Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 14 August 16 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christoffel van wijk

Christoffel van wijk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. No references and google searches provide few results. Article seemingly created by a relative and comprises mostly a list of family members and property. noq (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not so simple--the Basters are of course highly notable and interesting, and the name of the subject pops up in this one photograph in French and Dutch wikis on this topic. But none of those wikis have any kind of documentation that would pass muster here. The Dutch wiki, for instance, offers not a shred of verification (which, unfortunately, is typical there) and only offers this external link, [1]. On the Internets, I can't find anything--nothing in Google News and Google Books, and the one hit in Google Scholar goes to a self-published, online book on the Rehobothbasters.org site--with the same, aforementioned image on the cover. (The bibliography of that book contains only a few entries specific to the Basters, half of them unpublished theses, so there's little hope there for notability.) Finally, our subject's name (search in combination with "baster") pops up plenty on the internets, but I have not seen anything reliable that will help this article pass the notability standard. (And did I mention that the article itself offers not a shred of evidence?) Drmies (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would very much like to see this article sourced. Billbowery (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, members of notable groups aren't necessarily notable by themselves. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no need to relist this one any further. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Faye

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

Notability not established. There are some quotes from Faye in news articles available on google news but these appear to be in order to promote the martial arts school. None of the news items establish particular notability for Faye himself. Ash (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most of the coverage is trivial or indirect. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None notable person with trivial coverage -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K-span

K-span (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. This is a trademark name rather than a generic name. There are no google news items for this product so notability is unlikely to be established. Ash (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, combination of advertising and no sources makes this a perfect deletion candidate. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Malton

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

Not yet notable, no professional appearances. NCFCQ (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_Hope_Conspiracy#True_Nihilist. There are no reliable sources - the reviews indicated do not meet requirements of WP:Reliable sources. I have merged into The Hope Conspiracy any worthwhile content. While closing this as a delete, I will redirect the name True Nihilist to the parent article. I will note that the parent article needs sources, and may not meet notability requirements. SilkTork *YES! 18:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True Nihilist EP 7"

AfDs for this article:
True Nihilist EP 7" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN album, no evidence of mainstream coverage. →ROUX ₪ 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's another review that I found while updating the article. And I moved it to the correct name too. Esradekan (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see nothing mainstream there. In addition, 'highbeamreview' is a parking site/linkfarm. → ROUX ₪ 14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
point out which policy requires coverage to be "mainstream" riffic (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ALBUMS and the links to unreliable source "reviews" don't change that because just reviewing a non-notable album doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet Protidin

Sylhet Protidin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references, not many Google hits, the only link in the article is to the paper's website which expired a while ago. Doesn't seem very notable to be, but I could be wrong ZS 06:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I certainly can't find anything notable. Many of the Google hits lead to dead links as well JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 13:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The newspaper has definitely existed, it appears that it may have been closed down by the government, hence the expired domain. I have added 2 references. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given the sources added by Jezhotwells. Can't imagine a major newspaper in today's world not being notable: aside from web sources, major newspapers get plenty of coverage in print. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, new sources added clearly establish wp:notability— Preceding unsigned comment added by Work permit (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Clemmow

Charlie Clemmow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability test. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tried to give this a chance after its initial PROD, but the lack of third-party sources (or any sources) does it for me. The JPStalk to me 18:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, lacks notability. She has not had "significant roles in multiple productions". She is an ingenue just out of the box. --Bejnar (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 lack of independant third party sources is fatal here Spartaz Humbug! 19:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law Society (University College Dublin)

AfDs for this article:
Law Society (University College Dublin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student society. Article comes across as self promotion by members WP:PROMOTION. Féasógach (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:26, 9 August 2009

(UTC)

  • Delete Completely Non-notable Student Society. Major difference from a Law society on which someone has inserted UCD Law Society.Blarb (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is an exception to the general rule about student societies. (I say this reluctant;ly--I've almost always !voted delete for them). It has a major role in an important university. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a student debating society. Almost all of the references are internal to the University. They are not a publisher of major works, their debates are not televised. Anything important about them can be, and has been, said briefly in the University College Dublin article. The rest of the article is puffery and vanity. --Bejnar (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tedhi Baat Shekhar Ke Saath

Tedhi Baat Shekhar Ke Saath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, non-notable. MrStalker (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any perceived issues with an article can be addressed through normal editing processes. Television shows in India, notable to India, are notable. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Looks like notabilityhasnt rwally been established to anyone's satisfaction Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CVISION Technologies, Inc.

CVISION Technologies, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:CORP because of insufficient references. I'm on the fence with this one, but I can't seem to get through the press releases and copies of one review. Only the PlanetPDF review seems non-trivial and independent; we need at least one more, but I've exhausted my search. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've skipped the procedural prod step because the same author recreated the article, suggesting the prod would fail immediately. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your notability concerns regarding this page. People in the document automation industry, like myself, recognize the notability of CVISION's contributions to the field, but it is difficult to find non-trivial and independently published references. I have included information about an important US patent held by CVISION; does this help? I would welcome anyone's feedback, as well as contributions to the page. Mvcfalcon (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The adobe thing seems to be pretty notable to me, considering their protcols are in the software It seems to be one the few notable OCR software packages out there as well. The article needs work. I may be willing to go with a merge of some sort but i think the artuicle is slavageable with a lil trimming and a few more refs Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotional, Google news hits are press releases, wedding announcements, and mere mentions. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know, even after a little research. Seems like they have cpability, but notability? Anyone dig the figures for the company? Rich Farmbrough, 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kushiel's Legacy. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Servants of Naamah

Servants of Naamah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, consists of plot retelling, deprodded without explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Keep. The "delete" !votes below are objecting to the current state of the article as Curriculum vitae copypasta, which is understandable but not correct (see WP:BEFORE). The "keep" !votes are (correctly) discussing the potential state of the article and their arguments have not been refuted. This is therefore a case of {{sofixit}}. WP:NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Marshall Rose

Marshall Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem worth a wikipedia entry to me. More like a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudyjh (talk • contribs) 2009/07/30 02:30:33

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Subject is notable, but current article is just a CV-dump. Jouster  (whisper) 15:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a posting of a resume. A well thought our article might be a different question, however. Billbowery (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is a well-known name in the internet protocol world, so I wanted to find some excuse to save this, but I couldn't find the sourcing. And the article in its present state is not worth much. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:ACADEMIC. Article meets WP:V. I don't see any WP:BLP issues. Since the subject has not (as far as I can tell from the history) created the article, the nominator's assertion of WP:VANITY seems unsupportable. The article may be poorly written, but that means it needs to be improved, not deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Win Wenger

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

lack of notability jadrian (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is also the question of whether Image streaming should be deleted as well. Both seem to be professional puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF and does not have sufficient third-party non-academic citations to pass WP:BIO more generally. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination and the above comments. Rather sad, really, for no study has come out to declare in bald terms the utter fallaciousness of the claims made by him and his ilk. But who knows? Perhaps one day a study might vindicate him. Until then: trash it. The same seems to go for image streaming as well; I couldn't find any information save for the rabbit hole to some book that I would be required to purchase...—argumzio ϝ 04:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At first it appeared that this discussion was also headed for "no consensus" but this !vote was made to the first AFD 12 days after it closed. I suspect he was trying to post to this AFD. In any case, there have been 2 AFDs in the past month and in both we have 3 "keep" !votes and no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I think that settles the issue for now. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haliburton Sculpture Forest

AfDs for this article:
Haliburton Sculpture Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relisting: Strongly appears to fail WP:NOTE:

Unclear listings outside of travel blogs and travel directories: Google search — Google news search — Google Scholar search - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 18 days and 2 relists is enough. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation for a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Kowk Wai

Chan Kowk Wai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

does not appear to meet notability requirements; text promotional in nature and contains little information about the subject himselfClftruthseeking (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 15 minutes work with Google found a reference to the claim to 10th degree status. This article needs work, not deletion. A new author could be recommended to spend time improving articles rather than proposing them for deletion. jmcw (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heart (Stars album). two reslista nd no clear consensus except that its probably not independantly notable. I'm gouing for a redirect as the elast harmful outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator Love Letter

Elevator Love Letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single, should be included in main band article Frmatt (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Has been nominated twice today, with similar content and comment. Deleted the duplicate per WP:BOLD. --Pgallert (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know enough about the AfD process to vote either way, but I think it's important to note that this is arguably Stars' most popular single, and that it's received significant airtime on college/indie radio stations. Of course, the article itself is poorly written, as it really just amounts to someone's thoughts on what the lyrics mean. I personally think the article could benefit from a lot more stats, and info on why this single was critical to Stars' success. However, if everyone feels it would be more appropriate in the album page, then that's fine too. Just thought I'd give my two cents. Tom™(2¢) 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to WP:NSONG "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. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." While I understand the desire to list it because it was a huge growing point in their popularity, it doesn't meet the notability standards. Frmatt (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Martina

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

Advertising, claims of notability not backed up by reliable sources, sources are to Wikipedia articles or self-published. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Gnews search is turning up a lot. I've added one, but I need to run. Will try to add more tomorrow or the next day.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fabrictramp's sources; moreover, the incident with German police makes it very unlikely that this was not covered in the non-English-language press. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Referenences provided appear tengential Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AHRA: The Association for Medical Imaging Management

AHRA: The Association for Medical Imaging Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No third-party sources, no Creative Commons permission (terms of use violation). ViperSnake151  Talk  00:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this copyright can of worms before licensing gets out of hand. (read the article talk page for info) --BsayUSDCSU[ π ] 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Society for College and University Planning

Society for College and University Planning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ORG, has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. —Chowbok ☠ 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lethbridge Twinning Society

Lethbridge Twinning Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Organisation is purely local in scope amd thus does not meet notability per WP:ORG. It also does nor cite any sources Wefa (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An organization that has connections with groups in Russia and Japan is purely local? Say what? I think any group that's devoted to international friendship is a notable organization indeed!WQUlrich (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you apparently are unaware how city partnership or friendship relations work. Practically every city engaged in such relations (and that is a really large number) has a number of local clubs or associations for that purpose. My own hometown has 5 or 6. But membership and activites of these groups are purely local in scope, with the exception of visiting the partner city in question, of course. I don't think that fits notability guidelines.Wefa (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Town and city twinning is a rather common and unexceptional occurence, and not every local "let's be friends with our town's twin town!" club can possibly be notable. Besides, there aren't any references. Bearcat (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial impact. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Johnston

