND, and they both charted in the top 40 of the Swedish album chart, which passes another.[18] "This Google News search indicates plenty of significant coverage. Surely these results from 5 minutes of Googling show that it's obvious that this should be kept?--Michig (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and I know we don't treat YouTube as a reliable source, but this TV performance surely also indicates notability.--Michig (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inclues typical band material, and an iw link, seems verifyable. Tomas e (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC#C2 for their albums Embrace Me Beauty getting to #31 on the Swedish Top 60 charts; [19], and Walk for Gold reaching #38; [20]. The song "Friends Getting Cold" reached #57; [21]. And as pointed out earlier, they pass WP:MUSIC#C5 for their EMI & Virgin releases; [22]. While I wasn't as quick as Michig, that only took me 6 minutes. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F. C. Rabbath

Appears to be a minor filmaker who has won some local news production awards as well as some local film festivals. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. RadioFan (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the guy has many mentions online and interviews in a book. Not to mention IMDb seems to have accepted then how is that not worth a page on wikipedia? --Shawnjohn9 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMDb is only considered a reliable source for one very narrow definition which doesn't apply here so it's not much good for establishing notability. Also, references to blogs aren't considered reliable either. The ISBN number listed on the book claimed as a reference is not correct.--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, I attempted to check out every single source given in the article. Ref1 is a local TV blog page which praises Rabbath's work. Ref2 and Ref3 both verify that Rabbath won 2nd place, apparently in a contest of films made by Florida students. Ref4 is a friend's personal website, which also praises Rabbath. Ref5 merely indicates that Rabbath shared an award for "investigative" given to a local TV station. I was unable to verify or locate the "Further Reading", as both ISBN's came up as "invalid" when I selected them. External link1 is the subject's own website. External link2 is an anonymous (by "Joe") mini-biography. I've spent enough time on this. There's no evidence that Rabbath comes even close to meeting WP:CREATIVE. Tim Ross (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an editor who tried to help out this author with suggestions regarding the verifiability of his claims about Rabbath, I find that no further verifiable information is forthcoming. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI'm contesting this because i believe it's worth having a page for. In fact i'll be bring more references once i have more time. --Shawnjohn9 (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Unionhawk ^Talk 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhianna Pratchett

I am unsure whether this article has been nominated for deletion before. The talk page does carry the comment, 'Not a speedy. Does not meet any of the criteria.Dr Zen 01:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)' I am nominating the page for deletion because I fail to see how the subject is notable enough to have an article of her own. She is apparently a former journalist who now works in the computer games industry. I am sure that there are lots of people in computer games who do not have articles on Wikipedia. Surely the most notable thing about her is that she is Terry Pratchett's daughter. Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep per no. 2 in the article 'Game Industry's 100 Most Influential Women' Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this, but does being (according to one magazine's opinion) one of the 100 most influential women in the games industry make somebody notable? Take a list like this, Thirty-five under 35/this, Alpha females on the way up. Only two of the thirty-five have Wikipedia articles; shall we create articles for all of them? It must be said, some of them sound considerably more notable than Rhianna Pratchett. What about the other ninety-nine most influential women in the games industry? Do they all need articles here? What about the most influential 100 men? These aren't even the most influential 100 people, but only the most influential women. Assuming that influence in the games industry is split 50/50 between men and women (which it obviously isn't), that would make her one of the most influential 200 people. Do we need articles on the 200 most influential people in, say, soft drinks or tobacco? It looks to me like she got here because she has a famous parent.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping the article, as a Terry Pratchett fan reading the name Rhianna Pratchett in a Overlord newsbulletin stirs my curiousity, and therefor i wiki'd the name, if not for this article i would never have know that she is indeed Terry's daughter. Koesper (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_is_inherited--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets the notability guidelines independent of any family relations. The extensive coverage provided in the references, from websites such as Ars Technica, Joystiq and others, is sufficient for notability. As the primary writer of several notable video games, ~~and according to one list the 2nd most important woman in the game industry~~, she's pretty clearly notable. As for the fact that 'there are lots of people in computer games who do not have articles on Wikipedia.' - that's probably true, but that means you should create articles on those people, not delete this one. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second most important? Number 2 on the list? If these comments refer to this list - Game Industry's 100 Most Influential Women - there has been some mistake. The list is arranged in alphabetical order and she appears at no. 2 on p. 9, between Powers and Ray. Or is there another list that I haven't seen?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you're right; I misread the list. I still think the significant coverage in the references provided is enough to justify keeping this article, though. Robofish (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article passes notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The nomination appears to have been done without following WP:BEFORE as a simple google search produces plenty of useable reliable sources, eg Joystiq, The Guardian, 1UP, Kotaku, Newsarama.com, the British Writer's Guild, also mentioning she won that organization's 2008 award for video games script, Rock Paper Shotgun and all of this within the first 15 search results. Come on now. This passes WP:RS and WP:V without a shred of doubt even if the article is in a poor state. AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup. MLauba (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this article had been submitted for the old VfD process in 2004: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rhianna Pratchett. --MLauba (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Please do your homework before proposing deletion. MuZemike 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did plenty of homework, thanks. I even realised that she was not no. 2 on that famous list, but no. 2 on p. 9 of an alphabetical list, which nobody else had spotted before. I just didn't realise that other people would think she looked notable. I haven't played a computer game for about twenty years, which might explain why I failed to spot her notability. Likewise I have had to argue for not deleting an article about a theologian, presumably AfDed by somebody who knew nothing about theology and hence did not understand his notability.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G12, taken completely from [23]. So Why 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shultz tables

Contested prod. Speed reading technique. No assertion of notability, no third-party references. Actually, the article as it currently stands is a copyvio of the one reference provided, http://www.st.vstour.info/ShultzTables.html, ~~but cannot be tagged as speedy G12 because it was not inserted all at once.~~ Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wee web

recently founded, non-notable social network site Passportguy (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB.

subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Not that the article makes out, and I highly doubt it-while google returns over 7 million returns, the majority of the hits are simply promoting the site (as evidenced by the top results).
won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization Nope. None that the article makes out, and searches give the same result.
distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators Not at all. It's no different than the other million sites out there. A million other sites are also up. Cheers. I'^mperator 18:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and very spammy. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The people who founded this and its investors are very notable. Check out the internal links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vp2420 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) — Vp2420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, possibly {{db-web}} speedy. Google news search finds no reliable sources. Also consider the articles on its founders Matt Meeker and Peter Kamali (created by Vp2420) for deletion; I've tagged them with {{db-bio}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdrew. NAC. Iowateen (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatia

Just a list of names and nothing more. I suggest this be deleted and Bhatia (caste) be moved here. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. "Bhatia" is a disambiguation page for people with that name and related articles. There are dozens. It appears that the nominator is unfamiliar with disambiguation pages. Drawn Some (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid disambiguation page. It may be that it should be renamed Bhatia (disambiguation), but not deleted.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful disambig. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I wish to withdraw the nom. Thanks - Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. hoax Acroterion _(talk) 17:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zach berger

Apparent hoax - no sources indicate this person has performed for Obama, or with the Who or Dead. Acroterion _(talk) 17:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YO YO YO! You are so wrong. If I put up sources can it stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berman619 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and protect from re-creation. Simple vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (changed to speedy per passportguy's comment) Drawn Some (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Couldn't find any evidence for this person. Not on Columbia records website. Quantpole (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a re-create of a previous article which was deleted as nn-bio. The spurious claim of notability was now apparently included to avoid a speedy delete. Could even be considered as a speedy delete as borderline vandalism Passportguy (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, snowball - My searches on Google found someone by this name on various social networking sites, and by the user name Berman619 on YouTube. I found no other references to anybody currently alive by this name. I don't expect to see any references from reliable sources added to the article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People... I get what yall are sayin but it just aint true. I aint makin it notability to make it more believeable. Come on now... answer my question. You are too scared to respond. IF I PUT SOURCES FOR WHAT I SAID CAN IT STAY UP?

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G10) by WereSpielChequers. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caffin Hayes

WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO, take your pick. Drawn Some (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably created to make fun of a person named Caffin (or Catherine?) Hayes. Deor (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per A7, non-notable autobiography. Tan | 39 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Altman

My previous attempts to tag this for speedy deletion have resulted in the tag being removed by the creator of the page, who is probably Rich Altman. Seems to be advertising, there are no references mentioning him and I don't think he meets the notability guidelines. God Emperor (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No notability, obvious self-promoting article. Tan | 39 16:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as one of the editors of the article, I'll not vote, but I want to point out that whatever I edits I made to the article (or what's left of it) were made in good faith and with full awareness of the WP guidelines. Sorry, but I couldn't let that material stand. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Posusney

"Aspiring actress, singer, model, and dancer", but the highlight of her career seems to be a bit-part in a soap opera. Unnotable. . . Rcawsey (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable even though she is a Gemini according to the article. Drawn Some (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER - the "aspiring" might be a hint. No IMDb entry. Of course, should her aspirations be fulfilled, the article can be re-created; but not until then. Tevildo (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gece Gündüz

Non-notable television show. (Prod was contested) ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though it's Turkish, it seems to be notable enough. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 16:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the Turkish article it's broadcast on Kanal D (a national channel in Turkey), which the channel confirms on their website. Although the sources in the Turkish article are lacking too, I'd be surprised if a current national television show would lack notability or references. Since the nominator doesn't seem to have made any attempt at cleaning it up or doing any research, I can't support deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield Avenue

non-notable street; prod was removed GDonato (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely non-notable street.Doesnt even earn consideration.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rescue-able, meets my standards. This has public transportation that runs along it, and intersections with several Freeways. See WP:50k. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable nothing in article that could not be seen on a map. MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a prosified map. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rather long road through suburbs of Los Angeles that serves several communities and intersects many major roads. There are many shorter, mainly numbered, roads that are able to have Wikipedia articles. Just because the road is unnumbered does not mean it is not recognizable enough to have an article. I would suggest the article be wikified and have an infobox added; it could be a decent article. Dough4872 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very long avenue in the Los Angeles area. I say "area" because it traverses many cities (Paramount, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Montebello, Monterey Park, Alhambra, South Pasadena). A lot of news coverage over the years [24], some of it incidental, but some are lasting, like spending $1.3 million in 1968 on it (a ton of money back then).--Oakshade (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per precedents set for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not having any notability as there aren't any reliable third-party sources that ascertain the significance of this street. Wikipedia isn't a directory nor is it a place to include an article on every single street in existance. If the street is notable for something, such as Broadway or 5th Avenue than it should have an article. If it isn't notable for anything, than it shouldn't have an article. Verifability != Notability- for all articles. Them From Space 23:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Kyrgyzstan relations

Contested prod, but I'm not sure why. It's the typical random bilateral pairing, with no sources, no substance, no assertion of notability, no content. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence or even assertion of notability. Locke9k (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another random combination with no evidence of notability. LibStar (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think keeping requires more than "Both countries are far from each other". Now if one were close, but the other far, that might be interesting...:-) Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, presidential visits are random events and no indication of any kind of relationship. Likewise parliamentary cooperation and arms sales. BeyondLiesTheWuzz (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, like Nyttend, I feel it's importance to mock contributions from non-native speakers of English who should stick to their own projects and not pollute ours with their non-idiomatic constructions.~~ BeyondLiesTheWuzz (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User indef blocked, see ANI thread --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. But according to BeyondLiesTheWuzz ("to mock contributions from non-native speakers of English") I shouldn't be concerned with this wiki (I'm a Norwegian speaking Norwegian as my mother tongue)? Nsaa (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note user BeyondLiesTheWuzz has been blocked. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep per Nabucco. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since i can find no coverage in reliable sources that would help to establish that this is a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not in favour of the blanket deletion movement going on with these articles, however, some of them, like this one, are just no use! There is something of a relationship but not enough to justify an article, I fear. Anybody reading this would leave knowing no more than they did when they arrived, except perhaps that, as Nyttend points out, "the two countries are far from each other". HJMitchell You rang? 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted after being blanked by creator and main contributor. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Seal

Article about a product by a company. The article gives no indication that is os as such notable. Passportguy (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to objectively describe a product for reference by its users. Will including more references and objective material prevent the deletion of this post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You must describe why this product is notable, i.e. why it is of interest to the users of an encylopedia. If it is just another sealing product by a particular company then it is not notable enough for inclusion here. Passportguy (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, ive tried to change the language to make it notable for encyclopedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A different make-up does not make it notable. E.g. it would be notable if it were widely used by a large percentage of dentists or if it had been involved in a widely publicized scandal. Passportguy (talk)

Delete Truly non-notable. References support verifiability but not notability. Also, an assertion of uniqueness is not the same as an assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In searching for Gluma, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluma , another desensitizer, I wanted to create a page describing an alternative for a harmful product. How is this Gluma post notable and my page not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gluma is notable because it is (quote from page) :"the most widely used product in the United States for the treatment of dental sensitivity." Passportguy (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment -- I have tagged that quote from the Gluma article as needing a reference. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, wouldn't then SuperSeal being (quote from page) : "the only non toxic water-based desensitizer available from dentists and clinicians" qualify it as notable. The product is not harmful, like other desensitizers, I would want to know this information if i had to choose between products. I would think the users would too. thanks for your help btw, im a newbie. --MoffittAJ (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be considered notable? --MoffittAJ (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not by itself, no. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, notability is established by the article subject receiving in-depth coverage from reliable sources.
The issue here is that a lot of companies would want to have a Wikipedia article for marketing purposes, and if we let any old thing receive a Wikipedia article, then users wouldn't be able to find the useful content among the spam. That's why the concept of notability exists.
Effectively, "notability" for a product means that news sources, independent journals, etc. need to be talking about it (and not just running ads or advertorials about it).
Thus, Coca-cola or Microsoft Windows are highly notable and have several articles each. Sony Walkman or Chicken McNugget are notable and each has a long article. Bic biro is a bit notable and has a short article. But this isn't playing in that league.
You ask about people who "have to choose between products", and the answer is, when people do this, they don't normally refer to encyclopaedias to help them. Wikipedia is not a directory of links for prospective purchasers to follow; that's not why we're here and it's not why we're funded.
Does this make sense?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strong delete. Non-notable. (On a side note, this is still a COI because MoffittAJ appears to be the replacement account for PhoenixDent which the group account that created the article and matches the company name that makes/distributes the product - that was blocked at 23:10 [25], and then MoffitAJ was created and took over editing. Simply changing username does not remove a COI.) JCutter (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising for a non-consumer product, a non toxic water-based desensitizer available from dentists and clinicians. Curiously, HEMA redirects to Historical European martial arts. I always suspected that dentistry was one of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as the nominator explicitly is ~~not requesting deletion~~ requesting the article be fixed/rewritten, and no !votes have advocated a delete position. AfD is not the forum for this discussion; having said that, I have opened an RfC at Talk:Chojoongdong#RfC:POV discussion (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chojoongdong

The word "Chojoongdong" itself is a degrading term against the three media corporations and therefore is a political POV minefield. Not to mention the article has so many gramatical and informational errors that some one would need to write the entire article over again rather than waste their time trying to fix it. Whoever first posted this article is clearly far from neutral and I'm sure no one'll disagree with me on that. Abrakazam689 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An IP user vandalized the AfD template on the article, which resulted in users wanting to comment on the AfD being directed to a dummy AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/hani). I NAC'd the other discussion, and the good-faith comments placed there have been copied and pasted below. I am neutral. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which I wrote, has been vandalised. The headings have been changed to nonsense terms so that it is now largely meaningless. Rather than resorting to sabotage, these unregistered users should discuss here any issues they have with the article and justify its deletion. Please indicate exactly which facts you consider to be false. You must also specify what needs to be added.
Maybe through dialogue we can make the article more accurate. If this article ended up being deleted without this kind of information being offered, it would be unfair because no effort has been made to have a proper dialogue.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawhiti25 (talk • contribs) 2009/04/30 11:02:00
Keep. The article is apparently about a Korean initialism for three major newspapers and their influence. Lacking context to make much sense out of this, or knowledge of South Korean politics, it is a rather confusing article as it stands. The current version seems strongly slanted in a hostile direction. But absolutely no grounds for deleting the article are given here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End copied comments. KuyaBriBri^Talk

I have also re-listed the correct AfD discussion in the April 30 AfD log. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I apologize for any mistakes that I've made attempting to fix the article. Though I have read the instructions over and over, the HTML stuff is still very confusing to me. Having said that, I don't want anyone to have the idea that I want this article to be deleted completely. Though I think the article is very much a political minefield which will call for more discussions such as this as long as this article is existant, what I would like for the article is to be deleted, and perhaps rewritten. This is because the quality of the article is clearly very poor and as it is being discussed in the talk page, very biased. Though I've made attempts to make contributions toward the page through rewriting large portions of the page, this only caused me to have wikipedia make a as a vandalism user.Abrakazam689 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ihcoyc, it probably helps to know that English-language sources call these newspapers the "Big Three". There is an interesting source, by Seung-Mock Yang, here that will provide some context to this.
Abrakazam689, if you don't want an article deleted, don't bring it to AFD. AFD is, as the name says, for deletion. If you want an article rewritten, rewrite it yourself. Rewriting does not involve use of the deletion tool, and is not the sole remit of administrators. Every editor, with or without an account, has the tool for performing a rewrite. And as an editor with an account you also have the tool for, say, renaming the article to Big Three (Korean press). Neither AFD nor deletion is involved in those tasks, and the correct tag is {{cleanup-rewrite}}. AFD is not cleanup; and editing and renaming are tools that you yourself have. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Marketing

Essay piece, NPOV ("Examples of good twitter marketing"), Original research Passportguy (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR spam for book. Drawn Some (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, contains a lot of how-to information, and seems likely intended to promote a book or a consulting business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Montenegro relations

another random laughable combination from the obsessive creator. no resident embassies, not 1 bilateral agreement. In 2006, Montenegro ranked 111th among Estonia’s trade partners. Estonia in 2006 exported goods worth 132.1 thousand euros to Montenegro. According to the Bank of Estonia, there were no mutual direct investments between Estonia and Montenegro. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/8142.html minor indeed. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one salient fact, Estonia's recognition of Montenegro, is already recorded at Foreign relations of Montenegro; in no other way is the relationship notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom
Delete So Estonia's ambassador to Montenegro is in Estonia, and Montenegro's ambassador to Estonia is in Montenegro? Sounds more like evidence of an insignificant (and clearly nonnotable) relationship to me. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and laugh at someone who spent a lot of time doing what they think was best for Wikipedia. Will you still be laughing when the print edition comes out and includes a long list of errata because I didn't reveal my sneaky vandalism until the last moment, I wonder. BeyondLiesTheWuzz (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User indef blocked, see ANI thread --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Comment - Estonia and Mart Laar may have had a major role in the Breakup of Yugoslavia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources whatsoever that discuss this relationship in the article at all, and none that i can find of sufficient weight to begin approaching a demonstration of notability? Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOWed Nja²⁴⁷ 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Montenegro relations

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. I'm aware Canada provides some aid but that can be covered in 1 sentence in Foreign relations of Montenegro LibStar (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the one salient fact, Canada's recognition of Montenegro, is already recorded at Foreign relations of Montenegro; in no other way is the relationship notable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Locke9k (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was ready to rescue it, but read it and the source 1st. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Cheers Kyle1278 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Mercedi

concern = Non-notable per WP:BIO, can find no info on subject online, probable hoax MuffledThud (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either non-notable or a hoax. Cannot find info even on the reference site given, MTV Italia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the MTV Italia thing seems a little hollow, and I wasn't able to find anything on it. Otherwise doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSIC. Note this article was previously deleted A7 at Becca J Mercedi. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish inventions and discoveries

This is the first part of a few nominations to remove a couple of the pages similar to this in Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries. The basis for these lists is inherently flawed. Countries do not invent things. People do. It is sheer nationalism to pretend otherwise IMO, and hence WP:FRINGE. Quite apart from this, it is extremely difficult to establish good criteria for these lists, making maintenance tricky. Is inclusion restricted to X people? Or are people working in X allowed? What if they mostly worked in X, where of X nationality, but made their invention elsewhere? And the nature of inventions themselves is very tricky. Edison is commonly credited with the lightbulb. But many predecessors of different nationalities made less well-publicised inventions shortly before that were indeed rather similar. See also discussion at FTN.