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

non-notable autobio vanispamcruftisment WuhWuzDat 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, a Google news search for "Mikael Johnston" only gets five results.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is completely not true!. There is a ton of relevant articles on me written within the past year from recognized news sources, and yes some dating back the span of my career which has been over 14 years. If you need me to site more examples than the links already provided so far in the unfinished article then I would be happy to. I've seen far flimsier articles written about people who are barely even footnotes in my career and their articles haven't been nominated for deletion. If you would like me to name a few i will. This is preposterous! Obviously you didn't do your research properly. There are literally hundreds of hits under my name in Google! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaeljohnston (talk • contribs) 23:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In addl to Sandor Clegane's note's 1 of which isn't him, and the other s4 range between 5 and 14 years old. Nothing recent. Likely fail WP:Notability as they lack significant coverage of him. --Abc518 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding on my position: (Which i'm changing to merge) My nothing recent statement is wrong. Notability is not temporary. However, after a little more research. The news articles likely don't work anyway. See below:
      • [[9]] Fails WP:Notability Section 1. Significant coverage. It's about his band not him.
      • [[10]] (Not free.) From what you can read also appears to lack significant coverage.
      • [[11]] Fails WP:Notability Section 1. Significant coverage. It's about his band not him.
      • [[12]] (Also not free.) From what you can read also appears to lack significant coverage.
    • In reference to Mikael's defense there is 100s of "hits" from google. It's the articles job to back up notability claims, not google's. But I checked the references from the article.
      • [[13]] I don't know much about this site, but it looks like it might meet WP:Notability. Can someone please elaborate on this source?
      • [[15]] Credits page, number of past work doesn't automatically mean Notability.
      • [[17]] Another credits page.
      • [[18]] More credits...
      • [[19]] Possible Selfpub, but about the band nonetheless.
    • There is obviously some notability, I think there should be more discussion on the sources he does cite, and there should be more added. There is a clear conflict of interest here, whether he admits it or not. It's either an autobiography or somebody close to him is writing this. Both of which are a COI. I don't think this page should be deleted all together. I support a merge with his band's article (Which needs work too), as it seems his band has more notability than him, and his band's article needs content anyway. Mika is your band still active? --Abc518 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to their article, their last album was almost a decade ago.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am familiar with this artist and can attest that he has been a notable pioneer in electronic dance music. I was able to add to this person's page in regards to current work, and added references that I believe to meet WP Notability standards. I am asking some of my friends in the press to contribute to this article by editing and adding both content and references so that it can further meet WP standards. Please allow some time for this to happen before making a decision regarding deleting or merging this page. M Periera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mperiera (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC) — Mperiera (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Discussions normally last at least a week, so you should have enough time. And please remember to sign your post (correctly) using four tildes ~~~~. And Welcome to wikipedia. --Abc518 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks for your welcome Abc518, and I will be sure to use the ~ from now on when signing. I'd like to add my comments Regarding the comments by Sandor about Johnston's references and notability.
    • [[21]] ...Yes this article is about one of Johnston's bands (he has had several artist names to my knowledge). But if you read the article it's clear that almost the entire interview is with Johnston himself. Even the opening to the article establishes this, "It means man's struggle with his own personal demons." Alameda's Mikael Johnston is explaining his band's name..." There are almost no quotes from the other member(s), everything centers around Johnston who is the founder of this project. It's obvious he is the leader and creative force behind this project, or at the very least the public persona based on this interview. This article goes on to say,"By 1993 the duo (Johnston and DeJournette) had launched Mephisto Records with their first song, "Dream of the Black Dahlia." Both the track and label were pivotal in defining the nascent San Francisco house sound." This statement clearly establishes Johnston's notability as a pioneer of San Francisco dance and house music. The SF Weekly is a very well established and respected publication and seems to meet WP:Notability.
    • [[22]] This is the official allmusic.com biography on Johnston. The article talks about Johnston's early to mid career and the reference mentions his work with Jane's Addiction, "As the co-producer and songwriter for Mephisto Odyssey, Johnston has gained the reputation of an eclectic and a great remixer. Indeed, the remixes of "So What" by Jane's Addiction first brought the group to Warner Bros.' attention in 1999." For those who don't know allmusic.com is considered by the music industry to be the official go to guide. So much so that The Grammy committee relies on this site to conclude eligibility for membership and for inclusion in special voting committees. This guide only includes bios and credits for well established and notable people in the music industry. The fact that Johnston is even in allmusic.com under his surname and not just under various band names is a credit to his notability and should help establish his notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. This site should meet WP:Notability.
    • [[23]] This article is indeed free in spite of Sandor's comment, I had no problem pulling it right up in my browser. It's clear that this reference was added to establish proof that Johnston worked as a producer and mixer for the well known cult electro pop duo "I am the World Trade Center." In the article it clearly concludes that fact in the following passage, "The disc is also the first conceived in a studio with, in Geller's words, "a real producer", a former member of electronic-dance band Mephisto Odyssey named Mikael Johnston. Previously, the Athens, Georgia based duo did everything themselves, recording Dykes's vocal parts and Geller's synths at home and then arranging the material on a laptop. "We did one track with him [Johnston] and we were like, 'Holy shit, this is awesome.'" This is another site that again seems to meet WP:Notability.
    • [[24]] This is another article that was referenced in regards to Johnston's work as a producer and mixer for "I am the World Trade Center." This article says, "Working primarily with Mikael Johnston at Temple Music Studio in Athens, Geller says this is by far IATWTC's best album. Mikael's very intense and really took the time to get it right, Once again I can't see anything that would preclude this site from meeting WP:Notability.
    • [[25]] This is the allmusic.com credits page for Johnston. I believe this reference was included to provide proof of claims in the article that Johnston worked as a producer and or engineer on various projects with artists that had been referenced.
    • [[26]] Here we have another article that is only a year old from a well established newspaper that appears to meet WP:Notability. The article centers completely around Johnston and what he's doing in the music industry. The article talks with him about his work past and present with Mephisto Odyssey and other artists, and even talks about him as an engineer and producer with well established artists outside of electronic dance music like Goapele.
    • [[27]] This article is in a publication called Beatportal from February 4, 2009. For those who don't know what Beatportal is I'll explain. It's the publication that coincides with Beatport.com. Beatport.com is considered the itunes of the electronic dance music industry. This publication should be considered to meet WP:Notability as the writers for beatportal are real journalist and industry professionals that are considered experts in the genre of electronic dance music. The article is about Johnston's partnership with world famous DJ Dave Dresden. The entire article is about Johnston and his work both past, present and future.
    • [[28]] This interview with Dave Dresden and Mikael Johnston dated 8 July 2009 is from the Best of House blog. Best of House is considered to be the most credible house music blog in the world by many dance music professionals. It seems to meet WP:Notability
    • [[29]] This article in DMA (Dance Music Authority) dated June 2, 2009 talks about the partnership with Dave Dresden and Mikael Johnston including a mention of their back to back Billboard #1s the duo had earlier this year with their remixes of Lily Allen and Nadia Ali. DMA is one of the longest running publications in the history of electronic dance music and should meet WP:Notability standards.
    • [[30]] This reference is to Johnston's discography on discogs.com which is considered to be a credible source of information in the music industry, which seems to lean heavily in the direction of electronic dance music. I am familiar with this artist and I know this discography to be horribly incomplete but even still it's extensive and spans about a decade and a half.
I'm getting a sense that none of you are experts, or even knowledgeable about electronic dance music, it's many sub genre's, or the people that helped shape and define it over the last 2 decades. It is important that these people be documented, they are notable and important people and Johnston is clearly one of these people. It's also arguable that he has established himself as a notable audio engineer and record producer outside of being a dance music pioneer, having worked with acts like Jane's Addiction, Static-X, Smash Mouth, The Sounds, The Matches etc., but I don't believe that to be the main focus of his notability, but it may help to establish him as a notable figure in the music industry as a whole, I'm not sure. There are many references that are good arguments as to Johnston's notability in the area of electronic dance music among the references provided so far, and I'm sure that over time many more can be added (there are 1870 google hits on his name). I've written to several press and electronic dance music colleagues who are familiar with Johnston's work and asked them to contribute to the article. This may take time as these people are busy and have their own priorities, and would have to do this on their own time. I strongly encourage you to take this page off the list of consideration for deletion. I also don't believe that this article should be merged with the Mephisto Odyssey article, as it's only one part of Johnston's career. Also I think I've established a reasonable argument that Mephisto Odyssey was just one of several artist names Johnston has had over the years, Like Seraphim, Deep Red or his current project Dresden and Johnston. Last but not least Johnston's Notability seems to be established far and above many of the articles written about Johnston's colleagues. Yet their pages are not up for deletion on Wikipedia. I would argue that if you Delete Johnston's page you would also have to consider deleting established pages by many of his colleagues that are also pioneers, DJs or artists of notability in electronic dance music. Some examples of this would be Booka Shade, DJ Tocadisco, Ronski Speed, dj garth, Tony Moran, Filo & Peri, Krafty Kuts, Plump DJs, Finger Lickin' Records, Steve Angello, Nadia Ali, Andain, Axwell, Überzone, Christopher Lawrence (DJ), Sandra Collins, Donald Glaude, James Zabiela, Anjunabeats, Solarstone, Steve Lawler, Sébastien Léger, Mauro Picotto, Skazi, Nick Warren, Marcel Woods, Bad Boy Bill, DJ Vibe, Pete Tong, Lisa Lashes, DJ Dan, DJ Hype, Erick Morillo, Laurent Wolf, Cosmic Gate, Blank & Jones, Roger Sanchez, Deep Dish, Laidback Luke, Ricky Stone, Matt Darey, Aly & Fila, Judge Jules, DJ Umek, Dubfire, Fedde le Grand, ATB, Eric Prydz, Gareth Emery, andy Moor. These are just 50 articles I found within minutes, I could find 100s of articles on similar DJs, producers, artists associated with electronic dance music with articles that are not well documented or referenced, yet not up for deletion. This doesn't mean I'm suggesting they're not notable figures or that the articles should be deleted, to the contrary, many of these names were taken from the DJmag top 100 list. I'm merely trying to make a point that if you looked at these articles with the same scrutiny as Johnston's you'd probably have to put most if not all of these up for deletion as well. Mperiera (talk)M Periera— Mperiera (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Seriously, where all you people coming from? Is Mikael posting on some forum asking for help? Also, you should see WP:WAX. But if you'd like, I can go through the articles you mentioned and run them through the deletion process.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is your problem Sandor?! I mean really, do you have some kind of vendetta against Johnston or something? His page is clearly in compliance on many levels, and while I admit I may not be as up on all the wiki rules as you are I have certainly made some arguments that are within the guidelines. If you're just determined to delete this guys page regardless of anyone's arguments, input or references then what's the point? You clearly know nothing about who is notable in electronic dance music, and frankly I do. So maybe you should try and say something constructive? Maybe work with me a little? Perhaps you might learn something. Mperiera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC). — Mperiera (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep So, I am a relatively new wiki user and absolutely love this site. I am also a total die hard dance music fan and have been looking up all my favorite artists recently. Some of my favorites include Moby, David Guetta, Paul Oakenfold, Morgan Page, The Crystal Method, Dave Dresden and Mikael Johnston. Kind of blown away though that when I went to pull up Mikael Johnston, his page is up for deletion??? It makes absolutely no sense to delete something without giving the author or biographer or interested 3rd party the opportunity to rectify the situation. And, with reference to Sandor Clegane's comments, I believe he has been reading too much of his own work. I am a fan of George R.R. Martin's series A Song of Ice and Fire - and frankly, it would seem that rather than face real issues worthy of debate, you are still living in the shadow of your brother. Seriously, go take on a truly noteworthy cause like global warming or world peace or healthcare reform, not whether or not to delete someone's wiki profile. There are too many fans out there that want to be able to read and learn and enjoy music by looking up their favorite artists - and not have to deal with these trivial matters. Lishlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC). — Lishlet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for your concern, but I'm quite skilled at double-tasking--I can take on global warming as well as vanity pages on Wikipedia at the same time. Amazing, huh?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be mean, but this debate isn't about who your favorite artists are or who you are a fan of (Nobody cares). I suggest reading What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a blog, nobody should have a "wiki profile", there is more appropriate places for that. And btw before beating up on Sandor for debating this, keep in mind Mikael triggered this debate in the first place by (at least how apprears) creating an article about him self. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography) I understand Mikael claims other people where using his account to create this page. But this however is a violation of Wikipedia's User Name Policy and is still nonetheless a Conflict of interest. --Abc518 (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Granted, apparently massive COI, and article is probably too long, with too much unreferenceable and nonnotable material (if this was more neutral, COI wouldnt matter. for example, i think we can forgive someone like einstein creating a stub article about himself). many of the references are not really that good. speaking as an outsider to the music scene (though a music fan in general, with some knowledge of it), he appears to be notable. ill probably like his music, so im not biased against him. I would strongly recommend the article be trimmed back to basics, and not include discographies of all the projects hes been connected with. and to all the fans here: chill out. its an encyclopedia article, nothing more, nothing less. if he isnt notable yet (and i think he is), hell be notable shortly, if he continues to work, and this site is not a commercial powerhouse. if any one, including the artist, wants to promote sales, there are MUCH more creative ways to do this than creating a wp article thats overly promotional. personally, i become MORE interested in subjects when the article is brief, clearly indicates their relative notability, and leaves it to me to explore further. but then i tend toward being overly logical, having existed for 3 years as a Phraint.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. I was searching for more information on the producer that Dave Dresden of Gabriel & Dresden fame was working with currently and came across Mr. Johnston's Wikepedia entry and see that it's up for deletion. I do not agree with the stance of Mr Clegane. Mr. Johnston has been a major contributor to the electronic dance music community for well over a decade. In fact, i didn't realize that he was the founder of Mephisto Odyssey until i looked at his wikipedia entry. I knew that if he was partnering with someone as prolific as Mr. Dresden, that he had to be someone of experience and notability. Now that i also know that he is the same person who fronted that very successful and acclaimed act i can certainly say with confidence that you should keep his page up.