All this leads me to believe that these lists suffer fundamental problems with Wikipedia:neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability that are unlikely ever to be resolved. Moreschi (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the nomination is overly nitpicky. I count about five separate concerns that I don't find worrisome. The only problem that I see is that this could use some better sourcing. You are right, "countries do not invent things", but the point of the list is that these are inventions made by people from Scotland. Take List of African-American inventors, for instance. During Black History Month, the contributions of African-Americans are celebrated in United States schools, not because all black people in America collaborated to invent peanut butter, but to point out something that might otherwise go unnoticed. I recognize that this may seem redundant to List of British inventions, but Scots, Welsh, Irish, Anglo-Saxon, etc. are all groups that have a separate identity secondary to their citizenship in the United Kingdom. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've only half addressed the issues raised at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#inventions by nation. The part that you haven't yet addressed is what the definition of "people from Scotland" is. As this article itself tells us, its definition of "Scottishness" extends to people who are not Scots who just happened to be in Scotland at the time that they invented something.
  And on the point of secondary identity, I refer you to list of Indian inventions and discoveries. If it weren't for systemic bias, you'd be seeing a lot of secondary identity arguments there. It may appear, from the outside, that "Everything comes from India", but within India itself there is controversy on whether inventions, buildings, and so forth are of Muslim or Hindu origin, as exemplified by the works of Purushottam Nagesh Oak and others.
  I suggest a comparison of the ideas of P. N. Oak with the idea propounded here that everything even remotely related to Scotland ("They were in Scotland when they did it.") is Scottish, to see where the difficulty, and the underlying problem, lies. It is not merely a sourcing problem. It's a scope definition and an agenda-pushing problem.
  Can a NPOV scope for such articles even be defined in the first place? This is the question that you have yet to address. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair questions; I'll throw some back to you. Hypothetically speaking, if this were a "List of Scottish inventors", comprised of natives of Scotland (like Alexander Fleming) and Alexander Graham Bell, would you still say that this was a POV problem? Do you believe that Wikipedia should not have lists that refer to a particular nationality or ethnic group? My answer to the first question would be that if someone was born in Edinburgh, the question of whether they were born in Scotland is not a matter of opinion. With regard to the second, I think that people who are interested in the history and geography of a particular nation are also interested in achievements made by persons within that nation. Regardless, it is fairly common in encyclopedias, almanacs and other reference works to see famous persons grouped together by nationality; it would be difficult, under those circumstances, to persuade someone that such lists were "unencyclopedic". When it comes to keeping a neutral point of view, the articles should be polished; by no means should they be sterile. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - List of Scottish inventors (with the things that they invented) does alter the scope, doesn't it? The question is whether it would satisfy Dbachmann's and Moreschi's concerns. Certainly it addresses the "Countries do not invent things." argument, by focussing on the inventors rather than on the inventions. Countries do not invent things, and inventions don't have nationalities; but inventors invent things, and do have nationalities.
      Note that we, too, have people grouped together by nationality. We even have them grouped together by a combination of nationality and the fact that they are inventors. We have that at Category:Scottish inventors. Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Countries don't invent things, but isn't "inventions by Scottish inventors" a reasonable definition of "Scottish inventions"? Given that the former is unwieldy it seems reasonable to have an article called the latter which contains the former (and explains that in the lede). Of course that's of no help to those who think even list of Scottish inventors is too hard to define inclusion criteria for / NPOV / etc. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember what is written in this article's introduction:
        […] in some cases, the invention's Scottishness is determined by the fact that they were brought into existence in Scotland […] by non-Scots working in the country.
        This has been the scope of the article since its very first revision. And it isn't the scope that we're talking about. Maybe such a scope would satisfy the concerns of the editors who are objecting to this article. But none have spoken up since Dahn and Mandsford both made the suggestion. And even Dahn hasn't argued in favour of a simple rename and refactoring of the introduction (although that outcome does accord with xyr actual rationale and fully satisfy the concerns that xe expresses). Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mandsford. Edward321 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re. the lightbulb thing and similar contested inventions, couldn't we just say something like "Invention of the lightbulb is commonly attributed to Edison though there are competing claims" when mentioning it in a "list of American inventions"? Anyone interested in the whole story can follow the link to lightbulb and read the in-depth treatment there, and so there's no problem with POV. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is evidence of nationalist POV and manifest WP:SYNTH. Inventions are not attributable to a people, they are attributable to the inventors. If you want to highlight their origin in a neutral way, listify as List of Scottish inventors (which I notice is a redirect). But even in that case, the question remains as to "who is Scottish?" - and I see nobody leaning on the side of caution in such cases. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "the question remains as to "who is Scottish?"" -> that is not for us to judge. We must rely on reliable external references, per official Wikipedia policy, to determine what nationality the real world ascribes to notable people. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I obviously mean the question in general. And, no, reliable sources do not agree on: a) the meaning of nationality in general, outside general cases; b) the case of who exactly is Scottish (as either a regional or ethnic identity). Of course it is not for us to judge, and I view the assumption of such a thing as a gross misinterpretation of my point - the issue here is that the broadest definition is applied in defining who and what is Scottish, and applied whimsically to inanimate objects (which don't have an ethnicity or a regional identity), using WP:SYNTH to obtain the largest possible result, or relying on no sources at all. What's more, the article does not even bother to follow as a principle "Scottish inventor = Scottish invention", as absurd as that principle is in the long run. What it does instead, as others have pointed out, is to attribute "Scottish identity" to some objects and concepts only vaguely related to a Scottish geographical location, let alone to the Scottish ethnicity. It is simply fancruft, structured not what is needed by readers, but what is believed by some editors. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of Scottish inventors would have some redeeming value, but that article is full of POV nationalism, is almost totally unsourced, and can never have a reliable source define its scope. Let alone the fact that there aren't (and never can be) any criteria for inclusion and that the list includes items such as "the mail-van service" (a redirect to just Van) and the very first entry (which I can only conclude to be some kind of hoax/vandalism), this article simply can't hang on any longer. Heck, the second paragraph alone has been unsourced for three years... ninety:one 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only looked at three entries in detail so far, and all of them were inaccurate. Something tells me it's not going to get much better. ninety:one 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dahm above Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people from Scotland make notable inventions, its reasonable to have a list of them. DGG (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not, however, the scope of this article. See above. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not for Wikipedia to make subjective judgements about what is notable or not; nor to judge why a topic is notable. Eg. saying it is nationalistic is irrelevant: it may or may not be nationalistic, which may or may not be a good or a bad thing. But that is none of Wikipedias business: we must maintain NPOV at all times and in all respects. Just look at the publications and reliable ext refs on this topic: it is not an "invented" topic -> it exists out there in the real, wide world. Our job is to report the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the world have the scope that this article does? Are inventions "Scottish" even when non-Scots invented them? You're not addressing the scope question. Have you checked to see whether this article is not subtly misrepresenting the sources, by using a scope that they themselves do not? Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Mais oui: Mais non. "Scottish inventors" is not an invented topic, though it is likely a superfluous topic. "Scottish inventions" (like "American inventions", "Albanian inventions", "Central African inventions" and what have you) are not a valid topic. The topic was created through synthesis and logical fallacy. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case the article should have been nominated for re-naming, not for deletion. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Dahn. --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of inventions and discoveries associated with Scotland and Scottish People that are worth listing. I agree the list needs much work, especially sources. Finavon (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the place of Wikipedia to forbid people considering articles relevant because "it's nationalism". The page does have problems in defining exactly what counts as a "Scotish invention", but that's something that can be discussed and fixed on the talk page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be abundant sources for this including several books. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are references, they do not provide notability for this article as they only talk about specific people not the actual topic of the article. So they count for V but not N. Also, this looks like WP:LISTCRUFT. Spiesr (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden and Chris Neville-Smith. The list has issues that need addressing but there is a difference between a dispassionate search for neutrality and a disregard for the interests of historians and students of particular nations and countries. Of course we should be avoiding bombastic nationalism for its own sake but to describe a list of this nature as "sheer nationalism" is wide of the mark. "This is the first part of a few nominations to remove a couple of the pages similar to this". It would be interesting to know which other countries are involved and the neutral criteria used in selecting them. Ben Mac Dui 08:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the keep votes seem to be based on WP:OTHERCRAP. Obviously a list of African-American inventors will suffer from the same problems as a list of Scottish ones. If these lists are kept, at least be ruthless about blanking every entry without a reference. It would seem obvious that at least the straight parallels English inventions and discoveries and Welsh inventions and discoveries should be grouped with this AfD. Note that List of Chinese discoveries is different because it deals with Ancient China, i.e. discoveries made by a pre-modern civilization, not by people holding a certain passport. Needless to say, discoveries made by modern researchers who happen to be Chinese would be out of place in a list of discoveries attributed to Ancient Chinese civilization. --dab (𒁳) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify. I wouldn't have a problem with a List of Scottish inventors, but a 'list of Scottish inventions' is rather more problematic - what makes an invention Scottish? (Particularly since, as the article itself notes, it's often vague what counts as a genuine 'invention', and who should be given the credit for inventing something.) I agree with the concerns about a nationalistic POV here, and think the article should either be reworked or deleted entirely. That goes for many of the other articles in Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries, as well. Robofish (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G3. Vandalized copy of SM Supermalls. So Why 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of SM Supermalls in the USA

Speedy removed by administrator, pure hoax. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as obvious parody hoax and block from re-creation. If an administrator looks at the page and then at the SM Malls page and acutally reads the page they will see that it is a juvenile prank, taking a list of malls in the Philippines and changing the names to make it appear as if they are in the U.S. Also another sysop needs to discuss with the sysop who was involved, perhaps they are using a script or something, this is pretty bad. Drawn Some (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. SM is a mall chain based in the Philippines and having been to at least two of them myself, I can tell you the concept would not work in the USA, especially in some of the cities given. Tagging as hoax. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that the original CSD tag was G8 - a talk page which is dependent on a page that does not exist. Given that, I can now see why SoWhy (talk · contribs) removed the speedy tag. I have re-tagged it as G3 - pure vandalism, which is the category blatant hoaxes fall under. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, the whole situation baffles me, it is obviously a hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not that obvious for someone who is not living in either the Philippines or the USA and thus not familiar with the concept of a mall as such and this company in particular. It could have been a valid try of an article. Point is, I have not reviewed it in detail because it was posted in the wrong namespace and I just moved it to the article space. It was not until now that I realized, thanks to a comment here, that it's a vandalized copy of another article's content. Regards So Why 20:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete blatant hoax. This is someone trying to be funny, and failing terribly. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Loyal Knights of Old Trusty

non-notable group, with no official recognition. Possibly a hoax. Ironholds (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:ORG. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the organization does appear to exist [26], there is no indication that it is notable or that the contents of the article are factual. Edward321 (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage = no notability. Sounds like something out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pal College

It's an advertisement with no actual encyclopedic material. Ejg930 (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reverted the advertising and consensus has established that all secondary schools are notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:NHS. There is long been a consensus that high schools are de facto notable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see WP:NHS - "We NEVER delete high school articles on the basis of notability". However, this particular school's website solicits franchisees (!!!) and the article could become spammy again if no one keeps an eye on it. Drawn Some (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:ORG? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect While we have the straw that the school made a top 200, I'm unable to ascertain whether the organization making the list is independent or even an authority (meaning that verifiability rather than notability is in question). Fact remains that there is not sufficient information to support a separate article. It's better merged into a larger article about the school district or town until there is sufficient information to spin it out. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 14:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the spam issue is separate from the notability issue and consensus on secondary/high schools. tedder (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the top 200 list, this is notable by longstanding consensus and can stand by itself, no need to merge. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high school and sources are available from which the page cab be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actual evidence of notability supplied, just the usual circular reasoning of the "Keep all article on schools" brigade. Rather than discuss how other schools are notable, why doesn't someone demonstrate how this school is notable. The concept of inherent notability is a fiction The idea that all schools are notable is based on the notion that articles on schools are generally kept, which in turn is based on the assumption that all schools are notable. Thus a reinforcing chain of inferences is established that leads to nonsense like WP:NHS (which despite looking like a branch of the WP:N guideline is merely an essay). Each article needs to establish its own notability and this article singularly fails to do so. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a highschool with a not particularly impressive ranking on a single website of questionable reliability, and that seems to have less than 100 students. I'm baffled how anyone could strongly argue for the notability of this school/business. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pari stories

WP:MADEUP bollocks. Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not claimed, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hilarious. But non-notable. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP Drawn Some (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Diego County Gangs

Almost entirely unsourced list that is unverifiable and unmaintainable. Kevin (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per Kevin--Skater (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously unreliable. They left out the Westside Wiki Witches. Durova^Charge! 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC) stews[reply]
Two Questions - (1) Why would something be unmaintainable? To maintain it, all you have to do is add new gangs when they crop up. (2) Did you try sourcing the list? Can it be sourced? If so, it should be tagged as such, and not deleted. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried sourcing the list, but was unable to. I also asked the original author to add sources, and then waited to see if this happened, which it did not. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All content that I spot-checked in the article is not verifiable on the internet. Some (or all) of this is probably a hoax. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Why delete this? These are legitimate street gangs in San Diego. This page may help parents and law enforcement in San Diego County recognize gang monikers. This page is well organized-more so that most of the other gang lists on wiki. The content is verifiable on the internet. I went to the websites that were listed as the sources. One website (streetgangs.com) is ran by a PhD who specializes in gang culture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.80.234 (talk)
- "Legitimate street gangs": isn't that an oxymoron? Durova^Charge! 20:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Durova, don't you know if you buy a license from San Diego county you can make your gang legitimate? The sheriff's office makes an extra effort to go after the gangs who didn't buy licenses. (That's how the 42nd Street Mooks were put out of business.) Gangs can get into a lot of trouble just for not paying their $100 to the county clerk. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I don't understand why someone would think this page is a hoax. I work with ex-gangmembers and active gang members from Southeast and South Bay San Diego near downtown as a couselor. The enteries are legitimate. In fact, there are some gangs that are not on that list. I am assuming that the author is either in law enforcement or is a gang couselor, since the enteries also include initials and numbers associated with the gangs. The info here is very detailed, which makes doubt that a layman wrote the list.70.179.24.17 (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's first ever edit was to this page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATP and a resouding lack of sufficient WP:V for the negatives portrayed. This is a legal headache waiting to happen. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Legal headache??? LOL Over what?? That list is a good resource. There are a lot of gang lists on wiki. Why is everybody up in arms over this one. This page is put together well. Maybe they should lock it for editing, so people cannot vandalize it. That makes more sense that deleting the whole page. 99.174.244.164 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's first ever edit was to this page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a list of criminal gangs in San Diego (or any city) is possible on one level -- namely compiling a list of groups mentioned in news & police reports -- the problem is that both sources do get facts for a number of reasons. Probably the most important one is that informants & gang members lie. So the article title probably should be "List of alleged San Diego county Gangs". And a last point -- I find it odd that 3 different anon IPs all vote "Don't delete", not "Keep". -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed just like LinguistAtLarge when I tried to verify the contents including an attempt at the mentioned website. To the people questioning the discussion: Wikipedia reports on what is verifiable. Proof it is verifiable instead of making empty claims and we'd be happy to listen. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable. Concerning the (alleged) existence of other gang lists on Wikipedia, this is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument; we're only discussing this list. If this list is a useful resource, it will have to be hosted somewhere else. -kotra (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not important. Most of these gangs wouldn't be notable enough anyway. Enough said. --Sky Attacker (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is quite a detailed list, and not at all random. It seems appropriate to include on a talk page for List of California street gangs until dagosocal finds time or inclination to explain where it comes from. I do wonder why these IPs are all interested in keeping it and why the creator doesn't defend it, but don't see an immediate reason for deletion beyond moving it out of the main article space. +sj + 10:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list looks real to me. Many of the ones that aren't marked "inactive" check out, and you wouldn't exactly expect defunct gangs from the 70s to be at the top of google. I would suggest, however, that we get rid of the mass of redlinks for the purely local groups, because they're not individually notable (though I do think they properly merit this list-style treatment).--Pharos (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not verifiable as reliable sources are not possible and who can agree on the definition of "gang"? Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m quite surprised that this list I put together has generated so much response. The main reason I created the list was for a resource for parents and other citizens that are interested in the gang culture in San Diego. The list is not a hoax, in fact, it is very accurate. Some of the gang names might sound silly to the general public, even though there is a deep rooted “street’ meaning behind them. For example: West Side Fuck Klowns (WSFK) does not get along with Southeast San Diego (SESD) area gangs. Many members of SESD gangs refer to themselves as “Klowns.” So, WSFK uses its own moniker as disrespect towards SESD gangs.

I have been working with San Diego County street gangs for over 20 years. I have pooled this list from accurate law enforcement reports (federal and local), gang intervention councilors, ex-gang members, and from active gang members. Unfortunately, there are almost no sources of published primary literature that list off these gangs. That is why the sources section is short.

Some notes on the comments:

“This is a legal headache waiting to happen.” Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I don’t understand what kind of legal headace this list would cause, please elaborate.

“These are legitimate street gangs in San Diego.”—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.80.234 (talk) "Legitimate street gangs": isn't that an oxymoron? “DurovaCharge! 20:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Legitimate street gang as opposed to wanna bes? Legitimacy can be open to debate though.

“the problem is that both sources do get facts for a number of reasons. Probably the most important one is that informants & gang members lie. So the article title probably should be "List of alleged San Diego county Gangs.”-- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) It is true that informant/gang members lie. Usually this is done when a subject is under pressure from law enforcement to give some information. Subjects will sometimes give false information to appease an officer or lawyer. This information is them followed up on, and almost always discredited. None of the gangs on this list were obtained from situations such as those.

“…who can agree on the definition of "gang"?” Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Very true! Some of the gangs on this list can be surely open to debate as a gang depending on a certain enforcement branch’s/municipality’s/person’s/law’s definition of what a gang is. That is why there is a discussion section, and why wiki allows edits from the general public.