Jonthanfernandez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC). — Jonthanfernandez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Seriously, how many of these just-registered single-purpose accounts are going to come into this by the time it's over? "Oh, I just conveniently happened to stop by and I just happened to see this up for deletion so I just thought I'd register." I've seen the same exact thing happening in numerous AFDs in the past and it's getting ridicilous.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with some of the points that Mercurywoodrose made. I think this article could be trimmed down a bit to read more neutral, but there's also a lot of historical information in the article as it pertains to electronic dance music that I believe is important from a research point of view. Also I think as a reference source cutting his discography is a bad idea. If anything that part of the article should be as complete and accurate as possible. His discography is actually missing releases that I am familiar with and that are of notoriety and I would think might be important in a historical perspective in regards to dance music history. Anyway Johnston clearly has notoriety in his field based on the references that have been provided, and there are probably a lot more online. The guy's name gets 1870 hits on google. I have friends that don't even get 1 hit on google. I think his article should have the deletion flag taken off, even if the other flags stay until the article is trimmed and rewritten to better conform to Wikipedia standards. I have a friend who has been a journalist for several dance music publications for over a decade that said he'd help rewrite Johnston's page. He was disturbed when I mentioned that his Wikipedia page was up for deletion.

Abc518 Lishnet has reason to be critical of Sandor's posts. I've also found them to be a bit... off putting, certainly not constructive. Also I don't think Lishnet was suggesting that "everyone should have a wikipedia page" nor do I think Lishnet was suggesting that Wikipedia is like a blog. I think they were just trying to point out that there are a lot of dance music artists of notoriety, Johnston being one of them and that deleting his page seemed like a bad choice. I have to be honest, there are a lot of really lame pages on here by DJs and other members of the electronic dance music community that clearly have absolutely no notoriety whatsoever, yet their pages aren't flagged for deletion. ...so why pick on Johnston's article? I'm guessing because he was stupid enough to start it himself, but that doesn't mean he's not notable or that his page should be deleted. Everyone on here but Sandor has agreed that Johnston is notable in his field, albeit to varying degrees. And yes I already read WP:WAX but you know something, when does common sense come into play? I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I obviously don't know all the rules for arguing my points. However, I have managed to do some reading regarding arbitration and one of the pages I read clearly stated that Common sense should also be applied in matters such as this...and while I'm on the topic of common sense whoever posted at the top of this page that Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement applied to Johnston's article is... way off. According to the page I read on this all the properties have to apply for it to be true. From what I can tell other than the fact that Johnston might have started his own article, none of these definitions apply. This is clearly not an article written to promote a small business, post a personal resume or promote a fringe area of interest with limited appeal. Tact, constructiveness and common sense go a long way in a discussion or debate. These would seem to be good traits for an admin to have.

Mperiera (talk)

  • Keep Johnston has coverage in multiple publications that from my interpretation seems to meet WP:N, and has been a well established electronic dance music artist, producer, remixer for over 14 years.

I am new to Wikipedia as a collaborator but have been using Wikipedia for years, and have specific interest in articles regarding electronic dance music artists.

Lishlet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Turvey

Nathan Turvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bio of a BBC presenter. Only references are his BBC profile and the websites of various stations he has worked for. A Google search is confused by a couple of Australians of the same name; the entries for this one seem to be routine listings of the sort any presenter would get, not the sort of independent comment that would indicate notability to the standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warlock Motorcycles

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. All citations are copies of press releases, no independent coverage on the topic of Warlock Motorcycles. Not to be confused with Warlocks Motorcycle Club and others with similar name. Dbratland (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound-O-Mat (label)

Sound-O-Mat (label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Jankovic

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

badly written and not a subject of wide interest BwB (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is not clear from the stub or the source that this hockey player has played at the highest levels. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The link says he's been playing for national team at World championship, what clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. The article needs expansion, not deletion. --Tone 13:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article was written using a different transliteration of his name than Bogdan Janković, which is the one listed in the Serbia national ice hockey team article. --Bejnar (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since he has played for his national team. I would mention in passing that no valid justification is contained in the nomination. Smile a While (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Britain's Got Talent. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Got Talent contestants discography

AfDs for this article:
Britain's Got Talent contestants discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A discography of what are, now that the various series have finished, performers who are only loosely related (at best- those from different series will never even have met) is not required. The contestants are already linked by a navbox/category, but the releases are completely independent of the show, and so do not need to be tied together like this. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. listcruft --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Britain's Got Talent, even X Factor doesnt have own discography. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Not quite sure what you feel is worth merging? The release of the albums has nothing to do with the television series- some of them were released by entirely independent record labels. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - opinion is evenly split, but neither side has made a slamdunk argument for preservation or deletion. There is a recommendation about merging this into another Beatles-related article, which is an alternative that was not raised here. But those who want to keep this as a standalone article may want to strengthen the text and its references. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles outtakes

The Beatles outtakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Violation of WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:OR with a lack of WP:RS. Really not much else to add - a total waste of space. DJ 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage says "Deletionism is a cancer". I think that says it all...DJ 15:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page has a link to the policies and guidelines, one of them says assume good faithriffic (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be nothing more than list in unreleased stuff from Beatles, which is covered elsewhere. TJ Spyke 02:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where else is it covered? I don't see the redundancy. This is a useful list for collectors and other people who are interested in the unreleased recordings which may one day be released. Also this nom is invalid because there is no valid deletion rationale given which meets deletion policy. riffic (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the nominator has a history of offsite canvassing Afd discussions, so I would consider this one tainted as well. riffic (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, the nominator listed a bunch of valid reasons for it to be deleted. "It's useful" is NOT a valid reason to keep an article and even if they get released (which is pure speculation on your part), that doesn't change anything. TJ Spyke 17:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list is historically significant and should be kept. similar rational as the one I used here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Beatles concerts riffic (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is going to the extremes of detail, but The Beatles are a uniquely important band, and since this information appears to have been sourced from reliable publications, I am inclined to keep it.--Michig (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not seeing any of the "violations" noted in the nominations. The Beatles outtakes have been the subject of several books, meeting WP:N. So there is no reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. I can understand an article about unreleased Beatles songs, but a list article about all the song takes that weren't used? That's not a notable topic. Unless a band is doing really paired down one-take recording, most artists don't release all their takes. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it actually is a notable topic, many books have been written about these sessions and alternate takes, some of which have been released on bootlegs or the Anthology series. riffic (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for example, see http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Recording-Sessions-Mark-Lewisohn/dp/0517570661/ref=pd_cp_b_1 http://www.amazon.com/Here-There-Everywhere-Recording-Beatles/dp/1592402690/ref=pd_sim_b_1 http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Beatles-Chronicle-Definitive-entire/dp/0600610012/ref=pd_sim_b_4 http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Anthology/dp/0811826848
The recording sessions are important and notable in the context of the songs and albums. Making a list of outtakes separate from the songs removes this essential context. Additionally, if it were a notable topic, a list format would not be ideal. WesleyDodds (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to add to this? riffic (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Beatles recordings -- including outtakes -- are uniquely vital elements of music history and are inherently notable. It's the Beatles for heaven's sake. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CodeCon

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

DELETE. No one cares about CodeCon. Not in the encyclopedic sense, that is. Fully lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is too reliant on primary sources, it is true, and most ghits are blogs and the like. But I am finding sufficient notability from article in Linux Journal, amongst others. I see no reason to delete. I42 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely Keep  : I spot checked the PeekABooty ref to newscientist website. It does mention the conference at the end. While this may seem to be trivial mention, I think this fits into the "short on words but big still significant" coverage that could allow you to write an article. That is, the site, newscientist has nothing to do with the topic and this seems to be an article, not a blog entry. I guess even if this falls short as not being enough to put into a good article, the authors seemed to think that topic was worthy of note and there is probably more independent coverage. This isn't quite like my other scenario, that is something like software that is mentioned in methods section of many scientific papers but not otherwise covered, but may qualify. While all this source allows you to write is maybe a line or two more similar sources could create enough things to discuss( " the conference is often mentioned when people cover new and unusual software products. For example, [ list-type stuff ]. Conference selects software with penguiny goodness[] etc"

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : Hi, this was just brought up at WikiProject Computer Security. just doing a google search, there appears to be sufficient coverage. I will attempt to improve the article. It is difficult, due to low media coverage, however I believe the article to be encyclopedic, and notable. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonghan theory

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

No independent notability. The main source is a June 2009 article that describes the theory as "newly discovered". Could be stripped down and merged with any of the acupuncture articles, but in current form can only be deleted. JFW | T@lk 17:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonghan system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It think also might be worth a look by someone over at WP:FTN, so I put up a request there for opinions. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename This shows up reasonably well on Google Scholar. However it appears that it should be named Bonghan system. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is really just one more therapy that someone markets to resounding silence. It is not nearly notable enough except maybe to be mentioned somewhere in the acupuncture family of articles. No prejudice to recreation if they do attract in depth coverage from independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, here are some sources to begin with: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. There are likely many more on the subject, as I obtained those from a quick glance. The theory is obviously notable, and within our guidelines. –blurpeace (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be some vaguely new-age spin on acupuncture but I don't think it's particularly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 August 2009
  • Delete as unreferenced, because even with the sources Blurpeace found, I think it's clear the article would pretty nearly have to start over from scratch in order to pass verifiability. For anyone with access to those links (most aren't publically viewable) and enough time on their hands to build the article up to standards, I think it should definitely be made available, but I don't think it's right to just let it stay on Wikipedia almost unentirely unreferenced, which is what it is now. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable WP:FRINGE theory seeking to gain attention by using public forums of discussion rather than through academic journals. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. –blurpeace (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after looking at this since it was nom'd, I'm coming down on the side of the deletionists. The article has zero sourcing, and there's been no attempt to add more to the article since its initial version. User:Lovephysicsinkaist, the original editor (an SPA), hasn't been heard from since, and he's the only one who has added any content (encyclopedic or otherwise). Don't salt it, but in its current state, it's not an article at all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, please see WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. We cleanup bad looking articles, not delete them. Though this one does require a rewrite. –blurpeace (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Scientific Services Ltd - RSSL

Reading Scientific Services Ltd - RSSL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity page of what I'm pretty sure is a non-notable company. Not 100% sure however. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I consider this a possible G11 speedy and entirely promotional. it might in fact be possible to write an article on the company, but it should start from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix R/C