“Not important. Most of these gangs wouldn't be notable enough anyway. Enough said.” --Sky Attacker (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Matter of personal opinion. More than a few of these gangs have been in the national spotlight. Dagosocal (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 T-Pain. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nappy Boy Entertainment

T-Pain's vanity label (and an imprint of Akon's vanity label at that). Nappy Boy's only hit records are T-Pain's own albums, and there's only one other notable artist on the label (and he's barely notable). Little or no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:CORP. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it somewhere. To T-Pain or Konvict Muzik (the label it is an imprint of. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to T-Pain. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to T-Pain. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12, copyright violation, article is directly copied from IMDB and http://www.seriesnow.com/mexican-telenovelas/palomala.html Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Paloma (telenovela)

Appears to be a minor TV series with no assertion of notability. No information besides the cast and a synopsis. The only source cited is IMDB, though having followed the link the only information there is a cast list so there is no source for any other information. The information form IMDB appears to have been wholesale copied and pasted onto here. Copyvio? HJMitchell You rang? 08:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) HJMitchell You rang? 08:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No displayed notability, no reliable referances Dougofborg^(talk) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Addis

Non-notable media personality. All claims to notability are via association with other people, not notable in his own right. Also unsourced. MBisanz ^talk 08:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not contagious. Drawn Some (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite. ^ --MZMcBride (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Card Web Server

no assertion of notability, and borderline spam Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Note Appears to use large sections of text from this PDF (HTML version from Google) Radiant chains (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)~~ Copy-and-paste from multiple sources, see Talk:Smart Card Web Server. Radiant chains (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I couldn't find large sections of the text of the article cut and pasted from the PDF, it seems to have been edited just enough. This is still blatant advertising: SCWS is a Web Server running inside the USIM Card that enables the user to use SIM contents and applications allowing the Mobile Network Operator to implement Value Added Services in a user-friendly way. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. Radiant chains (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, once the (copyright vio) promotional text is removed, this is a WP:DICDEF. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN product JCutter (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone is welcome to create a redirect to Toxicity (album); I have not done so because it doesn't seem to be the sense of this discussion. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shimmy (song)

Not released as a single. Unable to find reliable sources that indicate notability of song, beyond mention that "Shimmy" was in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4. This information is already covered at Toxicity (album). The rest of the stub-article for the song is an interpretation of lyrics. Radiant chains (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. As pointed out, nothing to warrant a stand alone article that already isn't in Toxicity (album). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toxicity (album). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
No Deletion The song is also the shortest on the Toxicity album, a popular song amongst System of a Down fans, and has been referenced to interpretations of the lyrics. There are hundred of songs on Wikipedia that our merely stubs, and of less notability than Shimmy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodknight (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the page on reliable sources. LyricInterpretations.com consists solely of user-submitted content, and is therefore not a reliable source. Radiant chains (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toxicity (album). There are two factual claims here; both are already in that article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article should remain The song is notable enough to have its own page; refer to my previous arguments. If this were to be deleted, hundreds of other song stubs would have to be swept out as well. There is no reason to have it deleted.--Ryo (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What previous arguments? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and would possibly also have to be deleted is not a valid reason to keep this article. Spiesr (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to try and use the WP:Otherstuffexists rationale, be sure that you understand it. I'll quote from its wiki page "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Therefore, if you're going to cut Shimmy (song), then be consistent and address every other song stub which does not contain enough information nor seem notable enough across Wikipedia. Unless you can address this issue to the full extent, you cannot delete Shimmy; its simply about consistency or a lack thereof on your part.--Ryo (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, if it's consistency you want, the vaaaaaaast majority of non-single one-off songs are redirected to their albums. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning behind allowance Perhaps I have not been clear enough, but there are several reasons as to why the song itself is notable enough to remain. The song appears in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 game soundtrack, (a popular volume). It is also the only song under 2:00 on the very popular Toxicity, and is a frequent discussion on the largest unofficial online System of a Down fan page and forum. [27]
I am currently undergoing more research and investigation of the song's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodknight (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Songs are licensed for various things all the time; this is a trivial fact that can be mentioned in the album article, when it bears mentioning at all. As for being the only song under two minutes on Toxicity, not only are X and Bounce under 2:00, but it's an arbitrary quality of no particular importance even if true. As for Soadfans, I daresay there isn't a track they haven't discussed at length, based on perusing the forums. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I meant shortest song on the album, not just the only under 2:00. Regardless, its worth mentioning. Your opinion that the note of Shimmy's presence in the game soundtrack is 'trivial', is, as a reminder to yourself, your opinion. Any licensing of a song in a source of popular, well-spread media, is certainly worth mentioning. We're discussing notability, and Shimmy's inclusion on the album of a popular, long-running video game series, is not 'trivial', but a point of notice; raising awareness of the song through the game. I will accept that Soadfans has perhaps discussed many songs in depth, but Shimmy has received more than average coverage, representative, (not only through Soadfans), that it is a popular song amongst the fan community.
On another note about Shimmy's wiki page, lyrical interpretations, which have been deleted, are present in multiple other tracks (System of a Down included) many of which I can provide. System of a Down does not provide the meanings of the songs, as a rule of theirs, thus, any of the interpretations are based from fandom and research. If the Shimmy interpretations (which are sourced to reliable fan sites) are not permitted, than all System songs (and many other bands) must be purged of them.--Ryo (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, any of this, if sourced, would go in the album article nicely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Davies (soccer)

Football player, who despite being signed to professional clubs since 2007, has never actually played a game, thus failing WP:ATHLETE (note that a call-up to an U20 team does not confer notability, as only full international caps are deemed to do so). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; recreated when/if becomes notable. Giant Snowman 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE does not supercede WP:GNG. It's just an additional guideline in case the main one isn't conclusive. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ I added some more information about his play for the U.S. U-20 team, including that he was the captain for the team during the 2009 CONCACAF tournament. ~~I think he meets WP:GNG as there seems to be a lot of coverage of him~~, and he just barely misses meeting WP:ATHLETE. Calathan (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Number 57, I think your edit summary when placing the deletion tag on the article was rude, and that as an admin you should know better. Calathan (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the five sources reported in the article, two of them not give notability since they are not independent sources (FC Dallas and the MLS), a third one looks more like a blog than a serious newsmaker (should not even be included in the article, actually). The only two other sources just mention of his transfers, and therefore do not cover the subject with the required amount of detail. So, to me it still fails WP:N by any stretch of imagination. And, I was forgetting, youth caps do not confer notability, only senior. --Angelo (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I think about it, I think you are right, so I've retracted my keep !vote. I saw a lot of different articles mentioning him when searching in Google, but the independent ones are just trivial mentions. I'm going to say weak delete for now. Calathan (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. None of the sources given are about his exploits as a player, just a blog and references to him signing contracts and being named in a youth source, which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Plenty of players sign contracts and never play a fully-professional game. Recreate if and when he does. --Jimbo^[online] 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walking On The Chinese Wall (German album)

the article contains no information besides a track listing and cites no references besides Amazon. The artist is notable but, if there's anything special about this album that goes to notability, the article certainly doesn't infer it. Perhaps it's worth a sentence or two in Philip Bailey's article, but no more than that as far as I can tell. HJMitchell You rang? 08:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable compilation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Pakistan relations

another random combination, a few minor agreements doesn't cut it. the Pakistan Foreign Ministry has close to nothing to say about Argentina [28]. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might be a random combination but there do seem to be relations of some sort. Just typing the phrase into google throws up [29]Argentina to collaborate in Pakistan’s livestock sector [30]Pak-Argentina Joint Economic Committee Meeting FIRST SESSION OF PAKISTAN-ARGENTINA JOINT COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION Argentina to provide technical assistance to Pakistan. They have embassies [31]. We're not looking at anything huge, but there's something and just being slightly obscure doesn't qualify it for deletion. HJMitchell You rang? 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note- I've tagged this article for rescue by the ARS for the reasons given above. HJMitchell You rang? 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of embassies is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Pakistan and of Argentina. For the rest - well, only two of your links worked for me, but the "Pakistan And Argentina" article doesn't talk about relations, but rather compares Argentina's situation with what might happen in Pakistan (which seems quaint today - would that Pakistan were even at Argentina's worst now!). We're left with a link on Argentina's willingness to provide technical assistance on bus manufacturing in Pakistan. Sorry, but that sounds like trivia/news, not something we'd ever mention or consider notable elsewhere, not something about the two countries relationship over a number of years, and not something we could ever write an article on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources cited by HJMitchell show an ongoing relationship between the two nations. I've taken the liberty of adding titles to the most relevant of the ones cited, with apologies to Mitchell for editing his post. Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please can we hold fire on deleting entries on bilateral relations pending the outcome of the central discussion on this class of article? There is growing support for these articles and for a specific guideline to define what makes a bilateral relationship notable - analogous to say WP:music which allows us to rank as notable any musician who’s had a hit in a national chart, even if she hasn’t been the subject of multiple non trivial journalistic or academic studies. Until we have the new guideline editors can spend hours finding sources on these relationships only to see the article deleted by opponents who zealously appeal to a strict interpretation of existing guidelines, which while worthy aren’t specifically tailed to address bilateral relations. Once a specific guideline is in place these articles can be improved accordingly or deleted if they don't meet the agreed criteria – and much less time will be wasted editing in vain and on these AFD discussions. (changed this from strong keep to a comment as I see I accidently voted again) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered strong keep as it does not assess the notability of the subject. another editor has said Centralized discussions are not arbitration, or even mediation. There is no definite outcome of a centralized discussion, and even if there was, the underlying issue is and will always be one of notability LibStar (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. If you don't want to address the merits of the article, if all you want to do right now is to ask people to wait, if you propose to close this discussion, then please just say "close". Frankly, I think that the "strong keep" comment is insulting to those of us who have voted "keep" based on the merits of a relationship between Argentina and Pakistan. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my explanation above regarding the lack of sources detailing a relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response- Mandsford, if it makes it clearer, edit away. The article is shabby, I'll give you that one, but as I've shown above, there is evidence of a relationship. The sources I've cited were thrown up in the first 2 pages of a google search and they definitely suggest diplomatic ties. Respectfully, people should exercise their due diligence before nominating an article for deletion. The diplomatic ties are definitely notable and the article could easily be improved. However, I would say that generic comments about "notability" and "bilateral relations" are not constructive- can we stick the matter at hand? HJMitchell You rang? 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also both countries had a nuclear program and a missile program. Canadian (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, that's interesting! I'll see if I can't dig a source up for that! ta! HJMitchell You rang? 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the relevance of Argentina and weapons of mass destruction to Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - care to explain? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have now re- written the article, preserving what I could of the original information. I've added multiple citations and all information is well sourced. The information given now definitively, in my opinion at least, asserts the notability of the relationship between these two countries. HJMitchell You rang? 22:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work, HJ Mitchell. Notability is established via proof of specific programs of cooperation between the two. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources indicated by HJ Mitchell. --Oakshade (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:NOHARM argument is invalid. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is why it makes more sense to debate these articles one-by-one, rather than to put things "on hold" while people explain their vision of what an encyclopedia should be. While that discussion was droning on past its second week, we had people here who actually focussed on whether Argentina and Pakistan had a relationship. I think that some people think that the nominators are causing trouble when, in fact, they're actually inviting us to turn a thoughtlessly created article into something worthy of Wikipedia. Talk is being done over in the centralized discussion, and lots of it--- but this is where the work is being done. Nice work, HJMitchell. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - let's go through each cited reference to show why we have nothing resembling a valid article so far. Links 1 and 2 are primary sources (produced by the Pakistani government) and thus fail the requirement for "independence from the subject" mandated by WP:GNG. Really, do you think minutes and declarations of meetings can be used as reliable sources? Link 3 violates WP:SELFPUB, but even if it didn't, the information is trivial and irrelevant. Again: do you see this information being used anywhere else on Wikipedia? No, it's only being included here out of a perceived "need" to "expand" this article. It says nothing about "Argentina–Pakistan relations", but rather about what the editor who added it thinks constitutes Argentina–Pakistan relations, but is in fact trivial in the extreme. Link 4 is about Brazil, so that's irrelevant. Link 5 is an essay by the Canadian Government which in any case says nothing specifically about Argentina–Pakistan relations. Links 6 and 7 are directories, and as pointed out, Diplomatic missions of Pakistan and Diplomatic missions of Argentina fully cover that information already. Still waiting on any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - none of the references do that yet. Let's not allow our standards to slip just to fill a perceived need, all right? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The formation of joint committees is a notable relationship,(ref 4 & perhaps 5 are in fact just based upon co-occurrences of words).. DGG (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do reliable secondary sources attest to the notability of these committees, or is it just your opinion they're notable? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, the essay from the Candians provides context, the rest is all perfectly good information and, to be perfectly frank, just because you've never heard of a relationship doesn't mean there isn't one! This is wikipedia not Biruitorul'spedia and I have proven that there's a notable relationship, regardless of where the information came from. Unless you're suggesting that the national governments would lie about having ties??? HJMitchell You rang? 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's not shift the goalposts here. The Canadian essay says nothing about Argentina-Pakistan relations. Neither does the article on Brazil. The remaining sources are either primary - and these are not acceptable per the "independent of the subject" requirement of the GNG, no matter how many red herrings about national government lying you raise - or trivia about speeches and declarations that in no way meet the "significant coverage" requirement, no matter how much you pretend this is about my opinions (which I've never made it out to be). Either you accept the GNG and work within those, or recognize you're deliberately lowering the bar in order to allow in trivia that would never make it in were it not for a perceived "need" to "fill in details" on these articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The vast majority of references I've added today are "reliable, third party sources" and even those which aren't prove that there is a relationship between the two countries. The Pakistani president gave a speech to the Argentine chamber of commerce; he held meetings with the Argentine president; both governments are talking about developing their relationship further; they have established trade patterns and share information on defence and technology. All facts. All backed up with sources to the Pakistan Times and multiple other independent news agencies. Agian, just because you've never heard of it doesn't make it non notable. HJMitchell You rang? 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, can we kill this "you've never heard of it" meme? I never said that. Now, let's try this again. Links 2 and 5, no matter how much you may wish to use them to "prove" anything, cannot be used, per GNG. Links 6, 8 and 9 do not mention Argentina-Pakistan relations. Links 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13 and 14 are a grab-bag of meaningless symbolism: declarations, visits, memoranda that do not cover the subject in significant depth but do prioritize meaningless trivia that you, and not reliable sources, have decided forms part of "Argentina–Pakistan relations". Finally, links 11 and 12 are directories of embassies; we already have those. In sum: we have here a hodgepodge of miscellanea arrived at through some Google searches that you have put together with the aim of creating the appearance of notability. But once we strip away that trivia and those government sources, we are left with a very hollow work indeed. But that's unsurprising; GNG seems to go out the window for these types of articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respectfully disagree. What you're branding wholesale as "trivia" is perfectly valid information. If the same information referred to two western countries, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. How about trying to work with me to save what we can of this article rather than doing all you can to see it eliminated? HJMitchell You rang? 18:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Valid for what? What exactly does it validate? Given the lack of a source discussing this relationship as such (this sort of thing is what I mean when I say that, or even, if it were viewable, this), we're left with the option of stringing together bits of news that we consider to validate the notion of an Argentina-Pakistan relationship - but in the absence of a source actually discussing that in depth, that's not permitted. And that's the crux of the matter, not speculation on what would happen if Western countries were involved (much the same, I imagine). - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - exceeds the standard of WP:N, and no argument has shown that this is an unusual case that merits highly irregular treatment. Sources already presented exceed the standards of WP:N by a large margin. On my own, I looked over [32] + [33] + [34] + [35] + [36] + [37] + [38] to convince me. WilyD 19:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, those livestock and trade cooperation memoranda! Got any sources documenting some sort of relationship other than what you deem notable, though? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source 7 provided by WilyD, as well as several of my own demonstrate this perfectly "Pakistan and Argentina had very close cooperation in various fields and unanimity of views on international issues". What more do you want??? HJMitchell You rang? 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What else was some Pakistani apparatchik going to say to his Argentine counterpart? "We despise you?" More to the point: it's nice various figures on both sides have made pleasant declarations about their relations, but in the absence of in-depth material of the sort I pointed out (more examples, we can't assume this amounts to much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You haven't the slighest knowledge of what I deem notable, because I haven't argued for any standard of notability. I've only applied the usual standard in wide acceptance across the entire project. Grammatically, of course, you're asking me to provide sources for areas of their relationship I don't find notable. I have no idea why you'd do that. WilyD 20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The links you cite as evidence of notability is what you deem notable, but they fall far short of the in-depth coverage required by the usual standard (WP:GNG). - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Making flat false assertions can lead to incorrect conclusions, of course. But the sources I've provided clearly demonstrate the subject is substantially more notable than required by WP:N for inclusion. Wily D 21:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because they don't cover the relationship, only news stories that you deem to be evidence of such a relationship, which is actually covered nowhere in depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hang on, nobody's written a book about it so it's not notable? I'm sure there are thousands of perfectly notable subjects on wikipedia that nobody has written a book about! The news reports are good coverage, they assert that there is a relationship. This article more than meets the GNG, though quite what standard you're applying is beyond me. HJMitchell You rang? 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, not necessarily. In-depth articles that actually address the relationship in a broad historic, strategic, economic perspective, not little bits of it (this or this works) are also OK (per GNG, not just my own opinion). - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is consensus that this kind of clutter is no evidence of any relationship. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukraine–Vietnam relations Wuzzit (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least read the article and check the sources before commenting here. HJMitchell You rang? 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I haven't read the article and checked the sources? Ukraine–Vietnam relations had plenty of sources too. Wuzzit (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one looks OK to me, even though I expected it wouldn't. I'm waiting for Nauru-Central African Republic Relations.... Peridon (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 02:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 02:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment1 The fact that most major countries have diplomatic and commercial relationships with almost all other major countries indicates significant relationships between them. Countries do not maintain embassies if they do not think it important to do so. Yes, there are a great many of them. Fortunately, not being paper, we are an ideal medium to deal with a situation like this, and to bring them together under each pair. The only things suggested here as being significant that I think are not necessarily so is common membership in a very large organization, such as the UN, or adherence to general multilateral treaties. Close geographic relationship is not necessarily notable per se, but I think will almost always indicate relationships between even minor countries.
Comment2 For geographically distant minor countries, such relationships cannot be assumed. Pakistan and Argentina are, however, major countries. There will be ambiguous cases, but these two are not in the least ambiguous as major countries.
Comment3 Given the relatively random nature of decisions at AfD , precedents are relatively useless in a matter which is not yet settled. Once there are enough discussions to establish consensus, we will undoubtedly revisit some of the deleted pairs and will find the relationships for some of them.
Comment4 The requirement in the GNG for coverage is "significant" coverage, not coverage "in depth". DGG (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, aren't the two fairly interchangeable? In any case, coverage about livestock committees and the like can hardly be said to be "significant" either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relationship between any nation is notable, and if someone who spoke the language checked around in the newspapers from those countries, you'd surely find plenty of mention of things. The article has plenty of referenced content already, to make it notable as it is. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually not all bilateral relations are notable (this has been well established); the sources given are deeply flawed, as I've shown; and let's not play the "oh, we'll just wait for some merry lad to waltz into the Nawa-i-Waqt offices, poring over the archives until he finds something about Argentina, and translates it from Urdu for us" game - valid sources need to be shown during AfD. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well established? Do you have any references to back that up? ;) Honestly now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Bilateral_international_relations#Votes_on_whether_you_broadly_support_separate_articles_for_bilateral_relationships Most people seem to thus far believe the relationship between two countries, warrants an article automatically. Dream Focus 03:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hm, have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Montenegro relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Chile relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaica–Serbia relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta-Americas relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Nauru relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ireland–Singapore relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile-Luxembourg relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy See–Yemen relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria–Croatia relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunei-Greece relations and many others with similar outcomes? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've seen some which have been kept. Depends on who is around at the time to notice, and participate in the AFD. Some are saved, some are lost, and more are always being nominated by the same small number of people determined to destroy them all. Dream Focus 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but seems like you use WP:ILIKEIT, you've voted keep every single AfD and don't often describe how the actual bilateral relations meet WP:N. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Of course, some have been kept. But you make an incorrect assertion: no one has argued to "destroy them all". Of course Anglo-French, or Sino-Russian, or Argentina-Chile relations are notable and worth having around. Just not the more random ones, like this one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I vote to destroy them all. With fire. Wuzzit (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - and I know that with liars like Biruitorul and spammers like Bali ultimate, Dahn, BlueSquadronRaven etc around I will never lack for support. Wuzzit (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The evil deletionist cabal is intent on destroying ALL articles, but they can only act if no one's watching! ;-) --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
Keep - sufficient reliable sources exist to demonstrate a significant relationship. Smile a While (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following excellent improvements by HJ Mitchell and others FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Embassies and state visits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Note to closing admin - User:Wuzzit has admitted to being a sockpuppet for the purposes of block evasion, and I have indefinitely blocked Wuzzit accordingly. Ladyof Shalott 20:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per research above. Ikip (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there aren't any relations worth speaking of. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with [39] for example? Hobit (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read that, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can read the first two paragraphs, yes? Looks like a RS exactly on target discussing this relationship. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can set up a temp account on the site given by Hobit for free. The rest of the article does indeed appear to be a WP:RS and it does deal with the relationship. I believe it's cited in the article- along with, might I add, a number of other equally good articles from other, equally independent, sources. HJMitchell You rang? 23:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Usenet personalities

AfDs for this article:

What? This article is relying on Google Groups (aka USENET, aka a PRIMARY SOURCE) as its source of information. How does this not violate WP:BLP and our general policy on notability and verifiability again? Oh and beyond that, citing ticklishguyscasting.net as a source? Sickening. Just sickening. There are no logical rules for inclusion or exclusion on this page. DELETE JBsupreme (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Sickening. Just sickening.", is a prime example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT
If you don't find the referencing adequate, then fix it. That's not a reason for deleting a whole article, certainly not a reason for deleting a list.

If you find entries against WP:BLP, then of course we need to fix that entry to meet policy. Still no reason to delete the list.

The inclusion criteria are broad: Usenet and notable. Not ideal, as this excludes many people who are considered notable on and by Usenet, but WP requires external sourcing as well. However we can still support a list article on WP: Some of Usenet's notable people make it to WP:RS notice too and that then warrants their mention here. Personally I'd rather be reading a "List of Usenet physics crackpots", categorized conveniently into the anti-GR and the anti-QM loons, but I doubt I'll ever get that onto WP 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Andy Dingley. What sickens me is that this article violates WP:BLP, and in multiple instances, cites sources such as Usenet and ticklishguyscasting.net for some rather contentious information. So you're damn straight I don't like that, but that has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Try to follow along. JBsupreme (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no WP policy problem with citing Usenet as a reference. It's a problem if primary material is the _only_ citation for someone's notability, but our policy is a requirement for secondary sourcing, not a ban against noting primary material. Most of the reasons against primary material also don't apply to Usenet, as they originate with the difficulties of its verification and the Deja / Google Groups archives avoid this. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a policy issue, and it is the reliability of such sources. Usenet posts can be, and regularly are, forged in other people's names. (We even have an article on one particular instance of such forgery: Godfrey v Demon Internet Service.) One cannot assume that because a post has a person's name in the "From" field, that person actually authored it. The concept of reliability is founded upon being able to correctly identify the author so that that identified author's reputation for fact checking and accuracy can be determined. In high contrast to Usenet postings with no authentication, it is easy to determine that, for example, this source was genuinely published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and so is subject to The Chronicle's reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE Horrible when an encyclopedia that is supposed to be "objective" has subjective articles. What is next? Some editor's list of songs he hates? Some editor's list of politicians he hates? It is very difficult to have a list of people-- pro or con -- defined to a behaviour. The Usenet Personality list is predominantly a "bad connation" of the people listed. This is imbalanced in that we are to think the only notable people have a "bad reputation". To be Usenet Notable means being a murderer or a spammer? What about the hundreds of "good posters that are notable"? This list cannot be distinguished from -- Wikipedia editors opinion of who are crackpot or insane posters in the view of that editor. If the list had been unambiguous-- everyone with a full page article in Wired magazine. Then the list could fly. Otherwise it is a writers list of who he thinks are insane posters. Also, it is hideous to see people sandwiched inbetween convicted murderers on the same list 216.16.54.157 (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster[reply]

— 216.16.54.157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I hate to use the {{spa}} template and I'm strongly opposed to the notion that a "single posting" equates to some unfair bias or less valued opinion. However there is evidence (WHOIS pointing to an obscure local ISP) that you're a single poster IPSocking between anon IPs (probably innocently, as your ISP dynamically re-allocates you). These anon IPs have already recently been "contributing" to the talk: page (and reverted as vandalism on occasion) where they have also claimed to be Archimedes Plutonium, one of the people listed here - that's a WP:COI that you ought to declare openly. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Why is this even up for a vote? Is there a Editor in Chief at Wikipedia? Rules have been violated-- the list membership is totally ambiguous. Hence this article should be removed, without voting. This list violates the Rules. Nothing further should be voted on, no concensus, other than the realization that rules are violated. 216.16.54.157 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster — 216.16.54.157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The criteria are stated, key parts of the content are referenced, that's about all there is to say in response to the nom. Previous related AfD:

The article now does address the previous concerns (and appears to have been created to collect the viable tidbits from several now-deleted predecessors): it is objectively written in tone and content, and has least some third-party sourcing as well as primary. No, not every entry is perfect, but the page itself is not a total loss and I don't see any serious unsourced/defamatory BLP problems. The article talk-page is full of discussion hashing out some of the more controversial entries and numerous editors there found the refs to be sufficient and reliable to include. I would also draw attention to the long history of (well beyond "disruptive" IMO) edits from a certain IP-block on this page, its talk-page, and the talk-page of the predecessor article (now kept as a talk archive), claiming to be one of the entries in the article. Making oneself a public and known figure and then complaining about being documented as such doesn't fly for me. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What is the point in having Rules, if violations of Wikipedia Rules, results in voting? It seems to me, the commonsense, when a article is in violation of the Rules which guide a encyclopedia, that the situation is not given a vote, but that a senior editor of Wikipedia comes to the dispute and looks to see if a Rule is violated-- ambiguity of membership inclusion or disclusion from a list, and then simply, just deletes the page. Surely, this must be a Rule in itself within Wikipedia-- Rules broken require the senior editor of Wikipedia to "not have a voting stance" but a deletion of the offending page. 216.16.55.41 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster[reply]
Keep — Firstly, the purpose of the list is to provide a place to mention people who are considered notable by the Usenet community at large. The people (and user-IDs) listed in the article are in fact documented as notable. While it may not be appropriate that the article is titled "List of ...", remember that it was originally titled "Notable Usenet Personalities". This article provides a place for these people to be mentioned on Wikipedia who otherwise would not have an entire individual article devoted to them. No editorial rules have been violated, and the rules for biographies are strictly adhered to. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — As to the comments by 216.16.*.* (who calls himself "LogicMaster"), these are obviously being made by Archimedes Plutonium himself, one of the people named in the article. His main complaint is that he is categorized as "eccentric", and that his entry is placed in the same section as "a murderer" (Valery Fabrikant). His entry provides a perfect case in point, though, for this article: AP is well-known on the sci.math and sci.physics newsgroups; this fact is well documented in published sources; everything mentioned in the article is accurate and neutral in tone (and derived from his own newsgroup postings); his theories have been described in numerous places as "crackpot" (or worse); and his newsgroup postings have been described as a public example of typical crank behavior. His displeasure at the labels that the outside world gave him, and Wikipedia's sourcing of those facts, do not provide sufficient reasons to delete this article. His accusations of "rule violations", his ad hominem attacks on WP editors, and his claim that a handful of WP editors are "hate-mongers" bent on smearing his name are unfounded and irrelevant. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Your own entire reply above is laced with personal attacks and allegations which cannot possibly be verified. Please redact them quickly so I don't have to. JBsupreme (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Redacting" (which doesn't mean what you think) another editor's comments here would be vandalism. Don't do it, unless you're working towards a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Sorry, but I fail to see where I am personally attacking anyone. (1) AP is well-known on several Usenet newsgroups, and a simple Google search verifies that most of the people on those newsgroups consider him a crank. (2) The published sources cited in his entry in the article mention that very same observation (have you read the sources cited?). (3) It is a certainty that it is AP himself posting from IP addresses 216.16.55.*, as this is the address of the dial-up service used by AP in South Dakota, and he has cross-posted the contents of his recent WP edits to sci.math et al. (4) I am quoting what he wrote himself, both on Wikipedia and on sci.math, for the reasons as to why he wants his entry (or the entire article) deleted. As I said, his complaints do not constitute sufficient reasons for deletion, and they certainly do not uncover any violations of WP policies. Please indicate where I've crossed the line from documented verifiable fact into personal opinion, because I don't see it. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- John Baez was on this list early on. But even he could not stomach it, seeing that it was a Wikipedia Editor's Crackpot List, thinly disguised, thinly veiled as Usenet Personalities. So if John Baez is taken off the list with a simple email request. Why is Loadmaster not affording others who do not want to be on this smear list?? Archimedes Plutonium requested several times to be removed as easily as John Baez was removed. If Abian were alive, I know how he would react to this list, as he reacted so many times to Usenet Crackpot lists in the 1990s, through gentle persuasion. A list that should and did have John Baez, yet allows him to go but gestapo-style keeps others is a list that no encyclopedia should ever have. 216.16.57.35 (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster — 216.16.57.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Wikipedia's Rules on Lists have been violated-- ambiguous membership. This is not a matter for voting on, but a matter for a senior editor to step forward and delete the list. 216.16.57.35 (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.57.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You've already been quite loud and clear about how you feel. Repeating yourself does not help. DMacks (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here and on the talk-page, the removal of Baez at his own urging has been mentioned. Link please? DMacks (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk-page notes that the above comments are not how it actually happened, which is in keeping with 216's pattern of making baseless assertions related to content removal (see recent comments in archived talk-page). DMacks (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit by Scott MacDonald (2009-08-24) that removed the entry for Baez. No evidence whatsoever about a request from Baez, nor has anyone ever requested that the full article John C. Baez be deleted. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article accomplishes what it says: describe individuals that gained notoriety on usenet. I find this to be a useful compilation, myself. I agree with responses above that this deletion proposal results from a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason to delete. The article meets criteria for inclusion, and it should be improved to correct deficiencies. Deletion is not the answer to such deficiencies. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its ironic that you make a WP:USEFUL argument to keep all the while citing a completely incorrect attribution of IDONTLIKEIT. JBsupreme (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Attribution looks correct to me. I find it curious that you mischaracterize my entire argument (as opposed to one short sentence I made) as WP:USEFUL. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Mr. Supreme I would like to know what Wikipedia rules there are when a violation of the Rules occurs and then, instead of deleting the violation-page, we have a circus of voting going on. It seems logical to me when we have a bank robbery, that we do not enlist the public at a ballot box to vote on sending the police after the offenders of the rules. We simply send in the police. Rules of Lists were broken for Wikipedia, and I find this "voting booth stance" as rather to put it mildly-- obnoxious action. I think, Mr. Supreme, that there must be a Wikipedia rule, that a senior editor steps into this situation-- sees rules violated and chucks the page out the window. As the violin virtuoso Andre Rieu remarked "am I right on this?" 216.16.57.227 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster — 216.16.57.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is not a vote. This is a place where we present arguments. The decision to keep or delete is based on a combination of consensus and the quality of the arguments. I have seen deletion decisions overturned because the "keep" arguments were deemed higher in quality. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, well, if it is an argument and quality of argument page, then I think a word or two in the headers about "voting delete or keep is in order" for as it stands at the moment, virtually everyone is misled into thinking that in the end of this process the "deletes and keeps are tallied" and the decision resting on that. So I think it is preferable to warn contributors to not add "delete or keep" for that sends a wrong message. And to warn contributors it is the quality of their statements that is under consideration. The tenor of my statements has always been that encyclopedia's are in the knowledge business, and not the fashion business of someone's idea of a list of bad songs, list of good clothing, list of Usenet posters. That once a encyclopedia strays into these gray areas of someone's idea of a list, then the encyclopedia has gone off the edge. Tribble's list, would be different from every other person who was tasked to make a list of Usenet posters. However, Tribble's list of Canadian Prime Ministers would be the same list as other taskers. So once encyclopedia's start doing "editor's lists" they have strayed far too far away from the knowledge business and are into the crude shopping mart tabloid stands. 216.16.54.244 (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.54.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – This is the type of article and controversy that sets Wikipedia apart, for the good or bad, from other staid, dusty references. The article definitely needs a complete makeover, including the name. More personalities need to be added like Zeus, Jack Mingo and Bill Palmer. The best way to go appears to be an earnest effort to improve the existing article, and to continue this work until it becomes a featured article on Wikipedia. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the article was originally titled Notable Usenet personalities, but was renamed as a list and the "Notable" part was unfortunately dropped. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the talk page about a name change. And I noticed that there was a little box near the top that stated that the deletion process resulted in "no consensus". If this is so, then who would we turn to in order to remove the deletion template at the top of the article page? (or was that little box on the talk page the result of the first nomination?) ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 04:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That box is indeed the previous AfD (which is where its link points), not the present one. I upgraded the template to clarify. DMacks (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DMacks! At first (after you'd altered the template) I did a double-take and thought I'd misread it before. Now it's very clear. And those who keep citing "lists" ought to read Faith, so they can get that article deleted for listing all the various faiths, or Celebrity with the same outcome. We may want to seriously consider using the Celebrity article as a formatting example to spiff up the "Notable Usenet personalities" page when all this deletion-nomination stuff is silenced. ^.`^) Paine ^diss`cuss (^^`. 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is at least 4 reliable sources here and I think that satisfies the notability policy. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for a lot of these is really pathetic... many of these entries boil down to "I read about it on Usenet 10 years ago, take my word for it". --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR, WHOEVER YOU MAY BE I understand that the majority of those who have commented here are of the mind to continue to host this "list" on Wikipedia. I still believe, quite firmly, that the overwhelming host of "ILIKEIT" and "USEFUL" type comments do not override the sorry state of sources provided and the glaring WP:BLP issues which continue to remain. JBsupreme (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's your opinion but I still count 4 sources that satisfy the RS policy and that make the associated subjects satisfy notability. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think an admin should remove the stuff sourced to unreliable sources (some of these appear to just be cited to the newsgroup with no further info). I'd do it myself but I think an admin doing it would have more credibility. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Page view Statistics is very revealing as to "ILIKEIT" "USEFUL" and gives added meaning to what a encyclopedia is all about and the deterioration or misuse of the concept of "encyclopedia" for other than its thoughtof role-- dispenser of objective facts. Listed in the article is "fine structure constant" which shows a viewer statistic of 6,000 hits in April and "electron dot cloud" of 26,000 hits, whereas Usenet Personalities shows 2,000 hits for April. The point is that people are not running to a encyclopedia for "subjective lists written by editors with some axe to grind" but are going to encyclopedia's for that of objective unbiased knowledge of what most people would call "remote facts". If an encyclopedia allows for subjective editorializing, it is on the course of a slippery slope into whether much of anything is reliable in Wikipedia. 216.16.54.189 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.54.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You really need to stop describing this article as a list based on personal opinion. As anyone can see quite plainly from the article history and the purpose heading on the talk page, this list was created as a place to collect summaries of documented notable Usenet posters. The original edit was a short list containing links to existing articles on Wikipedia, taken mostly from Category:Usenet people. Subsequent edits show the collective work of many contributions made by many editors. As I've stated before, any editor's personal opinion of any of the people listed in the article is irrelevant (as it should be), and your continued claims to the contrary are baseless. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the editors of Wikipedia ever get any training in the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? In the first paragraph of this list speaks of -- subjectivity in chosing who is notable. I would hazard to guess that many people have written on the subject of what makes a encyclopedia so different from almost all other forums. Certainly, objectivity would be the highest priority, for it is as close to the truth as possible. If people want lists of crackpots or cranks or good restaurants or poor songs, they can go to the Usenet itself where plenty of people make up these subjective list contraptions. Why should a encyclopedia stoop to that level of non-objectivity? Wikipedia editors are too much chasing after sources, but seem to have lost touch with what makes encyclopedia so valuable and distinctive. It is not from editors making up lists, but because of the drive to objectivity and the drive to eliminate subjectivity. Now let me give you a probability scenario of the author of the Usenet Personality List, is likely to be overly religious and thus would likely want to make up a list of people who have ideas that oppose his religion. And thus likely to compose a list of scientists who have antireligion views and sandwich them in amoungst criminals, murders, crackpots and cranks. Subjectivity in list making is probably one of the worst forms of subjectivity and propaganda. So it is likely, not certain, that the author of the list hates an Atom Totality theory and is tasked by his church to compose a list that sandwiches the theory in amoungst murderers and crackpots. So instead of seeing this type of feud and fighting and blacklisting going on in Usenet itself where the theory is being debated, we have Wikipedia picked up as a surrogate forum to continue a subjective propagandizing by a religion group that wants to target the Atom Totality theory. They want to target Darwin Evolution and so they creep into Wikipedia and seed their subjectivity and propaganda. Stuff like this was never suitable for an encyclopedia, but since Wikipedia is so new and so loose and open, a flood of propaganda, blacklisting and oceans of subjectivity come flooding in. Wikipedia should not be called an encyclopedia if they allow this torrent of subjectivity. Encyclopedia's are not Fashion Statements, not opinionated, subjective lists. Unambiguity of list membership is there for a very good reason-- otherwise it is a subjective list. I do not know if the world's most famous encyclopedia editor-- James Clerk Maxwell ever discussed the difference between objectivity and subjectivity and the importance of omitting all subjectivity from an encyclopedia. But from my experience of Wikipedia editors, I have never seen anyone take the stance of objectivity versus subjectivity, and that is pretty alarming, for it means that Wikipedia should not be deemed an encyclopedia. 216.16.57.187 (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.57.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Above user is bordering on getting himself a rangeblock for repeated NPA violations (as well as evading (though maybe not intentionally) an existing block on one of the IPs). DMacks (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see DMack rise to be the editor in chief of Wikipedia. Let us make a "list of Notable Wikipedia editors" once the above list is revamped. But, kidding aside.