Phoenix R/C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Right now this is very little more than a promotional article of uncertain notability. Flirts with speedy, but I'm AfDing to confirm that it is in fact non-notable, and un-rescuable. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see any non-commercial, non-forum links on the intyweb. But I have flagged this with the aviation wikiproject as it seems like the kind of software that would be reviewed in R/C hobbyist magazines. Marasmusine (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A similar article exists, RealFlight, this programme is well known and popular. If these kind of articles are written in a non commercial way with no COI then they could be ok, although having a link to the company site is bordering on free advertising. If it is the type of programme that is controlled by an RC transmitter then it is a training simulator rather than a video game. We don't really include RC and other flying models in the aviation project but these things come our way occasionally, I have suggested an RC Wiki project is started by someone in the past as many of the articles are disorganised and in poor shape. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Smith Goes to Tokyo

Mr Smith Goes to Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find no reliable sources on google for this film, and none are provided in the article. Nothing to meet notability guidelines. I did a google (+ gnews) search for the title in quotes + the surname of the director and came up with 2 hits, both unrelated. Also, a conflict of interest as the article appears to have been written by the film's director. BelovedFreak 11:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film does exist, I promise. The reason I added a Wiki article is that I want to provide a web page on Wiki that lists significant modern architectural buildings in Tokyo. I have trimmed down the length of the article so that it does not seem to be a conflict with my own agenda and merely use it as a reference tool so that other people wanting to see a list of significant modern buildings in Tokyo can find it online. This data is also not available elsewhere and is independent research, but it is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainoverton (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - further edits to the article show that the actual title of the film is Mr Smith Takes a Short Trip to Tokyo. Searching under this title gives some reliable sources, but mentions seem fairly trivial as far as I can see. It's not listed on the imdb page for the director. --BelovedFreak 18:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added short item about the event from Blueprint Magazine: little more than an events listing, really. I also took the liberty of renaming to "Mr. Smith Takes a Short Trip to Tokyo," although, if this article really was created and named by the filmmaker, might have been a liberty I shouldn't have taken, since it's likely he knows best what his film is called. Shame if it gets deleted, as I love documentaries about architecture. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation when the film is released. Tone 13:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThePact

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

Apparently non-notable. This film appears to be in the pre-production stages, so it fails WP:NFF. Additionally, the whole of this article (except for a rather unnecessary explanation of "crowd collaboration") is sourced only from an official website and IMDb. I can't say for sure about the foreign-language sources, but I'm not seeing any coverage in any reliable, neutral sources, so it apparently fails WP:NF as well. PC78 (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete on the basis of failingWP:NFF. Some of the Swedish sources look pretty good when run through [41], but I don't really think that we have critical mass for an article yet. The first one just mentions it as an example of crowd-sourcing, another is purely an interview, and one is a broken link. That leaves us with two good sources focused primarily on the financing of the film. Close, but not enough in my opinion until production is farther along. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. no objection to a NPOV bio although BLP1E may come into effect Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wayne Jamieson

Stephen Wayne Jamieson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "biographical" article contains no biographical information on the subject. Instead, it seems to be a soapbox for promoting a minority viewpoint that the subject is innocent of a crime for which he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. After his conviction the NSW parliament enacted special legislation to ensure that he and several other inmates would never be released from prison but the article glosses over this and other relevant issues and instead gives undue weight to explaining reasons for doubting the soundness of his conviction. AussieLegend (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is so one-sided that it would be better to start from scratch with a new article, if indeed this person ought to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, which I have no opinion about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of the Wolf Man

House of the Wolf Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film which hasn't even been released yet. It's true that it stars Lon Chaney's grandson, but that still doesn't make the film notable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Principle photography has begun, sources apparently exist, so the article is appropriate to keep under WP:NFF. Rlendog (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karmen Pedaru

Karmen Pedaru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, as I declined a speedy deletion on this one. Although the article provides a number of references, I'm unclear as to whether these would be sufficient to establish notabillity. Therefore, I brought this to AfD for a proper discussion. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Questionable sources (Facebook), notability not asserted. --Sander Säde 07:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Credits are those of just another run-of-the-mill model. Sources are directory entries and sites that contain the same type of trivial mentions for every model out there.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hector H. Lopez

Hector H. Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable--the Director is , but not the Associate V. P. None of the refs indicate notability. Almost all are connected with the Institute. DGG (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Addressing DGG's Concerns:

The following pages: National Hispanic Institute, Nicole Sada, and Hector H. Lopez, where I am the default primary editor, recently received a visit from user DGG, who raised many concerns and proceeded to erase much of the information on the National Hispanic Institute page, tag it as advertisement and non neutral, nominate for deletion the Nicole Sada and Hector H. Lopez pages, all without discussion or a request for input from the community or the primary editor with the exception of the Hector H. Lopez page where he did notify. While some of the edits to the National Hispanic Institute page can be seen as constructive to the page, others seem to simply be made in a subjective and non-constructive manner to the information on the pages here mentioned. For example, DGG immediately seeks to delete this page rather than request more specific information to strengthen this "stub" article's notability.

Hector H. Lopez has served under two U.S. mayoral administrations independent of his work with the organization which is notable in and of itself. Additionally, the work he has carried out as the a VP of this American nonprofit is also notable in and of itself. We should add more information to strengthen the article, that was my goal when I labeled the articles as stubs, however to delete would be a drastic measure.

As the default primary editor, I will be the first to pitch in to make these pages stronger. In fact, my edits that led to this page began precisely because of NPOV issues that I thought existed and I thought were addressed on the National Hispanic Institute page. Constructive editing should be welcome and encouraged, but to simply go in and take a knife to significant portions of these pages or to completely delete without building and discussing should be unacceptable.

Any suggestions are welcome, wanted, and needed... Fr222 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the Director is notable, but the Vice President of a company is not. And see WP:OWN--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sada

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

Non-notable; subsidiary officer only. DGG (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Addressing DGG's Concerns:

The following pages: National Hispanic Institute, Nicole Sada, and Hector H. Lopez, where I am the default primary editor, recently received a visit from user DGG, who raised many concerns and proceeded to erase much of the information on the National Hispanic Institute page, tag it as advertisement and non neutral, nominate for deletion the Nicole Sada and Hector H. Lopez pages, all without discussion or a request for input from the community or the primary editor with the exception of the Hector H. Lopez page where he did notify. While some of the edits to the National Hispanic Institute page can be seen as constructive to the page, others seem to simply be made in a subjective and non-constructive manner to the information on the pages here mentioned. For example, DGG immediately seeks to delete this page rather than request more specific information to strengthen this "stub" article's notability.

Nicole Sada has served in public elected office independent of her work with the organization which is notable in and of itself. Additionally, the work she has carried out as the Senior VP of this American nonprofit is also notable in and of itself. We should add more information to strengthen the article, that was my goal when I labeled the articles as stubs, however to delete would be a drastic measure.

As the default primary editor, I will be the first to pitch in to make these pages stronger. In fact, my edits that led to this page began precisely because of NPOV issues that I thought existed and I thought were addressed on the National Hispanic Institute page. Constructive editing should be welcome and encouraged, but to simply go in and take a knife to significant portions of these pages or to completely delete without building and discussing should be unacceptable.

Any suggestions are welcome, wanted, and needed... Fr222 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Enterprise Sourcing

Collaborative Enterprise Sourcing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product from Dassault Systèmes. This product is no longer publicised on their website. The handful of mentions in google news are press release items rather than any real news that might have made this past product notable. Ash (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galleria Edina

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

Non-notable shopping center. The article is mentioned in a number of google news articles but normally in relation to businesses within it. There are no readily apparent articles that make this shopping center appear notable, consequently the article is unlikely to demonstrate notability with any conceivable re-write. Tagged as needing re-write for over a year with no progress. Ash (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estesombelo

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

Non-notable. There are a handful of mentions in event listings, but no google news articles say anything about the group to indicate significance. It is therefore highly unlikely that notability will be established in the future. Ash (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eraye

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

Not notable. Eraye skincare matches no google news articles so there is little likelihood of establishing satisfactory notability. There are no sources for the claims made and the article has been tagged for re-write for 3 years. Ash (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; possible hoax; certainly I can't find any reliable sources and consider it fails WP:V. If it existed, a high priced cosmetic used by celebrities would surely have significant coverage. Smile a While (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K. Tara Smith

K. Tara Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The set of conferences listed up to 2002, are not reliable sources as they are self published presentations. The requirements of WP:PROF are not met. There are no matches in google news and a search in the most appropriate journal produces: Your search criteria: "Tara Smith" in Full Text in selected journals: Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. matched zero articles. Ash (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Essmat

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

Vagueness of the claims made does not allow one to infer how she would meet WP:BIO guidelines, and I can not find any pertinent non-trivial sources myself. Contested prod. Sixtysixstar (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 18 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation for a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vigoon "Phai" Boonthanom

Vigoon "Phai" Boonthanom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO. also non notable due to WP:ONEVENT. complete lack of coverage of this individual, [49], [50], google also reveals hardly anything [51] LibStar (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No complete lack of ghits, although most concern either the event or the single album which featured the subject as part of a group of artists. Doesn't specifically meet criteria for WP:MUSIC, but both the event and his role as singer contribute to the subject's potential notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 18 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation for a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Hope In Action

Children's Hope In Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, nothing in gmews, and mainly directory listings in google LibStar (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation is rather small and works only in Central Vietnam, but it is mentioned in several reliable Internet sources (I added references). And also CHIA belongs to the List of non-governmental organisations in Vietnam. I think the article should be kept.Ans-mo (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Quinn (author and editor)

Joe Quinn (author and editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Textbook example of a WP:COATRACK article. This claims to be about the writer Joe Quinn, but it is really about a controversy involving the British University and College Union in 2008. Quinn himself does not appear to be notable; if he is, it is only of the WP:BLP1E kind, and according to that guideline the article should be rewritten to focus on the event rather than the person. This should therefore either be moved to something like 2008 University and College Union controversy, or better yet, as this appears to be a brief news story of little lasting significance, deleted entirely. Robofish (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The nom sums it up well. Tim Song (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, coatrack articles are never appropriate, and if we removed the coatrack bits, this guy doesn't appear to have any significance (let alone notability) aside from the BLP1E. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:BLP1E.Joe Chill (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bobby_Soul#Fictional_character_biography. Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Bro (comics)

AfDs for this article:
Lil' Bro (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently NN character, only source is ComicsDB (non-RS), google provides no significant coverage of the character. Merge into parent article would be acceptable if necessary. →ROUX ₪ 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. per withdrawn nomination JForget 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Rhodes-Flaherty

Lucinda Rhodes-Flaherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only minor appears in a number of shows. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. Otterathome (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shamirrudinshah

Shamirrudinshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. zero hits on google news for real name and stage name. mainly directory listing on google. real name doesn't yield much either [53]. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 2 August 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) 00:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing how this singer/producer is notable. The only link given is to a blog. Netalarmtalk 05:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there was a page for Putra & Putri Dangdut we could redirect this page there. I see no real notability and no reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masquerade - Single (album)

Masquerade - Single (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability. WP:NSONGS states "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. 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." Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 21:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is overwhelmingly supportive for keeping this article, and the calls for deletion are not successful in minimizing the notability of this tragic event. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Hudson River mid-air collision

Small aircraft accidents happen hundreds of times a year. Just because this one made the national news, does not qualify it as notable under WP:N (see "Notability is not temporary", for example).

Although specific notability guidelines for aircraft accidents aren't defined explicity in general, there are good guidelines under WP:Air/PC#Accidents_and_incidents that I think are reasonable. Under these guidelines, this accident is not "Notable" for inclusion in a dictionary. WP is not a news source, it's an encyclopedia. Seanfranklin (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. Though this crash didn't kill say 150+ people like many other infamous air crashes did it is still worth inclusion as it occurred in one the busiest air traffic zones in the world and most likely will result in changes to how air traffic control in the New York City area operates. Believe me there is seldom an air disaster as extensively covered as this that doesn't go on to change air regulations in some way. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: IF the crash does result in changes, THEN it will be notable. The guidelines in WP:Air/PC#Accidents_and_incidents account for this. Until then, though, this is news - not a notable article. Seanfranklin (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we speak, the FAA and the NTSB are probably reviewing changes to the Manhattan corridor airspace. In their report, the NTSB hinted at several flaws that need to be fixed following this incident. -- WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 23:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are, maybe not. The last mid-air collision in the Hudson VFR corridor was in 1963, I'd say the procedures are apparently pretty good - either that or there have been a few hundred thousand "very lucky" pilots through there in the last 46 years. I'm not saying that changes won't, or even shouldn't be made. I am saying that until and unless changes are made, this topic remains simply news, not a notable subject for an encyclopedia. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable in the overall scheme of aircraft accidents, fails to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents. A car, bus, boat, railway or other transportation accident that resulted in nine deaths would be unlikely to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. It is merely journalistic sensationalism that results in light aircraft accidents on the same scale as car accidents becoming temporarily national news. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia need not subscribe to this standard of journalism. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a judgment call on everyone's part as to whether this will have "historical notability"; needless to say, not everything that is in the news is barred by WP:NOTNEWS. The reasons that I think that it's likely to be remembered more than the usual mid-air collision is that it's an accident involving the multiple deaths of tourists who were enjoying themselves until the unexpected happened. We have an entire Category: Helicopter accidents, and although most accidents would not qualify, there are some that end up in almanacs. Based on observations from old World Almanacs, I think this will end up in a chronology and on a table of notable aviation accidents As Kurwa correctly points out, most small aircraft accidents, such as the crash of a Cessna or a Lear Jet, do not get comparable coverage. Perhaps, in the long run, someone can merge those articles into a list of tourist accidents. Mandsford (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Several things make this article stand out from other small, private aircraft incidents. Among them:
  1. The NTSB sent a team to investigate this.
  2. It made national news.
  3. There are exceptional amounts of information and resources on this topic.
  4. This will likely result in changes to the Manhattan airspace that might affect all aircraft there, big and small.
For these reasons, I suggest this article be kept. -- WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a mid-air collision between two aircraft, it's not like those are common. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If something generates widespread news coverage then it is ipso facto notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem with that line of thinking is that this accident also generated widespread national news coverage, but I don't think anyone believes it should be a Wikipedia article. It was just a slow news day. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article you mentioned was about an emergency landing. There are most definitely several around the US and Canada everyday, I see several in my area. Mid-air collisions in such volatile corridors are not everyday occurrences, and there might be one every six months or even less often. The difference between the Hudson collision and other incidents in terms of coverage is that the Hudson collision has been given extended coverage over the past week, and will probably continue to generate stories, while incidents like the one you mentioned will maybe have coverage for the few hours that it occurs in. Thanks, WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other news coverage for that other incident - the comparison is therefore not valid. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not really notable just news on the day. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was just everyday news for the amount of coverage and the time of coverage (1 week) it was given. Thanks, WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 13:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage outside of the United States was minimal as I said news on the day. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think most any collision in New York City airspace would be notable. This is not just a small plane going down due to engine failure or something. It made national news, which means all the news organizations also thought it was far more notable than all the other small-plane crashes which do not get reported outside of their area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the guidelines in WP:Aircrash are so vague as to be useless. What constitutes "Unusual circumstances"? If an airplane crashes, it's unusual by definition. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding the bullet point about "unusual circumstances", WP:AIRCRASH says that an incident is notable if there is extended coverage beyond the time frame of the incident. That is certainly true in this case. WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does say that, but again that's vague. What is "Beyond the timeframe"? This article was started within 24 hours of the event, so certainly that doesn't qualify. WP:NTEMP clearly applies here in my opinion. In one year, what will be notable about this event to anyone not personally involved? Perhaps it will have resulted in some changes in the way flights through the corridor are handled, if so then at that point it will be notable. If the NTSB and FAA decide that this was an isolated incident and that no policy changes are needed (quite plausible, given the 46-years between collisions) then this is simply old news a year from now. The article should be deleted, and re-examined only if circumstances make it notable at some point in the future. Seanfranklin (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If collisions only happen every 46 years, that would definitely seem to be an "unusual circumstance" :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Definitely a borderline case right now. Changes do seem likely at this point, esp in the Manhattan airspace. Also, such collisions are rare. - BilCat (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if nothing else, due to the number of dead, at least. It's not often that so many casualties result from a general aviation-related incident like this. That in itself will make it notable, I think. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The NTSB investigates every aviation accident, as opposed to selected traffic accidents, so the NTSB investigating this accident does not make it stand out as a unique event. Only when the NTSB final report is issued will any conclusion about this accident be truly able to be discerned. Currently, the sources are confined to several days of initial and follow-on reporting by news sources, which are not aviation experts, giving rise to concerns about WP:NOTNEWS for this article. Conclusions about the effects of this accident are WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, or even WP:CRYSTAL and should not be a basis for keeping the article. Essentially, the same arguments could be made for a case that the Piper pilot was in error and caused the accident for failure to follow established regulations. Again, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and/or WP:CRYSTAL until the NTSB report is published, or until the FAA, or its local FDSO, publishes changes to the procedures as a result of the accident. --Born2flie (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the accident happened in the air space it did, I believe this makes it a WP:N event. Admrboltz (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviewing WP:N, I think this more than qualifies. Ks64q2 (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind elaborating on that with some specifics? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to WP:AIRCRASH. General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft accidents are generally notable only if: Unusual circumstances are involved; Notable people are involved; They result in downstream changes to the industry or procedures; or News coverage continues beyond the immediate time frame of the accident.
Three of the four criteria are met. There were certainly unusual circumstances, like the controllers either on the phone or out of the building, the first collision in a busy corridor in over 45 years, there will be changes to air traffic control in NYC as a result of this and news coverage continues after the immediate time frame. In addition, the chairman of the NTSB came to the crash site, something that I doubt is common for private aviation crashes. Jeffutz (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Unusual circumstances" that you quote are vague. Every airplane accident is unusual, at least we hope so. You say that downstream changes to the industry is met - how? It might be met at some point, and if so at that time this topic will be notable and an article is justified. NTSB chairman - certainly this accident is "high profile" because it's in the news. That does not make it notable as defined for Wikipedia.
I don't want to come off as just being troublesome - I am as interested in this accident as anyone, perhaps more so. I own a PA32R, same type as in the accident. I have flown the Hudson VFR corridor. This accident is very much of interest and concern to me, but that doesn't make it a notable event for an encyclopedia. This article is a news report, nothing more. Encyclopedias are written from facts, which will be weeks and months in coming for this event. At a bare minimum, an article of this sort should wait for the NTSB Factual Report, or even better the Probable Cause report. Seanfranklin (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting dual tendencies, talking generally: some people think articles about what they are interested in as overly notable, some just the opposite, equally unreasonably. I can understand the first as an obvious human failing; i still have trouble understand the causation for the second, but it's certainly present, though more common with fiction and the like. That;'s why we go not by opinions here, but what the media say,. Seems pretty obviously notable. Multi-person fatal air accidents are of general public interest, and when they occur as prominently as this, they remain notable. With respect to NOT NEWS, this is a pretty clear example of exactly the sort of news story that is not just news. I need only mention that the further implications are about the effectiveness of the US air control system in general--if it doesn't even work in this location, the implications go way beyond those for owners of such airplanes. That all the facts are not known does not mean that nothing is known. The fact that the accident happened is enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Midair collisions are inherently notable due to their rarity. The fact that it happened in such a highly populated area (and heavily trafficked corridor) makes it all the more notable. Cmprince (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to me that this event should be wrapped up with a conclusion before it is put into the AFD category. We're only halfway there, anything can happen to make it more notable or less notable, but the application to delete is IMHO premature. Meanwhile, it is very much in the news, and to not deal with it is, well, just plain silly. JohnClarknew (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several reasons. 1) It is astronomically rare for anyone to get video of a mid-air collision because such events are already extremely rare and someone had to coincidentally have a camera already on at a suitable place and time to get the video. The coverage with the video makes it notable for the unique glimpse at what happened. 2) There was news media coverage of this accident on the level with larger accidents because it took place in the dense metro area of New York City with many witnesses, making it notable via many sources. 3) The FAA is already enacting the process of review of New York airspace following the collision, making it notable from current FAA press releases. (The NY airspace modernization process had been stalled by local opposition - this event has given it forward movement again.) See "FAA Airspace Group Will Recommend Safety Improvements in New York". Any one of these is enough to dispel the rationale for the AfD. One thing I am not listing as a reason: notability is not a function of fatality count. Ikluft (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination asserts without evidence it fails to meet the WP:SNG at WP:Air/PC#Accidents_and_incidents. I believe it obviously meets that threshold. I think this accident has a special significance among aircraft accidents for several reasons: it is leading to a renewed debate on the rules for passing through the Hudson corridor; it is focusing on the lack of attention and supervision by the FAA over this area; it was a fortunate event these aircraft crashed into the river as opposed to the riverfront where the potential loss of life would have been far greater. Some of the delete rationales given above are wrong on the facts: It is definitely not a single news cycle story. Anything that needs to be changed after the final report arrives in a year or so can be edited without violating WP:CRYSTAL. patsw (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I believe it clearly does NOT meet the WP:Air/PC#Accidents_and_incidents threshold. That section states that in the event of a small airplane flight without independently notable participants (e.g. JFK Jr crash), that "it meets all of the following requirements: The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground; and The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; and The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." Clearly the third part has not yet been met. However, as pointed out elsewhere, this topic is not under WP:Air but rather WP:Aviation, which has more ambiguous requirements for notability.
I believe that the topic is not notable at this time, that it is a "News" item, and that facts are in short supply. The mainstream media is prone to speculative and sensationalist reporting of aviation accidents, particularly when they are not "encumbered by the facts" that will be contained in the NTSB Probable Cause report. I believe that the article will by necessity consist of speculation and POV issues (even if well-sourced) until after the NTSB report comes out, and I believe that the article should be shelved until that time.
That said, it's obvious that I am in the minority on that opinion, and clearly some valid points have been made in favor of keeping the article. I do agree that it's plausible that changes to procedures could result, and that this topic may well meet WP:Air/PC#Accidents_and_incidents notability requirements in the future. If the admins choose to reject the proposed deletion, I will continue to contribute and attempt to ensure that the article maintains NPOV, particularly prior to the issuance of the Probable Cause report. Seanfranklin (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I will not repeat the many arguments of others already adduced; there are numerous valid arguments give here which are in sum overwhelmingly convincing for keeping the article. -- Ishel99 (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Outside of the notability issue, its already a GA worthy article, it is well sourced, and a mid-air collision between two aircraft is certainly not something that happens hundreds of times a year. Also notable because this isn't a farm field that it crashed into, its the centre of a major metropolitan area. Even if it doesn't meet notability, keep by WP:IAR as it is certainly an informative and reliable article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deal's Gone Bad

AfDs for this article:
Deal's Gone Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE fails WP:MUSIC, and does so rather miserably. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliably third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Four albums on Jump Up! Records[54], which seems to be a notable indie label specializing in ska and has an impressive list of other bands, including The Planet Smashers, Skarface, and The Slackers. Three of their albums are reviewed on allmusic.com."
  2. I'll add Punknews.org news [55], and international (Romanian!! Jurnalul Naţional) coverage: [56]. And here's a few pay-per-view articles that mention the band, their style, and tours from Google news: Chicago Tribune [57], Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) [58], and Sarasota Herald Tribune [59]. Rafablu88 22:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator must not have read the previous AfD, or the talk page, on which multiple reliable sources were posted; Rafa's above only strengthen the deal. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Move Me