No Original Research in Wikipedia, also means no Wikipedia entry of that ongoing research debate. Wikipedia has a rule that no original research. The Atom Totality theory is original research, and that prohibits Wikipedia from having a entry on it. But, it should also prohibit Wikipedia from having a entry in a list because it is original research that is being debated. So when Wikipedia has the Atom Totality theory listed, Wikipedia is taking a "conclusionary stance" on the theory and classifying it as "eccentric". It is rather classified as a "Rival theory" not a "eccentric theory". It is original research that is in the middle of debate especially on Usenet. So for Wikipedia to enter this debate and classifying it as "eccentric" is way out of bounds, as per the rule of Wikipedia-- no original research. That means Wikipedia is not allowed to classify original research either. 216.254.227.46 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.254.227.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Wikipedia's version of a crank crackpot list-- gone encyclopedic I was around in the wild-west 1990s of the Usenet where about everyone with idle hands posted their own version of a crank or crackpot list. Sci.physics abounded in flame-wars, especially when Bullock living in Japan near KEK posted his Crackpot list. These things are nothing but Subjectivity in action, and to see Wikipedia stoop to this sort of nonsense is a pitiful shame. Wikipedia has some sort of rule about "no original research". The Atom Totality Theory is new original research. It is being debated the world over. Like all new theories it has few adherents but as time goes on, time goes by the numbers increase as the case of all new theories that are true. In the case of the Atom Totality theory, Wikipedia has no right in Prejudging, in biasing, in wrongly classifying the Atom Totality theory. This Wikipedia entry was set up and designed to cast a dark and bad spotlight on the Atom Totality theory by filling it with murderers sandwiched in between convicts and cranks and all other sorts of suggestions-- paranoid, threatening, crank, crackpot, kook. This Wikipedia entry is a smear campaign lifted from the wild west days of Usenet where a few editors of Wikipedia are using the encyclopedia for their own propaganda against a new theory of science that scares them. They do the same thing for the Darwin Evolution theory that scares them and their religion. The Atom Totality Theory is new, original research. It is being debated around the world. It has found its way into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia has no right to prejudge and PreConclude the theory. Wikipedia has the right to "tell what it is" but it has no right in classifying it as crank or crackpot. That is the job of science and it may take 50 years as it took almost 50 years for Continental Drift to be judged. So Wikipedia should not be taking sides on the issue of the Atom Totality Theory. This entire page was set up to pack the Atom Totality Theory in amoungst some shady other listees. Wikipedia has no right in calling the Atom Totality theory as "eccentric", no matter how many people dislike it and print it in a newspaper, for that is the process of debate as to true or false. An encyclopedia cannot take sides on NEW ORIGINAL RESEARCH. 216.16.54.64 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.54.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The ideas are verifiably non-science/eccentris/crackpot, not just "unproven or original in WP editors' opinions". That's the standard here: cited reliable sources. There's no way around it here...multiple reliable sources state it, so we can state it. DMacks (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks obviously is not a scientist and has no science abilities because a scientist knows that a Original New Idea can take upwards of 50 years or more to become the Mainstream-science such as Continental Drift. And so for a Wikipedia editor to come busting into Original Research of Atom Totality Theory is a very antagonistic attacking and prejudice, especially because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia wannabe. So we have an editor who is ignorant of the Science Process and who is flagrantly biasing a New Original Theory of Science. Wikipedia has the right to describe the Atom Totality theory, but the process of finding out whether it is true or not true may take 50 years. So could the Editors in Chief of Wikipedia please keep these editors like DMacks or Andy Dingley from being too caustic and from being so "disregarding of the rules of Wikipedia" rules designed to keep out their subjective bias, designed to protect living authors of new theories from being smeared by encyclopedia editors. 216.16.55.163 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.55.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- And that is why this page is up for deletion as witness by the hatemongering opinion of DMacks above. Wikipedia allows NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and there is the fool DMacks judging original-research. Who uses Wikipedia to spread his worthless opinion. Tell me, is there a Template asking to get rid of a particular hatemongering editor of Wikipedia??-- who time and time again is totally unreasonable. People of the likes of DMacks just tears down all of Wikipedia. 216.16.55.163 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.55.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep Some individual entries may have problems. Any entry that requires original research or is relying primarily on usenet posts is going to be problematic. However, most are not in that category but rather have good sourcing. Other entries can be removed or corrected as necessary. Note also that some of these entries have apparently deterioated from their best state. For example, there were multiple articles in reliable sources that discussed Archimedes Plutonium (including an article in Discover Magazine) that have been apparently excised. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #3 is Discover, and is one of several RS discussing AP cited in his entry. I think that this one and maybe some others could also serve as refs for the article itself (that the general idea of "there are some well-known such people" has RS interest as well as each individual entry). DMacks (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. For some reason I didn't see it. My eyes must skipped over it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can describe a Ongoing New Research Theory, but Wikipedia is not allowed to bias the theory, as it awaits the consensus of the science community. Show me a Science journal that describes the Atom Totality theory and describes a scientific proof or disproof--- there is none. Just because some hack newspaper or magazine who has no science editor calls it a bad name is not a permission tag for Wikipedia to then judge the Atom Totality Theory. Discover magazine was a comment in passing but not a scientific stance on the Atom Totality theory and so Wikipedia is not allowed to jump in the middle of a debate on Atom Totality theory and side one way or the other. Just as Darwin Evolution theory or Continental Drift theory could not and should not have been entered into an encyclopedia as "Eccentric theory". It is up to the science community and may take 50 years but Wikipedia should not be prejudging with biased editors. 216.16.56.26 (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.56.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia cannot evaluate the validity of such theories. However, that's irrelevant to the matter since we have reliable sources describing the personalities in question, which is what this article is about. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the pure-Usenet sources are problematic, but then some of these people are notable for their activities on Usenet, so there's a balancing act here. Either way, as has been pointed out, there are reliable sources establishing the notability of some of the entries, so the rest are merely a matter of firming up the sources or removing the entries. It doesn't justify deleting the entire article. Xihr 07:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Kazakhstan relations

this is one of the most laughable combinations I've seen created by the obsessive creator. Kazakhstan govt says Due to a number of reasons, including geographical remoteness, weak investment potential, trade and economical relations with Argentina are insufficiently active. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per a Google search not turning up any references. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I don't think that the notion of Argentina and Kazakhstan relations is quite as ridiculous as the nominator suggests, the Kazakh Foreign Ministry link in the article notes that the trade between the two nations is, as they put it, "insufficiently active". True, the foreign ministers of the two nations have met on a few occasions, but geography prevents any strong ties. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Renaissancee (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford. One (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and the lack of reliable sources confirming anything. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Portugal relations

another random combination from the obsessive creator. the statement about the South Ossetia War can easily be covered in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted, the only facet of this "relationship" can easily be mentioned in a more appropriate place; other than that, there isn't anything to see here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, the little bit of information here can be mentioned elsewhere (Foreign relations of Portugal, Foreign relations of Georgia, etc.) There's nothing here that merits a special article. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't need it's own article, but on one of the countries main articles if need be. Renaissancee (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the usual reasons. JJL (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin, editor has the exact same comments in 3 other AfDs. [40][41][42][43] Ikip (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
delete Yet another bilateral stub failing guideline for notability. Also seems like a directory entry; Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship in any manner but the trivial, an encyclopedia article on this topic can not be supported.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 W. E. Blackhurst. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Riders of the Flood"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Riders of the Flood"

A drama with a local theme being performed at one location. No evidence of notability for the play or for the book from which it is derived. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 09:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Brian Powell (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The play seems to have a strong tie-in by illustrating the history of the Greenbrier River valley and Monongahela National Forest. It also seems that the article refers both to the play and the theatre company/facility where it is held. Perhaps the article could be recast to focus more on the facility with information on the play as a component, rather than the opposite as it is now. Brian Powell (talk) 16:34, 22 April 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) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to W. E. Blackhurst--which is also a woefully underdeveloped and unreferenced article, but whose subject is probably (more) notable. I've trimmed the fat a bit from both articles and could have cut more: reliable third-party sources are needed, and plenty of copyediting esp. for tone. But the author seems notable to me, the play not (there wasn't a single reference in the article for the play that could be called in-depth coverage in a reliable source). If the author of both articles is following this: the bit about the forest may be true and relevant, but not without discussion in reliable sources--and without referencing WP articles: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Ged UK 07:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Drmies. Insufficient notability for play. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States in Dublin

nothing stands out as notable about the embassy itself. any relevant information can be covered in Ireland–United States relations LibStar (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, along with picture, to the relations article; not notable on its own, but worth a mention in that one. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just as notable as other embassies or does this one have to be bombed to make the list? Mikebar (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As notable as this one? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_20#Embassy_of_Turkey_in_Budapest. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a separate article. There was a time when I would have suggested a merge, but my experience is that the "m-word" leads to a cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs type reaction. In response to Mikebar, I would say that embassies are not "inherently notable"; some can generate independent news coverage and they can become notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On architectural grounds alone, the building has been the subject of discussion (simple Google book search), with Nikolaus Pevsner describing it as neo-Gaudi, which wasn't a compliment for any of the buildings he was in the habit of describing as such. It was of the first modernist buildings in Dublin, just about predating Liberty Hall and winning an award from An Taisce (the Irish National Trust) [44], although the source doesn't mention the fact that the building was a contentious issue; many critics thinking then, as now, that while it might be architecturally meritorious, it does stick out like a sore thumb in the midst of the Georgian architecture of the area. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as discussed by Flowerpotman, it is the architectural aspect that is notable and significant, not the fact that it is the embassy. It would be worthy of inclusion even if it were vacant. Drawn Some (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, there are sources out there to build on (errr... so to speak). The embassy is scheduled to move, but the building would remain notable. Because Johansen is highly notable in his own right, his works are the subject of scholarly (and non-scholarly) works. Just noticed an article where the building is used as a counter-example in a discussion on embassies (and how not to build them) in the Guardian [45]. Passing reference, of course, but even the fact that it is used in a news article in a newspaper in another country almost 50 years after construction would tend to suggest that it just might be notable. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per FlowerpotMan. Substantial architectural notability and also the work of a substantially notable architect. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many, many other embassies, consulates and what not have articles in their won right and to claim this one, for some reason, falls foul of a guideline that that is met by some obscure consulate is ludicrous. For example Embassy of France in Washington, D.C. has its own article. Granted, as it stands, I practically wrote it, but it's the only example I have to hand. unless of course, we're proposing to delete the article of every embassy on wikipedia? HJMitchell You rang? 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flowerpotman and that the United States and Ireland have a long and integral relationship and one nation's primary emissary in the other is very important.--Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Politically, the American Embassy is one of the two most important embassies in Dublin (the other being that of the only nation with which we share a land-border), and on those grounds alone notability is more than met, not least because of the sifnificance of the embassy as a venue for so many protests. Additionally, the architectural significance of the building is enough to establish notability even if its use was non-notable, and (as mentioned above) the security flaws of the building make it notable as an example of currently-deprecated style of ebmassy-building. (On a POV note, it's a lot prettier than the fortress of a British embassy). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIronically, details on the next embassy will be much easier to source when it is built (in the Internet Age), but going back to just the architectural emphasis, both the current embassy and the first embassy (when the Ambassasor "lived over the shop"), which was notable in its own right before use as an embassy, can be expanded and linked into external considerations both Irish and American. The current buiding was part of the American embassy-building spree of the 50s and 60s, for example. Also the first purpose built embassy in Ireland, if I am not mistaken; every one else using the pre-existing stately piles in Ballsbridge or places nearby. And there is the factoid that the concrete lattice on the outside is supposed to evoke the weave of an Aran sweater (or something) :). Article needs expansion, of course; I have some stuff to add when I get around to parsing it into intelligible English. (On a POV note: it isn't that the current building is a bad building, it just doesn't fit in to the Victorian character of the area - not Georgian as I inexplicably said before.. that's further down the road) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Architecturally notable and important part of American - Irish relations. Could probably do with a bit of expansion G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 10:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Kazakhstan relations

Another random pairing for the article creator. No reason why this page should stay. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 06:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thoroughly random pairing. Granted, as this map shows, Hungarians originate from around Kazakhstan, but that has zero to do with relations between the modern-day states, so deletion is the answer. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what is random about writing an article about two countries who have diplomatic relations. I would have thought that the notability of the relations would have been the rational for deletion. However having said that the relations between nations states are indeed notable. Pahari Sahib 08:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can appreciate what you're saying. To bring some background to the controversy over these "random pairing" articles from one creator, this was one of many that were cranked out by one particular editor who did nothing but make stubs. In this case, this was one of 15 articles started by Groubani in one half hour period-- here's a list that includes all the new articles created by that user in December 2008 -- [46]. In some instances, other editors have done some research and demonstrated a notability of relations; I wouldn't be surprised if someone turned up something between the former Soviet republic and the former Soviet satellite. We're not saying that foreign relations aren't important, and there are articles about the foreign relations of both Hungary, and the foreign relations of Kazakhstan, that we'd like to see grow. We just don't think that every combination of two countries merits its own separate articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest waiting until the consensus is decided as to whether these articles should remain. Cheers. I'^mperator 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else one may say about it, that discussion is most certainly not about whether all of these articles should remain or whether all of these articles should be deleted. Whatever the outcome, it won't be a choice between "keep 'em all" or "erase 'em all". Mandsford (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why was this listed under "Fiction and Arts"? Whether notable or not, I wouldn't think Hungary-Kazakhstan relations are fictional. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the usual reasons. JJL (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin, editor has the exact same comments in 3 other AfDs. [47][48][49][50] Ikip (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to say about this particular pair of countries. Robofish (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Strong keep per Biruitorul and Pahari Sahib. Ikip (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nabucco. Search for Hungary Kazakhstan Nabucco, + 2 x resident ambassadors. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable pairing of countries, more of a directory listing than an encyclopedia article. fails to show notability. Unlikely that sources can be found to make this robostub into an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub, for which i can find no coverage of the relationsihp which should mean no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I knew of course that Hungarian anthropologists and linguists have long been interested in Turkic peoples; but I is was surprised to find out that, according to a major Kazakhstan newspaper in Russian ( В Костанайской области прошел казахско-венгерский этнофестиваль), some Hungarian scholars believe that a certain subgroup of Kazakhs in Kostanay Province is the one Central Asian community with the closest genetic relation to the Hungarians, and to celebrate this connection some events were held, includng , a Kazakh-Hungarian festival named "Meeting across centuries" (Russian: Встреча через века) took place in 2007. Make what you want out of it - i'd better get back to my real work! Vmenkov (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Qatar relations

This is another randomised selection and fails WP:N A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:FREAKY, and zero evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I'm going to strongly protest mentioning this boring title on the wonderful list of "deleted articles with freaky titles". West Bosniak-Qatar relations might belong there. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is this listed under "Fiction and Arts"? Whether notable or not, I wouldn't think Hungary-Qatar relations are fictional. Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the usual reasons. JJL (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin, editor has the exact same comments in 3 other AfDs. [51][52][53][54] Ikip (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Delete no reliable sources that discuss a subject (no sources in the article as it currently stands) and no relaible sources finadle by me that are in fact reliable? delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles seem like a freshman computer project in creating all combinations of 203 things taken 2 at a time. That does not sound like a sensible way to create an encyclopedia. Where are the "multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage" needed to satisfy WP:N? Seems more like fodder for a directory, which Wikipedia is not. Edison (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notable relations. I note this AfD is listed as Fiction and Arts! ha LibStar (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable content, no notability assertable. But heck, can you imagine when we get the "trilateral relations" pages? "Argentina - Australia- Monaco relations"? Collect (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to Lee Kwun Leung Vincent. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LEE Kwun-leung Vincent

Non-notable painter. Lacks independent references to establish notability or verifiability of this auto-biographical article. Drawn Some (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Estonia relations

another random combination from the obsessive creator. Estonian govt says No economic agreements have been concluded between the two countries and there are no draft economic agreements under negotiation and Argentina was 66th largest trade partner for Estonia. Exports to Argentina amounted to 504 thousand euros (88th among trade partners). LibStar (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - random to the core, with no sources to back up claims of notability not even made. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There can hardly be a better summary of most of these articles than that. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep Please read before trying to delete something. Argentina became one of the first countries in the world to recognise Estonia. That one sentence makes it notable. Dream Focus 03:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

does that meet WP:N? do they have ongoing notable relations? LibStar (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. That is a wikipedia policy listed somewhere. That one notable fact, makes their relationship notable. Dream Focus 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what the consensus is I guess. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do independent, non-trivial sources back up that fact's notability? If not, we can't declare it notable on our own. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I've been staying away from these X-Y relations AFDs, but this article is especially terrible. A few lines of pointlessness. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete estonia actually closed its honorary consulate in argentina. The two countries have no official represnetation in each other now, and never have. No reliable sources discuss this relationship. Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable intersection of countries. Nothing more to state than the location of embassies, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under G11 as spam. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok2

No independent coverage for this web site, no web site at the given address, no way to verify the contents of the article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, tagged as G11 The article creator has the same name as the article. Obviously spam. Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–South Africa relations

another random combination from the obsessive creator. Google news search doesn't reveal much [55] LibStar (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - amusing, but there ain't much to see here; fails WP:N with gusto. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no different from the piles of other such articles that have been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep - Iceland has an embassy in Pretoria. The nonexistance of diplomatic relations before 1995 is highly notable in itself. Search for Iceland apartheid. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing sources to support notability or to make this more than a directory listing, which violates WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship in a manner that would establish it as possibly notable for inclusion.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to Lee Kwun Leung Vincent. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LEE Kwun-leung Vincent

Non-notable painter. Lacks independent references to establish notability or verifiability of this auto-biographical article. Drawn Some (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoism

Pretty clear neologism. Less than 100 Google hits, a large number of which point to one essay by Lew Rockwell, where the word is used exactly twice. eaolson (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a) There are not "less than 100 Google hits", there are 253. b) It's not a neologism. A neologism is "a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase"; seeing as the word many years old, it doesn't fit the definition. That said, I wouldn't be heart-broken if this disambiguation was deleted; but I feel that the term is used often enough that it warrants a simple disambiguation page. Weak keep, I guess. --darolew 08:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am seeing these debates on the number of Google hits. Google can search and include "similar results" or omit them. The similar results are almost exclusively repeats of the same material on the same website, mentions on Wikipedia talk pages, transclusions, and the like. Without the similar results, the number is around 100 hits. It is also helpful to include quotation marks. See here, 91 hits. Also, this is a disambiguation page, so Keep. Drawn Some (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GunBroker.com

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/GunBroker.com

This article contains no useful information to a person using Wiki. Furthermore, the references that it does list do not pertain to any of the information used on the page. keystoneridin! (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~, under CSD A7 criteria. Use {{db-web}}. ^blurred _peace ☮ 04:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, CSD, as stated before, no longer applies and has a good enough start with key references. ^blurred _peace ☮ 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have attempted a rewrite. CSD A7 no longer applies. It is much improved. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a good start, but needs some major revamps and cleaning up. Renaissancee (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bump. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bump (song)

Non-notable album track. Fails WP:NSONGS (note that Radio Disney is not an accepted chart, as it is a single vendor countdown). Attempts to redirect it have been consistently reverted (possibly by the same editor, judging from the timing of account creation vs. the anon that used to do this). Unlikely search term, so deletion seems appropriate. —Kww(talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect from re-creation as non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC Drawn Some (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & protect per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect Anyone who knows the Wikipedia naming conventions is likely to use this name, so it's not an implausible title. Protection can deal with the reversions. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the disambiguation page Bump, where a few of the many songs of this name are listed. (The nominator's claim that "Bump (song)" is an unlikely search term is incorrect, since "(song)" is standard Wikipedia disambiguation. I use search terms like this frequently, and they ought to lead to somewhere sensible, which in this case means the disambiguation page.) --Zundark (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zundark. Also, beat Yamh91 with clue stick for continued vandalism. JuJube (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Unger