AfDs for this article:
Can't Move Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song that fails WP:NSONGS. Song was produced by a non-notable label (whose article was deleted after AfD). Song failed to chart and isn't mentioned anywhere on Billboard. move me. No significant coverage by reliable sources. Article lacks sources at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eckhard Bick

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

Delete, I can't see evidence that this person is actually notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I'm picking up hits with I search Google books or Google Scholar, which appear related to the subject at first glance. In addition, the page is a variation of the Esperanto article (which has much less information than this one). --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. GS gives top cites of 184, 70, 41, 27... with h index = 9. Could be a keep. Input from linguists would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Uncertain h-index is useless in linguistics and the other humanities. If its from Google Scholar , it does not cover the full range of material and includes lots of irrelevant ones. If from Scopus or Wos, it does not include the main medium of publication, books. In any case, these are publications mainly in Danish, and none of the three cover them more than minimally, even in the fields where they are applicable otherwise. I have no idea how to judge the notability of a writer of Esperanto-Danish dictionaries. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. High cites in an obscure subject is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julieth Tawaraya

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

Claims to have been a Miss Universe contestant, but there is no evidence to back this claim. Google only has Facebook-related hits. The speedy deletion request was removed by an anonymous IP user with only this contribution to her/his credit, hence this AfD. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE - No GHITS to support claims or any GNEWS. No evidence of Miss Universe affiliation in any manner. Article should be salted, it has been recreated numerous times by same user. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: She is not listed on this page as a contestant of the 2008 Mrs. Universe. I also tried a [Japan Google search for her with no results. I googled "Miss Japan Universe 2008" and got nothing either. Except the myspace pages of course.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1-Wire. deleting and restoring the redirect Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IButton

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

iPhone game with no third party coverage provided or found. No coverage for the redlinked Midnight Labs who makes it either.

Note: there are other apparently notable products called iButton so beware of false positives when looking for sources ThaddeusB (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • After closer examination, I notice that the article used to point to 1-Wire before being hijacked. As such, I recommend that redirect be restored if the page is deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of N + V = DEL Rafablu88 21:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to Redirect, not notable, however this article was originally a redirect to something completely unrelated which seems plausible. Rather than deleting it, it would be better to simply restore it's original valid use. --Taelus (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to Redirect: It might have been more appropriate to discuss reverting the article back into a redirect on its talk page instead of nominating it for deletion, though not as many eyeballs would see the discussion there and it would have been harder to get a consensus. The current article's subject is non-notable. Narthring (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, unfortunately I didn't notice that until after I created the AfD or I would have just reverted to redirect myself. Sorry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Second Round's on Me. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snitch (song)

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

Song fails WP:NSONGS. According to Billboard, it failed to chart on any of their charts. [60]. General lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Song was used during an episode of CSI, but I don't see that making it notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Redirect to Second Round's on Me. If sources can be added, the merge is appropriate. Otherwise, there should at least be a redirect to the album (and the CSI bit at least should be merged). Rlendog (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect until sources can be found. Only reached #44 in the UK Singles Chart, and similar positions in a few other countries. snigbrook (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give me a link to that? I'm having trouble finding reliable UK rankings. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Second Round's on Me. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Girl

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

Song fails WP:NSONGS. Even the article notes that it didn't chart well, but offers being #1 on an Aussie radio station as notability. Billboard shows the song never appeared on any of their charts. [61] Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Second Round's on Me as per the guideline:- "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song" Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1982 box office number-two films in the United States

List of 1982 box office number-two films in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary & unnecessary list; violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a place for arbitrary (and miscellaneous) lists of stuff mhking (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not only is it a list it's a useless list Jamesofur (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query not defending the article, but I'm not sure I understand any of the reasons being offered for deletion. It has a very strict scope – and would seem to me therefore to be neither arbitrary nor miscellaneous. The only argument for deletion from WP:NOT I could imagine applying here is WP:IINFO, a policy which is disputed.  Skomorokh  19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My dictionary defines "arbitrary" as "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system," which is precisely how this looks to me (that is, the list itself is arbitrary, not the process of choosing which items went on the list). Hairhorn (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I recall at least one debate on a similar list. As lists go, this is a big pile of "number-two". The problem with this and others is it is truly useless and, worse, boring trivia, presented badly with zero context. "Did you know that 'Shoot the Moon'" was second with $1.8 million during the third week of February 1982"? No, I didn't know that, so what. The obvious question is "So what was #1 that week?" The authors felt no need to mention which film outdid #2 film was the same week or how much more of a gross would have made it #1. Of course, many of these #2's moved up to #1, but the authors didn't think that was important either. One could make an equally useless a list of the 8th most popular films of each week in a particular year. This stupid idea for a list could be usefully replaced by a Top 5 for each week, where at least we'd have something that illustrates the rise and decline of film sales. Mandsford (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very arbitary, uses a single source. Not sure if its even a RS... Admrboltz (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Mandsford's suggestions. Looking at the arguments: What is meant by arbitrary?Selecting no. 2 instead of no.15, say? --to me, that appears rational, the opposite of arbitrary. . "Second best" is different from "some random rank". It seems perfectly sensible to go down one notch, though not o f course to continue indefinitely. "8th" is a straw man argument--this is for second, not eighth. I would not defend 8th, nor I think would anyone take it into their head to write it. I do not believe this is unverifiable. If no. 1 box office films can be verified, so can this. "Useless" is irrelevant as a factor, just as "useful" would be--they are equally non-reasons. Same for "boring". I am unsure Who ever said that all of the content of an encyclopedia is expected to be interesting to any one person? "trivia" is in the eye of the beholder--in this context, where it does not seem to match any of the usual meanings of that much-misused word, it seems to mean idontlikeit. I agree it's not as essential to have this list as a list of no.1s, but the criterion "essential" would only apply to an abridged encyclopedia. Whatever Wikipedia may be, it certainly is not an abridged encyclopedia. Mandsford makes some very good suggestions, though,for expanding and improving the list--I suggest he start in. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A major league Baseball player is unquestionably notable. Careless nomination,for it could easily have been verified. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Simpson

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

DELETE. Does not appear to have received any kind of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. The material sources cited within the article are actually pertaining to his son, not him. JBsupreme (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepHes a major league baseball player and the references are listed.67.33.105.219 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most egregiously dumb deletion nominations I have seen. Alex (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of you two have anything to back this up or are you going to resort to personal attacks? The "references are listed" is false as I've just indicated in my nomination. (!) JBsupreme (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How about instead of nominating it for deletion, you take the five minutes to fix the problem then? Alex (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As a professional baseball player, he easily meents guidelines for notability. One reference for this is already listed on the page. others can be found. [62] Edward321 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Edward's link above is gold, and other sources are available. I just added a Chicago Defender reference to the article. It seems that Simpson was a very well-regarded prospect at one point. By the way, can anyone access this? We could use that to cite the claim that he was "considered one of the fastest players of his day". Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - professional baseball player (as sources show) so meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 11:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doddakallahalli

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

Doesn't show notability. Poorly written. TheWeakWilled 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It barely qualifies as English text. JBsupreme (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It took less than five minutes to clean up the article, it's a verifiable location. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was very kind of you Spaceman but I don't believe this meets our guidelines for inclusion. Can we do any better than "ourvillageindia.org" ? JBsupreme (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that our general requirement for places per past precedent and consensus is that they should be verifiable and currently or previously inhabited, I believe the above source is sufficient - it's reliable and shows the population per the last census. There are a lot of other refs available online to show existence too, like that Priyanath has posted below. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places ("Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source"), and verified by sources. See also this mention in The Hindu.[63] Priyanath talk 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Priyanath. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a verifiable village (see this news item of the Chief Minister's overnight stay). However there is a basic problem: according to this document (4.2MB Word file) from the Karnataka State Literacy Mission authority the village is in Kunigal taluk of Tumkur district and as of the 2001 census had a population of 722. The OneVillageIndia website lists a different Taluk, district and population. Are we talking of two villages here, redistricting and stale information at the government website, or wrong information at OneVillageIndia(why is that RS ?) ? We need to resolve this point, since if we are going to have a one line stub, we better get that one line right! Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are two different villages, in two different Taluks in two different districts. The one at this AfD is the OneVillageIndia one in Kolar district. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 07:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too, since there are several references and databases listing each. I'll create the Doddakallahalli, Tumkur district page, and propose that the current Doddakallahalli article be moved to Doddakallahalli, Kolar district, with Doddakallahalli becoming a disambiguation page (hope that makes sense!). Of course, now its hard to tell which village the newspaper references [64], [65] were talking of! Abecedare (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your solution of a dab page is best. That was good research to find those other sources. Somewhere, sometime, it would be helpful to have a page with such resources for proving the existence of small India towns. This seems to be an increasingly recurring theme. Priyanath talk 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a hat note from the primary (Kolar district village) to the Tumkur district village. If we find a third village by the same name, we can go for a dab. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to consider the Kolar village "primary" ? If not, we should use a disambiguation page per WP:DAB: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason other than what got here first and the respective populations, the hat note was easy, so I did it. If the page is changed to a dab, then the associated links will also have to be changed; from the look of it, I can't figure out how many are template links and how many are article links (I suspect none, though). -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Village exists, so "Doesn't show notability" and "Poorly written" are irrelevant. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real place=kept. If poorly written were a criterion for deletion, perhaps all but our featured content would be up for deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry: 2 Fast and 2 Fury!

Tom and Jerry: 2 Fast and 2 Fury! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-sourced; violates WP:CRYSTAL mhking (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted as Little House on the Prairie TV series facts Tone 17:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little house on the prairie TV series facts

Little house on the prairie TV series facts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random fact pages have no place on Wikipedia. Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was deleted before Tone 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vroom Foods

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM. Was speedied deleted twice, once as a SPAM redirect and once as article-Spam under WP:CSD#G11. Was origionally Spam article Vroom Foods, Inc., also proded and deleted as WP:CSD#G11 SPAM advertising. This recreation not only fails WP:CORP, it seems to be a "place -holder" for recent (twice deleted) and Community AFD'd article Buzz Bites. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia;

Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Both because the article itself appears to just be ad spam as well as the fact it appears to be trying to work around the old AfD discussion, Buzz Bites even redirects to it now. Jamesofur (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW J.delanoygabsadds 19:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naht

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

Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary (AfD'ed due to ProD removal) WuhWuzDat 16:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diploma mills in the United States. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oreo Collins

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

Non notable cat; despite news stories violates WP:NOTNEWS & WP:N mhking (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE. This is no Sockington. This is just an entity which happened to receive trivial coverage as part of a larger story about how shameless diploma mills are these days. JBsupreme (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect: It's an amusing story that I enjoyed, the cat has a most wonderful name but, the cat does not really seem notable to me. TallMagic (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Actually rather than deleting the article altogether, I propose a redirect to Diploma mills in the United States where Oreo Collins is referenced. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect/Delete: TallMagic took the words right out of my mouth. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Colby Nolan. Colby Nolan seems to have been the best known cat to have been awarded a diploma mill credential due to an owner's submission of an application. The Oreo Collins case is one of several copycat incidents (yes, I had to say copycat!), two others of which are now documented in the Colby Nolan article. It is most reasonable to discuss the Oreo Collins case on the context of the Colby Nolan story (and it's more satisfying to group Oreo's story with the stories of other cats). --Orlady (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But since Oreo is only related to Colby in similarity of theme, might it make more sense to redirect both to some new topic (Diplo-cats!) (Oh, okay, feline diploma mill graduates)?? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears to me that Colby Nolan is arguably more notable than Oreo Collins because the fact that Colby received two degrees from Trinity Southern University apparently was a major piece of evidence in the legal actions that ultimately shut that diploma mill down. Trinity Southern University is a redirect to Colby Nolan, apparently because of someone's judgment that the cat is more notable than the diploma mill that gave the cat those degrees. In contrast, all we have regarding Oreo Collins are some cute news stories. (If Oreo's diploma becomes a major factor in shutting down Jefferson High School Online, then the cat's notability may need to be reconsidered.) --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm certainly not trying to argue that Oreo is as notable as Colby; merely that if Colby's article becomes a list of degreed cats, even if Colby is the most notable one, it may make be more logical for the article to be under some sort of degreed cat title, and have Colby, Oreo, and any other degreed cat mentioned point to that page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vinylz