Few, if any, of the facts are supported by reliable sources. The link to the articles in variety and NY Times appear to be blog-style postings disguised as articles. The SportingNews 'poll' seems to be voted by anyone. I see no assertion of notability, other than these. Chzz ► 07:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you don't view the Daily Variety as a reliable source - I wasn't trying to disguise anything as an article, I wanted to establish that he was a weekly columnist for one of the preeminent entertainment periodicals, which is why I linked to his Variety bio - there are links on his bio page to the articles he wrote for the paper. The NY Times page was used to establish that he was the associate producer on an Emmy award winning show - it's not a blog entry, how is it less credible than sourcing IMDB for production credits? The Sporting News seems to be a pretty reliable source. Admittedly, I don't know the criteria for their "Most Powerful" list, but I don't think that being included in it's list is as trivial as you seem to think it is. Monnaliza (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting News has been around since 1886. Further clarification on who determines their "Most Powerful" and criteria: List is determined by a 14 member panel of their executives and editors, provided with guideline that, "A person with power in the world of sports has the capability to effect significant change--or to prevent significant change--in the games we play. By this definition, power is not athletic prowess or achievement and should not be confused with winning championships, individually or as a member of a team or even as a coach or owner." [56] Monnaliza (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references in the article, with the possible exception of the UCLA lecture piece, come close to talking about Unger himself in any depth; they are mostly about items with which he is related, but the articles don't say much about him. The Sporting News ref is really just a list with his name and a two-sentence blurb attached. And the Variety ref is a link list to articles Unger wrote, making it at best a primary source. While they are legitimate footnotes that document facts in the article, none of them help fulfill the requirements of WP:N. Rklear (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also clarify why you deleted the external links? The article's subject is one of the founders of Foster's Hollywood, which is one of the largest restaurant chains in Spain. There is no internal wikipedia entry for Foster's Hollywood, which is why I provided a link to the website in the external links section. As I understand WP:EXTERNAL, this seems to fall within the criteria for inclusion. Monnaliza (talk) 19:34, 17 April 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 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have made changes in the article to address the concerns expressed here. Monnaliza (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is extensively referenced. Many of the sources are passing references, but their usage in the article is to verify certain claims in the article. The references that prove Unger passes WP:BIO are this article from Variety, this article from the Los Angeles Times, and a second article from the Los Angeles Times. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 28 April 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) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Reverting my close and relisting at the request of the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable for a variety of pursuits. Writing, restauranteur etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references do need to be cleaned up removing any that dont meet WP:RS but appearing in a top 100 list in Sporting News demonstrates notability.--RadioFan (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm McCulloch

Proxy nomination submitted by –xeno ^talk 02:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC) for anon:[reply]

“

IMHO grounds for deletion:

Subject of article is apparently not notable per Wikipedia:Notability.
Article is an orphan or near-orphan article.
Article is an apparent "vanity" article, possibly created by the subject of the article or by a fan of the subject. (Most edits to this article were done by editors who haven't edited any other article.) -- (Update: WP:SPA -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

- I'm starting this AfD in good faith - if we arrive at a consensus that this article is in fact merited I'm fine with that. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [57][reply]

”

No comment as to outcome. –xeno ^talk 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO for scientists or professors. Non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment This one looks borderline to me, and I suspect quite a lot of research would be needed in order to reach a sensible conclusion either way - he's notable, but is he notable enough? There are university heads of department who are not notable (the posts have to be filled, and sometimes no outstanding candidates are available), while occasionally a PhD student publishes something (usually listed as 2nd author, with his / her supervisor getting top billing) genuinelynotable. THe article's main problem is that its style is that of a university web page that's trying to promote the activities of a department or team - and the article appears to have been created by a member of McCulloch's team. --Philcha (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this does indeed look like it was written by one of his lackeys and they've neglected to mention anything notable it is unlikely there is any.--The very last username (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article was created by an SPA, and then massively edited by two other SPAs with no edits other than the article. The subject does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF; he should not be confused with this Malcolm McCulloch, who is clearly notable under the same requirements. Having said that, the subject could arguably meet WP:BIO, based on the news coverage he received very recently (2008) for his work related to the Einstein refrigerator. The problem is that the news items seem to all stem from the same press release, and the reason for the interest is probably the Einstein connection.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little achievement. Reads like a vanity puff. Not a good advertisement for Christ Church. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Ireland relations

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. the only thing I could find from google news search was this [58] LibStar (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn pairing of countries. JJL (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random pairing with no more mention than propaganda releases by the Belarusian regime. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are activities between these two countries, led mainly by the Chernobyl Children's Project and Adi Roche, but diplomatic relations are basically nonexistent. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing really to say except they are friends and have Embassies. Renaissancee (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations task force deletions. – Ikip (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this relationship in any depth beyond the trivial. That the two countries don't care enough about this relationship to maintain an embassy in the others capitols speaks volumes as to the trivial nature of this relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clan Cameron. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Martin

Non notable Scottish Clan. Article was deleted by Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and is back. The reasons then are much the same as the text is the same, article is not notable Czar Brodie (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable sept of the Cameron clan. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I think the question is not if MacMartin or Martin exists as a Scottish surname, or is part (sept (social)) of a clan, but whether "Clan Martin" is a clan in its own right, and can be listed as such. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the question is whether this article should be deleted. Per WP:BEFORE, there seem to be good alternatives to deletion and so we should not as deletion is only for hopeless cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been about for several years before it was deleted and recreated, it was tagged etc, but the author deleted the tags. Having some knowledge of clans I suspect the article is a hoax. A good and complete list of clans can be found in the archives of [myclan.org], an old site of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. Clan Martin in my view is suspect. I have looked far and wide (internet, books), and posted a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland#Clan Martin for a second opinion. My investigations found that the internet sites that mention Clan Martin seem to have got their info from the wikipedia article (eg electricscotland.com). However Wikipedia is about references, not the truth, and under those guidelines my thinking is that Clan Martin is not notable. Accordingly I think I have followed WP:BEFORE. Note also, Clan Cameron has many septs: Chambers, Chalmers, Clark, Clarke, Clarkson, Cleary, Clerk, Dowie, Gibbon, Gilbertson, Kennedy, Krywonis, Leary....Martin, Paul, Sorlie...in all 46 names; should they all become clans? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are implicitly arguing for seems to be merger or move rather than deletion. Our editing policy is to keep material and develop it rather than delete it totally for some imperfection. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry I was not clear. I am arguing that the article be deleted. Our threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. The article in my view is not notable and a probable hoax. I think moving much of the unsourced information to another place will benefit nobody. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Brodie's point is there isn't a recognised 'Clan Martin', like this article is trying to present. But there is a historical Martin sept associated with Clan Cameron which has been commented on in books describing Clan Cameron. Within the table of contents of Moncreiffe's book he's got Clan Cameron listed as "Cameron (MacGillonie, MacMartin)". According to Moncreiffe, the Cameron 'Martins' were a sept of the MacGillonies; and that an early Cameron married a MacGillonie heiress, thus inheriting the lands occupied by those two families. Information along these lines is already within the Cameron article (though right now it looks pretty close to being copy-and-pasted from the Cameron website). The stuff about 'official clan mottos', the 'second wave' of 'Dal Riadic emigrations' isn't mentioned by Moncreiffe at all. I don't think we're going to get a reliable source to confirm that kind of stuff. The info that is backed up with a good reference (worth preserving) is already on wikipedia.--Celtus (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there's three issues here :

1. Should "Clan" and "Martin" both appear in an article name? That seems a clean "no", if the SCSC doesn't recognise them as a clan, then neither should Wikipedia. But Clan Martin and Clan Macmartin should redirect somewhere, even if they shouldn't be be articles in their own right.
2. Should there be an article on the Scottish Martin "tribe", whether you want to call them a clan, a sept, a branch or whatever? That seems to be the real point under debate. After all, we do have a few articles on the major clan septs, albeit the ones that are big enough to be alomst considered as clans in their own right. However I would note that the Cameron website calls them a "branch" of the Camerons rather than an independent sept, let alone a clan, and there doesn't seem to be a distinct grouping of "Macmartin of Loy" or somesuch. Thus I'm not quite sure what you would call such an article, although some of it might belong in Martin (name).
From what I can tell of the history, the Martins formed a confederation with the Camerons in the 14th century, and the two clans merged by marriage (and driving the Martin leaders into exile) in the 1430s. What separate "clan-like" identity they had disappeared over the next century or so. At that stage the Highlands were still pretty much in the Dark Ages, you're relying on distinctly unreliable chronicles and ballads to record oral history. WP:V is a real problem for anything in the Highlands before the 16th century - and that's all you've got for the Martins. Conversely, if you can verify any of the early history, then it belongs as much to Clan Cameron as it does to an independent Martin "tribe", so you'll be putting it in the Cameron article in any case.
3. The current content of the Clan Martin article. Huge WP:V problems (I think that's what Brodie meant more than notability?), none of it belongs in Wikipedia until it can be verified from WP:RS.

Proposal - If any material from the Clan Martin article can be verified by reference to WP:RS, place it in the Clan Cameron article, otherwise delete it. Clan Martin and Clan Macmartin to be made into redirects to Clan Cameron, and add a link in the Cameron article to Martin (name). If verified material about Martin ever threatens to overwhelm the Cameron article, we can think again about breaking out a "sept"-type article, but in the mean time I think any material about the Martin "tribe" should be subject to WP:REDFLAG. Le Deluge (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on a point in the Proposal: Clan Martin is simply not notable as a Scottish clan. Redirecting as such does not seem logical in my view. Examining the use of the term "Clan Martin" finds that it is notable as a Canadian term used to describe the political party of Paul Martin, the 21st Prime Minister of Canada. See RCI, Le Devoir, Canoe, Radio Canada, WSWS, LNC...etc. So I think redirecting the link to Clan Cameron is not appropriate. Deletion seems the best course of action. Clan Cameron already notes that Martin is one of its septs. If an article is needed, which I do not agree is the case here, Martin (sept), seems more appropriate, i.e. like Gibson (sept) or Taylor sept. However as matters stand in my view, Martin (sept), would have little verifiable information that could justify a seperate article. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable material to Clan Cameron and redirect. Alternatively, if there is no verifiable material, Delete. All information must be verifiable. Don't get sidetracked by notability or how someone else would classify or treat it. Drawn Some (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Clan Cameron, per Drawn Some. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeUnless and until there is a precedent for each sub-clan to be found notable. Collect (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brodie, the existence of a redirect is not a statement of what "Wikipedia" thinks about a subject, it's merely a courtesy to assist those who don't quite know what they're looking for, to find an appropriate article. The presence of an "article" is closer to your idea of "accepting notability", not a redirect. And a redirect also thwarts those who view a red link as a challenge - if this is left as a red link, we'll be going through this again every few months for ever. "Clan Martin" is a real world usage, however incorrect that usage may be. So we need to have something as an entry under that name, even if it is only a redirect.Le Deluge (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak. On further research, although the (Mac)Martins of Letterfinlay that merged with the Camerons in the 15th century were a "proper" clan (with a chiefdom that persisted for about a century after the merger, it's a bit like Chattan/Mackintosh), it seems that there are at least two other groups of Martins in Scotland (in Skye and the Lothians), plus some "sporadics" that were named as people became Christian. And there's also some Martin families in Ireland which people might refer as "clans". On the other hand MacMartin seems to apply pretty exclusively to the MacMartins of Letterfinlay. So I've redirected Clan MacMartin directly to the Cameron article, and propose that Clan Martin redirects to Martin (name) and let people disambiguate themselves there, I've added a brief note already. Any verifiable material in the current article probably goes into the Cameron article. Le Deluge (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-that sounds more sensible than redirecting to Clan Cameron but I'll leave it to those of you knowledgeable in this area. Drawn Some (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion based on the above opinions: ~~Merge the following text (with reference) to Clan Cameron~~:-

~~The MacMartins are said to have been amongst the most loyal and valuable followers of Lochiel. In the 1745 Jacobite Uprising, the MacMartins were "out with" Lochiel's regiment.^[1]~~ [just now added said text to Clan Cameron, see Clan Cameron#18th century & Jacobite uprisings, 3rd para]

and redirect Clan Martin to Martin (name). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the motto: "Hinc Fortior et Clarior", mottoes belong to individuals. A clan chief may lend his motto as part of a crest badge, this designates the wearer as a follower of that clan. As far as I can see, Martin is not a clan. I do not see why one of the mottos registered by a person by the name of Martin would be kept or merged. Mottoes do not designate a clan, rather a clan chief designates a motto. Nor is it clear why this motto is chosen from the many Martins who registered one. Is the editor insinuating that the Martins of Sligo are the Chiefs of Clan Martin? If so references would be needed to shew the Martins of Sligo to be of the Chiefly line (and Martin to be a clan...). I have not found any evidence of this. As matters stand, I do not think this information relevant to Martin as a sept (would only be appropriate to Martin as a Scottish clan). Martin as a sept has the motto of the clan for the crest badge, i.e. "Aonaibh ri cheile" for Clan Cameron. My thinking is that the motto "Hinc Fortior et Clarior" should not be merged as it is not relevant. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Peru relations

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. google news search doesn't show much [59] LibStar (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there really isn't anything here to demonstrate notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Strong keep AFDs are not the place for WP:CLEANUP. Notability can be established if editors would not ignore WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Ikip (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied WP:BEFORE with a google news search. no significant third party coverage found as required by WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced stub for which i can find no reliable sources that rise above the extremely trivial that discuss this relationship. That the words "cyprus" and "peru" might cohabit a google search or two is a far, far different thing than coverage of the supposed bilateral relationship itself. No sources means no verifiability and no notability. So delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But at least we do not have "trilateral relations" pages yet. And the non-notability of this and a slew of other similar pages is amazing. Consider this as posted in all the worst offenders - I am not about to cut-and-paste it. Collect (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia–Romania relations

The only notable interactions these two have had are: 1) in 1935, during the Abyssinia Crisis, Romanian Foreign Minister Nicolae Titulescu spoke out forcefully at the League of Nations in favour of Ethiopian sovereignty and against Italian aggression; 2) Nicolae Ceauşescu was a good friend of Mengistu Haile Mariam (who was, however, far from being his closest African friend), also visiting him on an African tour in 1983. The first part can easily be mentioned (indeed is) in Titulescu's biography, and in an expanded article on the Abyssinia Crisis. The second is due for mention in a revamped article on Ceauşescu, which will doubtless refer to his policies in Africa. I imagine it can also be mentioned in Mengistu's article. But the point is that while the pair have had two somewhat notable encounters, sources do not exist documenting an actual relationship between them, which is what is needed for an article with this scope. Given that, we should delete. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per arguments presented in the nom. I have also contemplated a distinct umbrella article on "Communist Romania and the Third World" or something, were one could structure all relevant info on what was and wasn't distinct about the communist state's relationship with various post-colonial countries. I think it deserves some planning, and perhaps sandboxing, so I'd welcome any suggestions or alternatives; at this moment however, it is not one of my priorities. Dahn (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although on first look I would have supported delete, there is evidence of some trade relations http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ethiopia+romania+trade&num=10&hl=en however most of these articles are subscription only. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this source, Romania in 2008 had exports of €1 million and imports of €2 million from Ethiopia - in an economy that exported €26 billion and imported €41 billion. And regardless of size, the fact is that we still lack sources addressing the relationship as their primary topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that. but I'm also thinking relative importance to Ethiopia as well which is a much smaller economy. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the map of Ethiopia's exports, where Romania barely registers. Far more significant as trade partners are Djibouti, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the US, China, Italy, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trade relationships count. True, on that basis many nations have relationships with each other--but we're not paper. TArticles such asthese are a good way to rpesent what material there is available. DGG (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivia. News reports about jet-setting delegations that would never be covered elsewhere on Wikipedia (but are somehow considered notable because they fill a perceived "need" in this series of nonsense articles) are not a valid substitute for reliable sources discussing this relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nom would be sufficient, but noting that it meets and exceeds the usual standard of WP:N, and that there's nothing unusual about this article to merit irregular treatment is probably worthwhile. WilyD 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But why have a bogus article potentially bringing together two wholly separate intersections (where these haven't been studied together) when the information is far more logically presented in its proper context? And, pray tell, is there anywhere that can link to this article, or is it just going to sit there, perhaps presenting information already mentioned in contexts that actually make sense, just because you want it to? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - False premises lead to false conclusions. This is the proper context to discuss different facets of a single topic, which comprises a legitimate article. By assuming facts before checking them, you fail to evalute the situation correctly. WilyD 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it is not a topic for a legitimate article, because no source has treated this topic in depth. The two relevant intersections the pair has had fit much better into a different structure, and not one artificially created to fill a perceived "gap". And again: do you actually see any article linking to this one? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the extensive coverage on trade relations indicated by LibStar. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out above, for neither country is trade with the other of much importance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the lack of importance of trade and commerce between two nations is noted, but most of us disagree. --Oakshade (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of opinion. Romania in 2008 had exports of €1 million (.003% of the total!) and imports of €2 million (.005% of the total!) from Ethiopia - in an economy that exported €26 billion and imported €41 billion. Ethiopia's main trade partners are Djibouti, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the US, China, Italy and others - Romania ranks far down that list. Yes, someone paid to do so once made pleasant declarations about "strengthening trade". So? Does that actually mean anything in context? Clearly not, as the numbers show. And of course you say nothing about the Titulescu and Ceauşescu-Mengistu stuff (the interactions that, though they should be mentioned elsewhere, are indeed notable), instead preferring to zero in on utter trivia that we'd never bother to mention outside this series of nonsense articles.
And if kept, have you even thought what could possibly link to an article that supposedly will contain trivia about a tiny trade flow, how it will fit into the existing structure of articles? Or will it just sit there in isolation, presenting a couple of random, out-of-context numbers? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, this article asserts nothing, and sources less. Until it does, it is non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep per above, notable. Ikip (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This AfD represents a serious bias toward English launguage sources. Maybe you should learn to read Amharic. --Petri Krohn (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above provides zero reasoning as how the article subject meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's far more likely that sources exist in Romanian, as recorded history in Africa is much more sporadic, but that's irrelevant. The burden on "keep" voters is to find sources, not to suggest what exotic languages others should learn. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that burden too heavy to shoulder all by myself. I prefer to engage in sneaky vandalism, which is much easier. Dr B Badger (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any passing admin, the above user B badger is a sock of Hilary T (talk · contribs). Bali ultimate (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and report her to SNI. She has a long history here.--BlueSquadronRaven 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources that discuss a relationship mean that we should have no article on the alleged relationship keeping in mind verification and notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportSoft

advert for a nonnotable software outsourcing sweatshop: "multinational computer technology corporation that provides software and services that make technology work for both enterprises and consumers" Mukadderat (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a $100 million company listed on the NASDAQ exchange. They have a profile at Hoover's which seems to fall under the requirement for publicly traded corporations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The hoover profile has no indication as to why and how the company is notable. The requirenmet is rather misguided. There profiles currently grew to lest even penny-worth public companies: that's their bread and butter. Also, it does not seem that the profile was written by an independent analyst, but rather self-advert (unsigned): from hoover: SupportSoft wants to be a pillar of support. The company's Web-based support software proactively identifies and repairs hardware and software problems Oh, really? . Mukadderat (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong delete See Wikipedia:ANB#Reporting_Page:_SupportSoft_as_an_high_threat_illegal_virus_trap. Zazaban (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Seems like an overreaction there. The software appears to be some kind of help desk client that his firewall is mistakenly blocking. Nakon 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, this complaint is either overreaction or competitor's plot. Mukadderat (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced accusations. Researched the issue on my own and found the program & process used in a number of legit processes: [60]. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, Keep Zazaban (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong Keep, I've found four news links with one Google search for the keyword SupportSoft (not all on the same page). [61] [62] [63] [64] I don't think of them as any more notable than the next support company, as I've never heard of them up until now, but the few web links I've provided do assert some form of notability. ^blurred _peace ☮ 04:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very hard to find actual reliable sources on this company as any that exist are drowing in a sea of press releases, but Blurpeace has demonstrated that at least a couple good ones do exist. Given the hundreds of thousands of google hits, I'm inclined to believe those aren't the only two (discounting the blog and the short "topics" piece from the nytimes). As to the claims on AN, I don't doubt the poster was acting in good faith, but we really have no idea what infected his computer. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would appear to be a notable tech service business: publicly traded, sourceable, and dealing directly with the public. I edited the article to remove a swatch of vague ad-speak and attempt to make it more concrete; probably more needs to be done along those lines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, wth? --dab (𒁳) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be quite a few reliable external sources, even discounting the ocean of press releases. This seems to be notable under any incarnation of our guidelines on the topic, and the current iteration of the article is not promotional. Looking at their financials, they'll be deleting themselves soon enough. Kuru ^talk 23:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being publically traded on any stock exchange makes a company notable per the guidelines we have. Unless there are concerns about the sources confirming this that cannot be addressed, there is no valid reason to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been said, the company is worth $100mil+ and is publically traded in one of the world's largest stock markets. I'd say that makes it notable and worthy of an article. Ixistant (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panicdemic