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

DELETE this record producer/songwriter is not notable and has not received anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. It is doubly troubling that the article was created and is being maintained by a WP:SPA account, Vinylzmusic (talk · contribs) -- suggesting that this is a vanity page of sorts. JBsupreme (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foosh Energy Mints

Foosh Energy Mints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM, . Was speedied deleted three times, once as WP:CSD#A7 and two times as WP:CSD#G11 SPAM advertising. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mulamoottil

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

I haven't been able to find any reliable source references to show notability for this family. I checked with an editor with Wikiproject Kerala and no luck, so we both decided to get it to AfD. The claims of going back as far as 52AD etc is entirely unsourced. Also, I couldn't find any reference for the book mentioned in the sources section. Although there are people by this name, all online mentions for the family are Wikipedia mirrors, and a lot of them have picked up this article. Delete -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While there are people with this family name, there are no indications that the family itself is notable or that the article is accurate. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The family name lacks sources indicating notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a co-proposer to this afd. Agree with Spaceman for his deletion rationale. Salih (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability for a Wikipedia article is not shown. Priyanath talk 03:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Kabul front, 2001)

Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Kabul front, 2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I searched for addition sources to verify the information in the article. The current sourcing for this article is one primary source. (I could not retrieve it for some reason, but will assume that the article accurately relates what the document says.) I found zero reliable secondary sources that discuss this person in passing or in depth. According to the notability guideline for people the basic criteria is that a person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. We do not have that in this article. All we have is a single primary source that mentions this common name in passing. Again from the notability guideline for people the basic criteria goes on to say, primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. At this point we have nothing to establish notability according to wikipedia guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but rename, The New York Times never wrote a "secondary source" article sufficient to support a biography on a Viet Cong commander, but if primary sources were sufficient to write one...I think it would be well-earned to stay on WP. Although the current name for this article is burdensome, it should be changed. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I question how well the nominator actually searched for possible hits on the Taliban leader's name, since a simple google search for "Abdul-Salaam + Taliban" turns up "The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, William Wood, on January 13 met with Mullah Abdul Salaam, the former Taliban commander who recently defected"[66], ". Other Taliban leaders have since plotted to assassinate Mullah Salaam. "Mullah Abdul Salaam is very influential""[67], and "the government side of Mullah Abdul Salaam, a key Taliban commander"[68]; from the Times, Telegraph and many other notable news sites. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched and could not identify for certain that any of the hits that came up were this person. That is the problem with this article. The information is not verifiable except for one primary source. There is no way to take that one primary source and produce an article that complies with the notability guidelines because the name is so common. --A new name 2008 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Salaam, the ex-Taliban commander in Kabul who defected to American forces is absolutely notable, and the subject of many news stories. You can argue that you think there are two notable "Abdul Salaam, Taliban commanders in Kabul", but I think you're straining credibility. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adding the references above, and stating the possible ambiguity. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield massacre

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

Unsourced article on a provably nn workplace shooting in Massachusetts in 2000. Google shows three hits for the title (one is this article), and the article has copvio taken from either here or here. This wasn't notable outside of the standard three-day media blitz (Google News shows this; the event was 12/26/00, and after 12/30/00, there was nothing except the jury selection note and trial outcome. As a matter of fact, this hit pretty much shows how non-notable it was at the time and place it happened. MSJapan (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm afraid I'm not one of the Wikipedians who increasingly equate "no inline sources" with "unsourced." As it happens, a simple Google News search for "Michael McDermott" + "Wakefield" returns a whopping 387 hits [69], and despite nom's assertion that there are no hits after December of 2000, EVERY hit on the first page of that search is after that date, and over a stretch of three years, not three days. (This search, by the bye, took me all of thirty seconds.) The sources include the Los Angeles Times, Boston Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, Boston Globe, San Diego Union, Christian Science Monitor ... The G-News hits continue through 2004 (Boston Herald, Chicago Sun-Times), 2005 (Stoneham Sun, Boston Globe) ... even a 60 Minutes piece referencing it in 2007. Notability is not temporary, but this hasn't left the public eye. And ... quite aside from anything else, I'm quite bewildered at the nom's assertion that a judge popping off about the media coverage on the case "pretty much shows" anything at all - let alone notability or the lack thereof - other than that the judge needed a better handle on his temper.  RGTraynor  21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if there are no sources cited in the article, there are plenty out there that could be used, so this can't be a reason to delete it. Tagging it with refimprove would be enough. And that the incident is not notable simply isn't true. It made international headlines, got quite intensive national media coverage and it is still cited as an example of a failed insanity defense. And yes, it was called "Wakefield massacre" by the media, especially the Boston Herald used this term numerous times. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Come to that, there are two hits in May of this year; the article Lord Gon links also cites this case as the worst case of workplace violence in Massachusetts history [70]. Finally, I wonder exactly what the nom's methodology was in declaring only three Google hits. "Wakefield Massacre" on Google News - a good bit stricter than the regular web search - returns 54 hits.  RGTraynor  09:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In fact, there are over 6700 Google hits for the search "Michael Mcdermott"+"Wakefield MA", the article has +/- 1000 hits per month, and the first link offered as proof of a copyright violation for the article [[71] is in fact cited "This article is from Wikipedia licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wakefield Massacre"." The other link is dead at the time I'm writing this. It meets notability, it needs cleaned up, expanded, and inline citations and more references added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but more sources should be added; it seems they are available. DGG ( talk ) 08:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's been several days since this article was nominated, and in that time not one source has been added to the article. This really irks me ... Please, if you are going to vote to "Keep" an unsourced article because there are sources out there, then it should be incombant on you to fix the problem by actually adding some of those sources. Thank you... rant over. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which exhortation would have gone over better had you added any yourself.  RGTraynor  22:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will rewrite the whole article, though it will take me at least a week before it's done. Until then, I'll simply add some links to a few newspaper articles, which hopefully will quell those complaining about the lack of sources.(Lord Gøn (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment It had actually been nominated less than 48 hours before your rant and keep or delete is not incumbent upon the article being improved. Most of those comments were made in response to the claim the event was a flash in the pan non-notable event. As RGTraynor said, it would go over better if you'd bothered to add something. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an article for every other shooting spree in existence, this one just needs to be written and referenced better. 99.231.130.188 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Lamm

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

This article's subject does not appear to be notable. A google search for "Larry Lamm", Mcdonnell minus a sample fragment from the article ("was the American who instructed the first class of French Nationals") to remove wiki mirrors yields seven results, one of which is wapedia.

The article's originator has the raw text of this article as their user page, and has only ever edited this article. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete poorly written as well. If this guy was notable, there would be at least 1 reference. TheWeakWilled 18:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Road to New Hope

The Road to New Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a book, but has no sources and doesn't meet the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (books). The article had been PRODed but was contested, so I am bringing it to AfD instead. AJR | Talk 15:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I also looked through the book's website but was unable to find anything to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete a self-published book by a non-notable author, George Curcio. Undoubtedly a piece of self-interested promotion, see Special:Contributions/Georgecff. The is a G-11 delete, and it is similar to an A-9 which is for music, in that it does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist. --Bejnar (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted, it is self-published—I don't consider that an absolute bar. If a book is self-published then gets noticed,reviewed and discussed, it becoems notable. Maybe that will happen, but I did not find a single legitimate review. There's no evidence cited that this book is generating any discussion, and I did't find any when I looked. --SPhilbrickT 19:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tuplet. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrational rhythm

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

Information already covered in the more-likely-to-be-searched-for Tuplet. Georgia guy (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Easy decision. Put one in the other or vice versa. Tuplet seems the more encyclopaedic, so move all the info not already covered there from this article. Rafablu88 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree it is an easy decision, the topics are identical under different names. However, I disagree on the direction of merge, for two reasons.
    • First, "Irrational rhythm" is by far the most highly developed article (several times the size of "Tuplet").
    • Second, I disagree that "tuplet" is more likely to be searched, since it is an informal (and grammatically incorrect) term, and therefore less encyclopaedic, than "Irrational rhythm". The main suffix (as found in the OED) is "-tuple", rather than "-tuplet", and occurs "With preceding algebraic symbol", as in "n-tuplet", where n represents an integer or other, more complex expression. The forms are, for example, "8-tuplet", "9-tuplet", etc., pronounced "eight-tuplet", "nine-tuplet", etc. While these quasi-mathematical forms are occasionally heard, especially for numbers larger than nine (I cannot recall ever hearing "three-tuplet" or "eight-tuplet", for example), the traditional and usual musical terms, derived from Latin, have stems followed not by "-tuplet" but by "-(up)let", which is why we have "triplet" rather than "triplatuplet", "quadruplet" rather than "quadratuplet", "nonuplet", "decuplet", and "undecuplet" rather than "nontuplet", "dectuplet", and "undectuplet". These usual forms are not currently explained in the "Tuplet" article, where the further inaccuracies "Previously, there was no general term for these individual tuplets" (previously to when? "Irrational rhythms" are found in the literature from before the middle of the 19th century, whereas the "tuplet" terminology only emerges … when?The OED does not acknowledge the musical borrowing at all, though it is my impression that it was not used before the 1960s), and "the alternative modern term of 'irrational rhythm' is a misnomer" (only a misnomer if the mathematical definition is assumed; the term has been in general musical use, as well as in Classical prosody, for over a century, to describe "a syllable having a metrical value not corresponding to its actual time-value, or of a metrical foot containing such a syllable", or any rhythmic "relation which cannot be measured by the [common counting] unit", according to the OED). These positions would be less awkward to explain in the context of "Irrational rhythm" than "Tuplet".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The merge direction doesn't really matter (but nice argument anyway). We can just rename the page if need be. My main worry is that we end up deleting this abruptly and lose info. Rafablu88 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Is there such a thing as an 8-tuplet in music?? The sequence of fractions of a beat, as defined in x/4 time signatures, is:
  • Quarter note
  • 2 eighth notes
  • 3 eighth note triplets
  • 4 sixteenth notes
  • 5 sixteenth quintuplets
  • 6 sixteenth sextuplets
  • 7 sixteenth septuplets
  • 8 thirty-second notes (no tuplet here)

Note that the above sequence can be converted to a similar sequence in x/2 or x/8 time signatures by changing the note names appropriately (e.g. in the x/2 time signatures it starts half note, 2 quarter notes, 3 quarter note triplets.)