Contested prod. Neologism. None of the references assert actual usage of this term. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references use the term in both headline and text, word has been references as far back as 3 years ago, so it is not new or trendy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seidtdidit (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely WP:NEO, Google even thinks it's misspelled. Drawn Some (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pandemic, not Panicdemic. As per above, WP:NEO is this articles newest enemy. Renaissancee (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No NEO - This would infer that the word is newly created, when in fact it is mainstream. We have corrected the spelling to Panic-demic as it is referenced in all of the above factual articles. }} Seidtdidit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.3.117 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, "Panic demic" gets 50 hits, it's a neologism, too. Kill with fire. Drawn Some (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nominator. Afkatk (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chandana Paul

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pake

Delete a software that fails WP:GNG; sourced to the project's pages - as near as I can tell from the text, the software was deprecated after release 1.1 so it seems short-lived and unlikely to have achieved the notability required to have an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:00, 16 April 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, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 24 April 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 01:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, so sources, and no real information on there. Renaissancee (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, discontinued, non-notable, no 3rd party sources. Dialectric (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time (Frankie J album)

AfDs for this article:

I can't find anything in reliable sources about this future album, so I don't think it meets notability criteria at the moment. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:55, 23 April 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 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. No notability and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Renaissancee (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Smith (referee)

Referees aren't notable in the same was athletes are, so WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply, otherwise non-notable. MBisanz ^talk 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When WP: Articles for deletion/Stefan Grun (2nd nomination) was proposed (as you would know as you closed it), they said the simple fact that he was a referee in a major league made him notable. I think that line of reasoning is weak, but whatever is the convention. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can agree that referees are not "as notable" as players, but officiating World Cup matches (Smith was the main referee in Austria-Czechoslovakia [65]) is pretty much the pinnacle of what a referee can ever be assigned to. I don't think there is any reason for assuming that the 1990 referees are less notable than the referees of the 2006 event, whose referee articles are very comprehensive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 24 April 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 01:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Nothing really left to put in there, so he really has no notability, since it was so long ago, nothing really left to add that can be added. Renaissancee (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the subject is notable, why do you think the article should be kept? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just about the most notable thing a referee can do. Other referees with similar notability seemed to have be kept --ScribbleStick (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 22 Player + subs. 1 refereee. The world cup is the top level for soccer. Being picked for that is a notable honour. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Fiction Project

This article is about a writing group that does not establish notability. A search for sources writing about the group turn up an article from a local weekly and a brief mention. That's insufficient to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nom the sources do not meet the criteria for notability. One local article and as the nom stated a brief mention in the second source listed above. The only link with the Wiki article and the second source is to a blog. Seems like a vehicle to advertise the blog.Meph Yazata (talk) 10:56, 23 April 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 01:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Renaissancee (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable group. Iowateen (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Emo Apocalypse

I had tagged this compilation album speedy A9 on the grounds that, though there are a few songs by notable artists, the label is not notable. No assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:37, 24 April 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 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to accredit notability and sources. Riddled with vandalism and spam as well. Renaissancee (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Unsourced Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable compilation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seahouses. Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seahouses Festival

Created by a WP:SPA called "Seahousesfestival" (account renamed to Mmytik [66]), this article appears to fail WP:NOTE as it has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of its subject. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this page should contain factual verifiable information and that is what I am endeavouring to do. I do not want it to sound like a promo for this particular event but it is necessary that it should contain legitimate verifiable facts about the festival, as a useful addition to the 'festivals' subject area in general. I will present the information without hyperbole or unsubstantiated embellishment. The information on this page will hopefully feed into other subject areas which deal with Northumbrian culture. I would be grateful if you would not delete the page so hastily. Coverage in independent sources is available and can be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahousesfestival (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to read WP:NOTE. Unfortunately the "Seahouses Festival" has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after trimming to Seahouses. There is some local coverage as evidenced by this, and would be appropriate information to add to the town's article in a section covering culture or tourism. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 24 April 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 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Whpq. There are references for verifiability but they do not establish notability, being either non-independent, government, or specialized tourism sites. I do not see evidence of significant non-trivial media coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Renaissancee (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indika Wettasinghe

This was submitted to PROD under the following grounds: "Not playing at the highest level, does not meet WP:ATHLETE" by User:HeureusementIci. Contesting the PROD and taking this to AfD on the following reasons: I would like the community to build or clarify a consensus on whether junior players representing their country in international contests do meet the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:Athlete. Also see discussion at User talk:HeureusementIci#PROD on Indika Wettasinghe. Nominated for clarification of consensus so vote Neutral. MLauba (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder. My reading of the notability guideline for amateur athletes ("People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.") excludes junior players who have not otherwise become notable. Assuming Wettasinghe has not otherwise become notable (based on the thin citations), I would read the current guideline as indicating non-notability. Obviously, I would consider junior athletes who have independent feats (e.g. Steve Mocco during his undefeated streak as a high school wrestler) to fulfill other notability guidelines uncontroversially. HeureusementIci (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article only states he was member of the ITF team. It doesn't say anything about actually competing. He might also be notable by sheer coverage if more press attention exists. If Indika is notable, the article needs more information to show it. Right now, there's not sufficient content to make an informed decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While quick-adding two sources a few days ago I skipped any completely trivial mentions for obvious reasons, there are however quite some articles just posting game results which would attest to that, to wit, this result sheet for the 2007 Junior Davis Cup Qualifying round or this older response from the chairman of the Sri Lankan national selection committee to criticism regarding his player selection criteriae which testifies that Wettasinghe has represented SL in Australia in the under-14 years old bracket in 2005. Or this mention here from 2006. That being said, I agree that most mentions are trivial in nature, failing the general notability guideline. The challenge is on the interpretation of WP:ATHLETE however and I have no qualms about a deletion under the more generic WP:GNG, except perhaps a caution against systemic bias. MLauba (talk) 08:52, 24 April 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 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shows no credibility and notability. Kind of fails WP:ATHLETE. Renaissancee (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Folow up to the comments by MLaube above: In that case KEEP Players in the Davis Cup are notable because it's a notable high-end tournament, especially when the fact is reliably covered. The subject's age is irrelevant when it comes to WP:ATHLETE. The only thing that could change this is if the Junior Cup has no selection criteria on who gets to enter the tournament. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Renaissancee. Junior Davis Cup != Davis Cup. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see reason to both keep and delete this article. Maybe you could merge the information into another article. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We seem to agree that while this is a viable topic, the current article is a rather useless unsourced dictionary definition. Until somebody writes a competent stub, I'm redirecting the article to (child abuse, acting solely in my capacity as editor and not as any binding part of this closure. Sandstein 06:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse industry

This looks like original research to me. meco (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it OR, but it is extremely biased. I can't help but think what would have made the creator so one sided. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is actually pretty neutral, and this term has been very widely used, in scholarly as well as mainstream publications. It serves as the title of a book by Mary Pride. The article should have better references, and should discuss te controversial nature of the term, but is not harmful as currently written. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources. It did appear biased to me. This issue could be deal with elsewhere.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:29, 29 April 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 00:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are dozens if not hundreds of independent sources available including many articles and the 1986 book mentioned by Looie496 sufficient to establish notability and create a verifiable article. Per Wikipedia guidelines, that the article is substandard is not grounds for deletion, it is grounds for improving the article. Drawn Some (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trans wiki to Wikitionary and Delete. Dicdef and/or neologism? The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, external links have nothing to do with the specific topic, only general law. Does not accredit it's self notability or verifiability. Fails WP:NPOV I believe. Renaissancee (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search shows a lot of hits for the phrase. Without further checking the results suggest that some are from reliable sources. This appears to be a term that has widespread use so suggestions of OR suggest the article should be improved, not deleted. Similarly with the lack of sourcing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is of some use but not as it's own page. This isn't what I would have thought when hearing the term. Perhaps a section could be added to Child Abuse that said industry has developed. eg. Michael Jackson--The very last username (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment suggests merging and doesn't fit the bolded !vote - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment people indicating no reliable resources aren't looking hard enough, there really are dozens, do a Google search for "child abuse industry" in quotes and then look at the first few pages of hits. Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Victimology. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo sources, no evidence that this is a notable subject.--Travelplanner (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it may need to be re-listed ifmore sources are not added soon.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The policy on no original research is also cited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPlant

The only meaningful source for this article is a personal web site. The article was created by IPlant (talk · contribs). I expressed my discomfort about the article to the creator, but was willing to ignore it as long as it was unobtrusive. Now however, a brand new account, nonlinearity (talk · contribs), has begun to spam wikilinks to the article into a variety of neuroscience articles, so it needs to go. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry had been marked orphan so I added links from the deep brain stimulation, brain implant, brain pacemaker, cognotechnology and wirehead entries because they seem directly related. Nonlinearity (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not really convinced of the sources. I think WP:V and WP:N should be looked at carefully for this one. Renaissancee (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources mentions the topic of the article except the first one, which is the author's personal web site, and the Huffington Post ones, which were created by the author. Looie496 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 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 00:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, don't see any wiggle room here. Drawn Some (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without independent sources this article has no place here. (AGF when Looie says no use of the term in the refs, no reason not to). Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fictional device from a non-notable piece of science fiction. Whether this is original research, crystal ball-gazing, or non-notable fiction is left as an exercise for the student. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional device, with no notablity. Just the result of a self-publicist student. I fail to see why it wasn't deleted earlier. Fences and windows (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kruuse af Verchow

Poorly sourced genealogical article (relying on a German Wikipedia user's page and a personal genealogical research) possibly relating one family of questionable notability to another family of questionable notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sort of minor nobility we do not include. DGG (talk) 05:47, 24 April 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 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOR Drawn Some (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Umm...He died in 1790 but still resides in South Africa? WP:V WP:N WP:NOR and maybe a few others. Renaissancee (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Herman

Notability not established for Wikipedia and apparently a vanity bio. Laval (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Saatchi article is useful, however brief, it needs more though. --neon white talk 20:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient independent references to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 00:48, 24 April 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 00:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can point to independent references to establish notability and verifiability. I suspect from looking at his work that he will have an article in the future. Drawn Some (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grateful Dead (album). I've not merged anything but the history's there for anyone who wants to. Flowerparty^☀ 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha (song)

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Grateful Dead (album). Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. Anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines may use this is a search term. --JD554 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 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 00:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. Renaissancee (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable song. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and redirect A University library claims the song was covered by Los Lobos (backed up by Google News). The nominator appears not to have done the required research prior to making the nomination. JD554 explained why the title is acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I Robot (album). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let It Show

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Let It Show

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, only one cover, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to I Robot (album). Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. --JD554 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 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 00:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The song has been covered by another artist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 April 2009
- WP:NSONGS suggests that a song needs to be covered by several notable artists, this has just one mentioned. --JD554 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to I Robot (album). after redirecting merge option is available to anyone who thinks there is sourced info worth merging. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into I Robot (album). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect the name or merge information in favor of deleting the entire thing along with a possibly useful redirect. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. The sources show the information is worth keeping in some form and if another artist also covers it, it's even notable enough to be spun out again. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Damn the Torpedoes (album). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Losers

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Damn the Torpedoes (album). Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. --JD554 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable in Tom Petty fandom. When the 24,000 capacity Verizon Wireless Music Center audience can sing it "without missing a beat"[67], it's notable. --Oakshade (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "fans can sing song word for word" is one of the criteria at WP:NSONGS. --JD554 (talk) 10:43, 29 April 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 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to The New Rolling Stone Album Guide this is a single, and one of Tom Petty's greatest hists (The essential rock discography). I added a source to the article. --J^mundo 01:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely it can't be one of his "greatest hits" if it didn't chart? --JD554 (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The single was included in the Greatest Hits (Tom Petty album). --J^mundo 13:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Damn the Torpedoes (album). Can't see any sourced info to merge. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Damn the Torpedoes (album). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect the name or merge information in favor of deletion. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 For Your Pleasure. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editions of You

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to For Your Pleasure. No need to create an AfD for an article that can simply be redirected by being WP:BOLD. --JD554 (talk) 10:35, 24 April 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 00:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, Redirect. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to For Your Pleasure. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect the name or merge information in favor of deletion. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Roxy Music (album). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Breezes

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Roxy Music (album). Useful information may be lost by deleting. --JD554 (talk) 09:47, 24 April 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 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, Redirect. Nothing sourced to merge. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roxy Music (album). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect the name or merge information in favor of deletion. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea Breeze with the possibility of adding Roxy Music (album) to the dab page. -Atmoz (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would You Believe? (song)

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roxy Music (album). Anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines may use this is a search term. --JD554 (talk) 09:51, 24 April 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 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a charting single, or has several reliable sources about the song. The notability is not there. Tavix | Talk 02:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-plausible search term, no notability. If "Would You Believe?" is being search for as a Roxy Music then a properly linked Would You Believe? dab page is enough. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated above, anybody aware of Wikipedia's guidelines may use it to find an article. No harm is caused by having a redirect. --JD554 (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable song. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect the name or merge information in favor of deletion. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. JD554 explained why the title is perfectly plausible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stranded (album). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like You (Roxy Music song)

AfDs for this article:

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stranded (album). Anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines may use this is a search term. --JD554 (talk) 10:02, 24 April 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 00:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stranded (album). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect as Ibaranoff24 suggests, not notable even to Roxy Music Fans. Drawn Some (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect the name or merge information in favor of deletion. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. (JD554 has explained why the title is acceptable) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 For Your Pleasure. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bogus Man

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to For Your Pleasure. --JD554 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 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 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold, Redirect Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to For Your Pleasure. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect the name or merge information in favor of deletion. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Honky Château. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules (song)

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Honky Château. Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. Anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines may use this is a search term. --JD554 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 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 00:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-plausible search term, nothing sourced here to merge. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated above, anybody aware of Wikipedia's guidelines may use it to find an article. No harm is caused by having a redirect. --JD554 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Honky Château. I don't think that there's any useful information here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect or merge in favor of deletion. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. (JD554 is right in their assertion that the title is perfectly plausible) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 For Your Pleasure. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Lagoons

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Roxy Music (album). Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. --JD554 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 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 00:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to For Your Pleasure. I don't think that there's any useful information here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect. A lack of notability for a separate article, is insufficient reason to ignore the possibility to redirect or merge in favor of deletion. Nominator shows no evidence of having done the research required by WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lust for Life (album). Cirt (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Threat

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lust for Life (album) --JD554 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 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, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lust for Life (album). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2112 (album). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tears (Rush song)

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SONG states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song has only been covered once on a live album. As much as I love Dream Theater, this song should be deleted, though the sentence about the cover could be added to the album article, with a citation this time! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:32, 23 April 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, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2112 (album). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect and add salient information to the album article, per Ibaranoff24 and Scapler. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect insufficiently notable on its own. JJL (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no appetite for deletion here. Discussions on how to improve the article and whether the article should be redirected or merged or renamed should continue on the article's talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camping Food

Reads like a magazine article; WP:NOT for guides and how-to articles. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mild KEEP - With a bit of a re-write and some research it could be a good article. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work but it's already a useful article. Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more work, but once Looie is done with it, it's going to be awesome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's look at what we have here. A brand new editor creates an article as a stub. It is immediately converted to a redirect, with no attempt to discuss with the creator. The creator greatly expands the article. It is then immediately AfD'ed, again with no attempt to discuss with the creator beyond templating the talk page. This is just about as bitey as you can get. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT and WP:OR jump up and scream at me. This is a largely unsourced and rambling essay, covering everything from the advantages of rubbing your pan with oil for easy soot removal to "Many campers feel their trip is incomplete without a campfire". I mean, seriously.... Yintaɳ 14:51, 25 April 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 00:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of books and magazine articles to establish notability and to verify an article. Here is a section of an article that could help: Ultralight_backpacking#Food. I am concerned though of an overlap with Outdoor cooking. Drawn Some (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep With work, this article can provide information (with refs) about an interesting aspect of a form of recreation. I've had relatives ask me "What do you eat out there?" I resist saying "Oh, pine nuts and grubs." Ray Jardine, BSOA, and others have written on this subject. Could the overlap be addressed by a hatnote? Marcia Wright (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outdoor cooking. Yes, there have been books written about the subject. However, while we already have a serviceable article about cooking outdoors, this article seems redundant. Any relevant information could simply be transposed or re-written into one single article. JogCon (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per JogCon. Good suggestion. Fences and windows (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I concur with JogCon and Fences. Much of the material in this article is indeed covered on Outdoor cooking and the balance of the Camping food article can be used to flesh out Outdoor cooking. Really don't want to bite the creator. I assume s/he had not seen the Outdoor cooking article and s/he made a good effort with this article. Geoff ^T ^C 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outdoor cooking is almost entirely about cooking techniques. The current article is mainly about foods, so they don't overlap much as currently written. There is definitely valuable content here, although it needs sources. Several dozen books have been written about backpacking food, so sources are certainly available, but I don't have any on hand at the moment. If anything is done with this article that destroys the history, please userify it to my user space first, so that whoever wants to improve doesn't have to start from scratch. Looie496 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly rename to survival foods, since there is a strong overlap between camping and survival/storable foods. Gigs (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Outdoor Cooking is pretty much a a how-to, while Camping Food is an article about foodstuffs one might consider for their utility, portability and durability, when camping, hiking or surviving in-the-field. Its a very young article about a notable subject and is undergoing a continuing process or expansion and sourcing. It improves the project to allow this process to continue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not for cleanup. It could be improved, but there is no reason to delete it. And it is totally different subject wise from Outdoor cooking, so I'm against any merge. List of types of food commonly found/used on a camping trip, might be a better name for the article. Dream Focus 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can't take into account Exit2DOS2000's argument, as it does not make sense to me. Sandstein 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country Fire Service dispatch

The article is basically original research, with no support for any of the claims made. In addition it verges on an instruction manual. I would have suggested merging sourced content to Country Fire Service but there is not any. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Also does not meet notability requirements. Merits a section in the primary article if physical media references are available. Drawn Some (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prod'ed the article earlier... Barrylb (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you did so, does not provide a reason why you think it should be deleted in this discussion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm lazy. However, the article is unreferenced and out of scope for this encyclopedia. Barrylb (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OR can be dealt with in this case. Merge? no, not appropriate as these are not front line firefighting personel, and are a distinctly different unit. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of those links are Wikipedia mirrors and most of the others are not independent of the subject and/or each other. Merely conducting a google search without any analysis of the substance of those links does nothing to demonstrate suitability for use in an article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that amongst the 3,950 links, some of them will validate the Article, unless you checked all of them? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't checked them all. Do you feel like pointing any particularly useful link out? A google search demonstrates precisely nothing unless it reveals a useful, reliable source and so far you haven't demonstrated that there are any. "[T]hat amongst the 3,950 links, some of them will validate the Article" is an mere assertion and not proven (or even likely to be true IMHO) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is non-notable minutiae more suited to an operational manual. If there was something distinct or unique about the dispatch procedures, then at best it could form an addendum to the parent Country Fire Service article. But I can't imagine such a minor and inconsequential topic being the subject of any discussion outside the CFS, let alone in reliable, independent sources. Murtoa (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a stub to Country Fire Service. Far too much unsourced minor detail. Here's a mention of a new computer-aided dispatch from 2007:[68] Fences and windows (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the article as it currently stands is a how-to guide for members of the community and personnel of the Country Fire Service regarding how to respond to a bushfire. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not, instruction manuals and how to guides are not appropriate for the website. The community should be relying on far more reliable and stable sources than Wikipedia for this information, and a Wikipedia article should not seek to duplicate or replace proper CFS training materials and procedures. In addition, the article is completely unsourced, and I believe that any encyclopedic (as opposed to how-to) information that is reliably and independantly sourced could be condensed down into a paragraph (or two at most) and incorporated into the Country Fire Service article. -- saberwyn 10:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CFA Dispatch, a similar article dealing with the equivalent procedures for the Victorian Country Fire Authority, was deleted by PROD back in February. This is not a "That was deleted, so this should be as well" argument: this article should be kept or deleted on its own merits. However, I think that those discussing this article should at least be aware of the prior deletion of the similar article. -- saberwyn 07:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Miagany

Nonnotable male fashion model - 7-bubёn >t 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No independent sources which establish notability. Mukadderat (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO for notability. No independent resources to support an article. Drawn Some (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Malta relations

There are no sources establishing that this is a notable relationship. The only salient fact, that they are members of the EU, is covered (as one may have guessed) at Member State of the European Union. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article contains real facts, however few. Mukadderat (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete: there is nothing in the article to establish any kind of notable relationship between the two nations. The fact that they recognize one another is not sufficiently notable to justify an entire article. Locke9k (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, generally too thin when the countries don't even have embassies. Punkmorten (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icefall Cave

Game guide for a non-notable Pokemon level. The only references to it are in strategy guides explaining how to get past it. Pokemon wiki already contains the content in this article. Wronkiew (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty straightforward that it's a topic too narrow to ever have substantial content. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Night Gyr's reasoning. Drawn Some (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty blatant game guide content. I wonder if it'll start snowing? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Game Guide'ish content belongs on a FAQ site, and not here. Salavat (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – literally gameguide material in every sense of the term. MuZemike 02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 06:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was the consensus is for delete. It cannot be verified at this time that this show will take place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor USA (American TV series)

This TV show hasn't been confirmed, it is at the moment only an idea in Simon Cowell's head. The article contains a lot information that the author has simply guessed or made up. For example, Cowell's idea was to have the show in the autumn and not to replace American Idol with The X Factor. The person who wrote the article has made up a start date, judges and all sorts of other information. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X Factor. S D 5 15:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it were to be redirected, a more appropriate article would be The X Factor (TV series). AnemoneProjectors (what?) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree, that article would be better. Thanks, S D 5 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't exist, I think it would be bad to redirect. A blue link implies it exists and we don't want to misinform people. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Mgm makes a good argument that a redirect may not be the right thing to do. Let's point this discussion back to "keep" or "delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is believed to be aired in 2010/2011 from August/September through to December...We don't even know what will be on the American TV schedule for this September yet! Sounds like someone trying to pass a hoax by us...as a matter of fact their name is all over it. No need for a redirect as title is extremely clumsy and unlikely. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate. I believe the American franchise won't air in American TV sets. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate. If this show were really already scheduled to air, it would be scheduled for a lot sooner than January 2011; it wouldn't take that long to put it into production. This article is, at best, wishful thinking. Do not redirect; we can wait until the show is legitimately announced before having any kind of reference to it in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the extant legal dispute regarding Pop Idol/The X Factor lends credence to the fact this is a hoax Sceptre ^(talk) 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something a tabloid newspaper makes up should not then be made into a Wikipedia article. WP:SPECULATION . Holkingers (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per discussion above. S D 5 16:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdada

non-notable. unsourced Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable area. Is it called Baghdada Mardan? [69] [70]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no notable areas, only notable areas near it. Renaissancee (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real area, completely notable.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Seems to be an area/quarter of the town of Mardan. I don't know enough about that town to discern whether the quarter is truely notable, but as long as no one contends that it is not an actual known quarter, I'd keep the article for now. Passportguy (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep appears to be a union council in India. All settlements are inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After reviewing this and the previous 2 discussions, it appears that consensus hasn't changed (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Brown

AfDs for this article:

This might be a tough one, but I don't see established notability. Subject is a Philadelphia ophthalmologist and 2x unsuccessful candidate for Congress, neither of which are enough to establish notability. So, per WP:BIO there must be published, independent, and reliable secondary source material published about the subject. There are some such articles, but they are all pretty weak and in the context of the subject's failed political candidacy, and thus, per WP:BIO not enough in of themselves enough to establish notability. --A. Gorilla (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:From reading past AFDs, I see the subject published "120 medical articles," but there's no evidence that these are from peer-reviewed articles. A. Gorilla (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two significant campaigns and the publications which easily meet WP:PROF (journals include Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology e.g.; [71]). JJL (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 24 April 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) 00:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep One of the two would lean towards me arguing to delete. However, the two of them combined suggests that she is potentially "of note". Sceptre ^(talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no comments. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace (talker)

AfDs for this article:

This article cites no sources, and I can't find any third party sources (everything on a google news search seems related to a football team, not the talker). Without them, this doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB. In other words, if we actually wrote this article properly, by summarizing sources rather than writing our own opinions, there'd apparently be nothing to write. The last AFD was 3+ years ago, before modern notability guidelines existed. Chiliad22 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 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) 00:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnaby Street (song)

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:14, 24 April 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) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Horse Town

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Blue Moves. Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. --JD554 (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is some extensive coverage. [72] --Oakshade (talk) 10:42, 29 April 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, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausible search term to Blue Moves. The song has gained no awards, no chartage, no covers. Nothing to merge since none of it is verified with reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact much of it is verified with a reliable third party source. --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One book isn't the multiple reliable sources needed by WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG does not require "multiple" sources, just that the coverage is significant. WP:N only states "Multiple sources are generally preferred."--Oakshade (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did that happen? It used to be multiple and it's clear and unambiguous. "Significant" is a phrase that just asks for trouble. What I consider significant might be trivial to someone else. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just another example of ambiguous and seemingly self-contradictory wording of our guidelines which instigates endless debate over the interpretation of them. --Oakshade (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite into a etymological history of the term, and the towns it labels, instead of being about the song which uses the term as its title. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct location for that would be One-horse town which appears to be free. --JD554 (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hauke Harder

non-notable, unreferenced Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kiel.de link is simply an announcement of an exhibition. Dlabtot (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other two links? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee what do you think? Here's one: [73], here's the other: [74]. One doesn't even work, the other is just a 'program note' with no indication that it is a published reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not unreferenced, just referenced atrociously. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is unreferenced because it contains no references to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 17:07, 2 May 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, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. لenna vecia 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep, if someone rewrites this article. There certainly are some (German) sources, showing that he's around for the past twenty years and had some notable exhibitions. [75] [76] [77] [78] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a foreign language doesn't mean sources don't have to be WP:RS. Amazon.de? haukeharder.net? Announcements? Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not the source but shows it, take a closer look, please. The artist's website shows several exhibitions, information about them can be found on several other websites, too. Try Google. It's an AfD here, so I kept it short, ya know. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 17:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of any reliable sources that establish notability, you should provide them. So far it looks like they don't exist. Dlabtot (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just look at above links. He had several exhibitions and concerts in notable art galleries and institutes of big German and Austrian cities [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing to post all these irrelevant announcements and program notes? No one is denying the fact that he exists and is producing work. The question is whether he is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with our notability guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. ;-) Well, if you would just take a look at the linked pages... Some more: neue musikzeitung spex [86] named along John Cage, what? - and we didn't even take a look at his former career as a scientist 29 publications... BTW: Aren't you guys always so much into awards? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! In an article about Hildegard Kleeb, his name was mentioned! And the same article mentioned John Cage! Isn't that special. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have subjected myself to the tedium of examining all the links you've provided. It has been an enormous waste of my time. Please refrain from accusing me of not looking at them. They are all just announcements or brief mentions or self-published. 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. These do not meet the criteria of significant coverage. Dlabtot (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its now referenced. Its a pity that classical composers to not get the press hype that follows rock musicians or fast food franchises, but his WP:Verified body of work seems to tickle at WP:CREATIVE and rings a bell on WP:COMPOSER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be specific about the reason you believe he meets one of the 6 criteria of WP:COMPOSER? Which one does he meet based on which WP:RS? By the way, 'having a body of work' is not one of our notability criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't feel THIS meets criteria 6? And is every hit here worthless? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming that is a "standard reference book"? Where's the evidence for that? Dlabtot (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources now. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious if you examined the links that were added to the page to see if, in your opinion, they constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Could you point out to me one of the links that fit this criteria? tia Dlabtot (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I reason as follows:
The references supplied between them satisfy WP:V (because it's shown that he exists and is a composer) and WP:RS (because he receives at least a passing mention in reliable sources; the first one I looked at, kiel.de, is clearly over the bar as a RS).
It remains to be shown that Hauke Harder satisfies WP:N. However, WP:PRESERVE trumps WP:N because the former is a policy and the latter is a mere guideline. This is why Uncle G wrote this:
"Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content. That a subject is non-notable does not mean that verifiable information about a subject should be excluded from Wikipedia. It means that the subject is not an appropriate one for an article."—Uncle G in On Notability
In other words, if Harder is judged to fail WP:N, then the onus is on those who argue that Hauke Harder's article should be deleted, to show where the verifiably-sourced material that's here should be merged to. You do not get to cut reliably-sourced, verifiable information out of Wikipedia!
But a merge is a "keep" outcome.
It follows that this discussion should be closed as keep and a WP:N-based merge discussed on the article's talk page, or at WP:PM, in the normal way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability policy specifically requires 'significant coverage'. 'Passing mentions' don't clear this bar. Dlabtot (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my analysis of the references at Reliable Sources Noticeboard.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete - I disagree with S Marshal when he says that WP:PRESERVE trumps WP:N... My take is that WP:PRESERVE assumes that Notability has been established in the first place. The article in question does not establish that the subject is Notable (while fairly heavily cited, most of the citations are either self-published or are promotional in nature.) What the article needs is reference to reliable sources that are independant of the subject, sources that talk about the subject. A passing mention in a programe or promotion is not enough. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMPOSER compositions played in many contemporary classical concerts pohick (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPOSER doesn't say that. Dlabtot (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. see Culture Prize, and Walter Zimmermann

Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list - see Heather O'Donnell

Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.

Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (what i was referring to)

Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

granted not in Grove's, but it's a matter of time pohick (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous connections to Zimmermann and O'Donnell: how do they make Harder notable?
Has not established a tradition or school.
Melodies? Tunes? Standards? Can you upload a .WAV file of you wistling them?
Frequently covered in publications: are they printed in invisible ink?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeper parent

nn dicdef. One (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Maybe a move to Wiktionary might be a good idea. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 18:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article already contains more information than a dictionary definition, and the concept of Maternal gatekeeping, which the article should probably be renamed to, is notable as demonstrated by significant coverage in multiply reliable sources. Gnews, Gbooks, Gscholar -- plenty of material there for an in-depth article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with LinguistAtLarge's points. The topic is not self-limiting and could be expanded even further than it already is.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The language however was not NPOV--I adjusted the lede paragraph--the rest needs looking to. The rename suggested above seems reasonable also. DGG (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Only nominator (who is a SPA) and one SPA supports deletion. (NAC)--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meryle Secrest

This page did not originate with Ms Secrest’s approval. It contained not just inaccuracies, but one uncalled for, deliberate slight against her (that was corrected). She does not want a page on Wikipedia. I think she has a right to privacy and her wishes respected in this regard. It’s very largely a generational issue and she is not comfortable or familiar with the robust culture that defines the Web. She is not someone who enjoys any great degree of computer literacy. Ms Secrest is a distinguished biographer and National Humanities Medal winner (2006). Her information is widely available at Random House and in many other places. I am a supporter (small financial and not yet editorial) and an habitual user of Wikipedia. I do feel in this instance that, given Ms Secrest’s personal position and wishes, she is entitled to have this page removed. — Jamesog52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, As someone who has been a public figure for over 35 years, Ms Secrest should expect to find her name in the media on occasion. A page on Wikipedia is no different in that regard than a New York Times review of one of her books, which could mention the same information. See also First Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically the section on Freedom of the Press. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article as previously submitted contained a most egregious error and had the appearance of having been submitted with malice. The error was arguably on the level of libel, and the author's wishes for recompense in the form of deletion should be respected and the article removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msecrest (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) — Msecrest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, One of the best things about Wikipedia is the ability to correct errors, and update articles as available facts evolve. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments I find it strange that someone who "is not comfortable or familiar with the robust culture that defines the Web" is selling her work as an Ebook. Another fact that I find peculiar is that a Biographer, has issue with the existence of a biographical article about herself. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a notable writer and has won awards and a Pulitzer finalist, articles dont need the approval of subjects they just need to meet inclusion criteria. Doesnt mean that the article should not be accurate and reliably sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking through the history of the page, I am failing to see what is (or was) considered libel. The fact that this is up for deletion puzzles me. It meets notability guidelines, is written in a neutral point of view, and is referenced by outside sources. I agree with Wuhwuzdat in reference to it being strange that someone who makes a living detailing the lives of others is so opposed to a very brisk article about themself. JogCon (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- no legitimate argument for deletion has been made. The subject clearly meets the notability guidelines for people and Wikipedia is not censored. The claim that the article previously contained inaccuracies is regrettable, but as per the nom these inaccuracies have been corrected; not surprising considering that articles on living people are subject to exceptional care as per wikipedia policy on articles about living persons. In essence, the fact that the article previously had errors is no reason to call for deletion; nor does the subject of an accurate article have any standing to ask for its removal within Wikipedia policy. Locke9k (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep n 2006 she received the National Humanities Medal.. National level awards like this are is one of our standards for notability. A very good example of why we should pay no special regard to people's views about their own pages. DGG (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A previous error entered with malicious intent is a good reason to apply protection to the article, but since the subject is a public figure and meets inclusion guidelines several times over, there is no valid reason for deletion. The WPBIOGRAPHY template has a field that can be entered if subject wish the removal of the article, presumably so it can be better monitored, but for that we first need evidence through WP:OTRS that User:Msecrest is actually the person in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete On 12 February 2009, a user whose only identity is the IP address 71.86.176.115, revised this article to say: [["Secrest was born in 1930 in Bath, England and educated there, or so we belive. /// She worked as women's editor for the Hamilton News in Ontario, Canada; shortly thereafter she was named "Least Promising Young Writer" by the Canadian Women's Press Club, but that did not discourage her from her dreams."]] The creative spelling of believe notwithstanding, said user's agenda clearly was to discredit Meryle Secrest. This malicious entry stood for months before Ms. Secrest, who has almost no access to the Internet, was alerted to its existence, and these lies are now spread far and wide. Ms. Secrest cannot easily monitor Wikepedia to assure such libel is not endlessly repeated, and wants to be disassociated from this service. I am not Meryle Secrest, I am her son. While this entry may be in conflict with Wiki's user guidelines, I am providing necessary and relevant clarity to this matter. Over .. and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msecrest (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) — Msecrest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Further comment, As Mgm stated above, vandalism, or editing with malicious intent is a reason for applying semi, or full protection to the page (Semi protection prevents anonymous, or new, users from editing articles to which it is applied. Full protection restricts editing by anyone who is not an administrator). As for the deletion of this page, a single bad edit (or series of edits) is not a reason for deletion. As you have obviously found the pages edit history, you will notice that the very next edit reverted the addition of the offending text. I have checked Yahoo, and the only 2 search results for "least promising young writer" are an outdated cache of this article, and a single non Wikipedia mirror of the same content, so any claims of this being "widespread" appear to be a bit overblown. Futhermore, as the only other edit from the IP address in question was clearly blatant vandalism, I think it can be assumed safely that the IP's intents were most probably pure vandalism, and not intentional libel. As for Ms. Secrest being unable to monitor the article personally, I understand, and to assist in this matter, I have added the article in question to my watchlist, and would hope the others involved in this discussion would do the same. Any changes to this article (and the others on my list) will show, and I do tend to check this list several times a day. This should help prevent a recurrence of the issue that started this discussion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Informational - Agents of the article subject contacted the Wikimedia Foundation (OTRS ticket # 2009050410070329) and requested removal. On review, I have semi-protected the page permanently. The article vandalisms and BLP concerns were introduced by IP editors both times this has come up, so preventing anonymous editing is apparently necessary. I believe that the semiprotection is necessary given article subject concerns and ongoing low-rate vandalism. This action does not override the normal article keep/delete discussion here, I am posting this to inform that discussion, but whatever happens with this discussion is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - clearly WP:NOTABLE. People do not have a right to supress free speech about themselves, nor to use WP as some kind of reputation-managemnt too. Any vandalism/quality issues should be separately addressed.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Iain Moncreiffe, Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, David Hicks (1982), The Highland Clans, pp. 48–51, ISBN 9780091447403{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1] Iain Moncreiffe, Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, David Hicks (1982), The Highland Clans, pp. 48–51, ISBN 9780091447403{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]