So how is an "8-tuplet" valid?? Any different sequence that features such a thing?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard the term "eight-tuplet", as I said above, and even the normal term "octuplet" is rare in this context, since it is one of the ordinary subdivisions of the beat in simple meters. However, as with the related terms "duplet" and "quadruplet", octuplets may occur in compound meters, such as 6/8 or, more especially 9/8. Duplets replace the ordinary threefold primary subdivisions of the beat in these meters (eighth notes), and quadruplets replace the sixfold secondary level of subdivision (sixteenth notes). In 9/8 time, a change to division of the entire bar into eight parts would be called "octuplets" (never "eight-tuplets", in my experience).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, with 9/8, the eighth note is the beat, and so a division of the beat would be 2 sixteenth notes. What's the difference between what this sentence says and what you mean when you talk about duplets?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not correct. In 9/8 meter the dotted quarter is the beat, so the primary division of the beat is at the eighth-note level. Duplets in this context divide the beat into halves instead of the normal thirds, so the result looks like ordinary 3/4 time, which is easier on the eye than the alternative of writing strings of dotted eight notes. The secondary level of subdivision in 9/8 time is the sixteenth note, and there are six per beat. Quadruplets dividing the beat into four equal parts (the equivalent of sixteenth notes in 3/4 time) may be viewed either with respect to the primary subdivision, in which case they replace three original units with four, or with respect to the secondary subdivisions, in which case they replace six with four (which could alternatively be written as twelve dotted-sixteenths to the bar, but this would be eye-splitting). The notational convention for duplets, quadruplets, etc. is to regard them as "reverting" to simple time, so that the beat is divided into eighth-note duplets or sixteenth-note quadruplets in 9/8 time—therefore fewer occurrences of a note value than in the normal metrical divisions. This is opposite to the normal procedure for triplets, quintuplets, etc., where extra units are crowded into the normal space: three eighth-note triplets in the place of two eighth notes, seven sixteenth-note septuplets in place of four sixteenths, and so on. The example I gave, however, is more complicated, since it supposes an entire bar of 9/8 meter will be temporarily divided into what amounts to 4/4 time. As a result, in order to avoid using octuplet notation, each of the three beats of 9/8 would have to be divided at the tertiary level of thirty-second notes, in order that each of the eight equal divisions of the bar could be represented by a dotted thirty-second. However, at this level the only note that would fall on the original beats (three to a bar) would be the downbeat of each bar, and the speed of the subdivisions would be far beyond human capability to count. This is one reason why these proportional divisions (including the simpler examples) are called "irrational".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In such cases, a cleanup is needed, not deletion. Clearly encyclopaedic topic. Tone 13:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uttara kalamrita

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

This could be an encyclopedic topic, but it is not written as a properly intelligible article at present. But this being a somewhat expert topic, proper investigation is needed. Previously deleted for copyvio, the talk page says this is an ancient text, so out of copyright. Splash - tk 15:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please find reference Kepler.edu (kepler college newsletter) includes uttara kalamrita as ancient text for vedic astrology.

Contemporary forms of vedic astrology

The above article describes various manuscripts (books) on vedic astrology including uttara kalamrita. The text in the referenced article also uses sanskrit terms like guru because these have no equivalent in the English Language, Jyotisha is also a sanskrit term.

The article uses sanskrit terms (since it is vedic astrology, India) and may not be easily understood by people not knowing the basics of vedic astrology. However it would be of interest and a valuable source of reference to people knowing or wanting to know about Vedic Astrology.Astrosutraindia (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also find the various editions of books published based on this ancient manuscript however these are only translations of the original 17th/18th century manuscript and no copyright holds on the original manuscript.

Google Books Listing Astrosutraindia (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The book is notable, the article is in need of editing, but that's no reason to delete. I was the one that tagged the earlier one as G12, but this version is significantly different. Clean up and wikify tags should suffice. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be a notable work. I tagged, categorised, and wikified at least the intro. The following sections get too deep in the weeds, and it's not clear what the lengthy list of references is actually proving, but it certainly seems a valid contribution to Category:Hindu astrology. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthy list of reference is used in astrological predictions. As an example mercury is the significator for speech, communication, intellect etc. and the position and placement of mercury in conjunction with other factors in a horoscope determines the persons disposition and interest in these areas. 123.236.53.221 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, book exists and is notable. (Ah, finally I know what the astronomy text attributed to Kalidasa is!) Shreevatsa (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Korn's ninth studio album

AfDs for this article:
Korn's ninth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a reasonably well sourced article about an album that is already in production. Previously tagged with an invalid G4 by the nominator, and hasn't been properly AFD tagged in the article.--Michig (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I was kind of hoping that someone would fix it if they noticed it since I have no other choice besides to do it that way because subst:afdx links to the 2nd nomination. Also, I don't have the ability to view past versions. Bringing that stuff up is irrelevant. Joe Chill (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination, album fails WP:CRYSTAL just as it has in the previous two nominations! Large trout to Michig for pointing out that the AFD was broken without actually helping fix it. (It has since been fixed.) JBsupreme (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article should be at AFD in the first place. Credit to JBsupreme for doing something constructive.--Michig (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think the article should be at AFD in the first place." That really is no excuse to complain about the AFD being wrong without fixing it or trying to fix it. Joe Chill (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not an excuse to bring up the invalid csd-g4 when you know that I'm not an admin. 16:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Where did I complain about it being wrong? I merely pointed out that the nomination had not been completed properly. Your not being an admin meant that you could not see for yourself whether this version was substantially identical to the previously-deleted version, but you tagged it anyway even though you had not yet had a reply to the question you raised regarding this at WP:ANI. Stop looking for an argument in every edit, it's becoming very disruptive.--Michig (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin that declined his speedy tag, I have to say I don't have a problem with people G4 tagging articles like this where they have a reasonable suspicion that the article is a recreation of deleted material. A G4 tag is a request for admin attention, and it's up to the reviewing admin, with access to deleted revisions, to make the call. It was a perfectly valid use of a G4 tag, it just happened that the article was in fact substantially different. ~ mazca talk 16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, a G4 tag is a request for speedy deletion, not admin attention. Some admins would have taken the opportunity to delete the article simply because previous articles on the same subject have been deleted, so I'm grateful that you beat those admins to it. If there aren't better ways for editors to flag up articles that possibly need an admin to look at them than tagging them for speedy deletion, there certainly should be.--Michig (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you were looking for an argument because you mentioned something that didn't need to be mentioned. You didn't need to whine about my mistake if you weren't planning on trying to fix it Why couldn't you just !vote keep instead of bringing up irrelevent stuff? Bringing that up was disruptive. The only reason why you're calling me disruptive is because I disagree with you. Heck, you even told me to go away one time because you said that I was a troll. Here is your complaint: "Previously tagged with an invalid G4 by the nominator, and hasn't been properly AFD tagged in the article". If you have a problem with something being wrong and you won't try to fix it, don't bring it up because it sounds like you're trying to make a point. I still didn't get an apology for that whole troll incident. Joe Chill (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q.E.D.--Michig (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which was to be demonstrated" Do you honestly want me to post the revisions? Joe Chill (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from talk page: "You are not welcome here. Go away" And I'm the troll? Joe Chill (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should think it's pointless and unconstructive to delete this at this stage. Korn aren't exactly a pub band, and it's not as if the album won't ever be released; there are real sources, and there's real notability here. I can see some potential benefits in a merge to Korn, but whichever way this goes, it should be some variant of keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it's true that a lot of articles about unnamed future albums are gratuitous WP:CRYSTAL violations; this one seems okay. It deals principally in verifiable facts supported by reliable sources; and there seems to be a fairly good pile of usable, encyclopedic information available - enough to warrant a separate article rather than a paragraph in Korn. WP:CRYSTAL primarily refers to excessive and/or unverifiable speculation - this does not seem to be either. ~ mazca talk 16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER, or possibly speedy delete g4 (compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korn's ninth studio album (2nd nomination) (deleting this article) with WP:RECREATE (setting conditions for recreation)).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be deleted for recreation. Because The 2nd nomination was September 10th 2008, so the amount of information had obviously been increased, and is now an actual article, plus the article was going to recreated when more info became available no matter what. Just saying. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Citing WP:HAMMER is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? It's not an actual policy, so citing it for the deletion is completely invalid; especially in this case. Production for this album has started, the headman already has conceived and publicly explained what he plans to do lyrically, they've evidently already finished two or three songs, while having potentially 15 or 16 rough concepts for songs. The fact that a title hasn't been announced, therefore, is irrelevant; the article should stay solely on the content it does have, not because of the content it doesn't. The Guy (edits) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further comment - Also, as a note, WP:NALBUMS generally supports keeping this article: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." That's saying, in other words, unreleased albums with bad sourcing are generally not notable. It also says, for that matter, that generally if the artist is notable, then so is the album; and also that the album may still be notable, despite being unreleased, if it's got good sourcing. This album is both by an artist considered widely notable, and has sufficient independent sourcing to imply its notability. Therefore, this article is simply supported by the two guidelines you cited. The Guy (edits) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citing an essay is quite normal at AfD, and is taken to mean that the citing user agrees with the reasoning in the essay. It's a shortcut to avoid re-typing a lot of material. Even though I disagree with Simon Dodd in this case, I think he should not be admonished for citing an essay in his answer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As S Marshall says, linking to a page as a shorthand is not forbidden at AFD. But I agree that policy doesn't support the deletion talked about in WP:HAMMER here. There are multiple sources discussing this subject, from which an in-depth article can clearly be constructed. The fact that the verifiable content that can be constructed doesn't match some arbitrary pattern doesn't warrant deletion. Like Britney Spears' fifth studio album (AfD discussion) this is a demonstration of why when all one has is a WP:HAMMER often too many things look like nails. (A careful reading of WP:HAMMER shows that it itself doesn't actually support the blanket deletion of all "X's Nth studio album" articles. Ironically, a blanket application is a misapplication of the essay.) Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not only is it fine to cite an essay as persuasive authority, as S Marshall and Uncle G point out, HAMMERTIME is extremely widely-cited at AFD, see [72]. As to NALBUMS, you are quoting it only in part. You concede that it says "unreleased albums are in general not notable." It goes on to underline, however, that "[i]n a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it ... [but] this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects." Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis: if we know that unreleased albums are generally not notable, but that some very rare, special cases are, we can be sure that in the mine run of cases, unreleased albums are not notable. This album is not "special" or "exceptionally high profile"; certainly not in the sense that Chinese Democracy (the given example) was, perpetually on hold, and no one has offered any reason to believe that it is. NALBUMS tells us that "[s]eparate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." I don't think there is sufficient reliably sourced information to clear that hurdle; the soundest basis for your position is to argue that there is sufficient material, and that is a respectable enough position - but a far cry from erroneously claiming, as you do, that "WP:NALBUMS generally supports keeping this article." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just want to set it straight that I wasn't trying to admonish Simon Dodd for linking to an essay (as I know that is allowed), but I was simply trying to point out that that particular essay seems to hold no authority in this specific case. As for WP:NALBUMS, you're right; I didn't quote it entirely (I skimmed and must have missed the later mention of pre-album notability. Sorry). That does seem pretty solid, however, it just seems like another blanket ban to me ("if it doesn't live up to X standard, it's gotta go"). This article is certainly too large to fit in a section on another article, but according to that policy it would seem to be too small for its own article, so where does it belong, then? I think we need to define "sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information". On a different note, we should also define "exceptionally high profile" and "special;" these are again, things the policy leaves its editors to make a consensus on case-to-case. I've seen plenty of pre-release articles that aren't exceptionally high-profile, but they have gotten to stay because they have a plethora of good information. It just seems absurd to me that this can't have its own article when we can pull up a bunch of relevant information on it. The Guy (edits) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content here now is not identical to the content deleted in September 2008. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the article was previously deleted in September 2008 and now cites eleven sources, at least ten of which are from 2009, there is no way that this could possibly be deletable as a G4.--Michig (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I often nominate articles for this same reason, this article shows a great amount of information about the album. There is no name or track list released, but there is a lot of information about the styles and lyrical themes of this album. I could understand this being an AFD if there was little to no context, or if it was confirming that there was going to be a 9th SA, but this article goes much more in depth. TheWeakWilled 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also looking back at Chinese Democracy the early versions had not much more than what this article has (except a title). Yes I know, otherstuffexists, but just bring up that as a point. TheWeakWilled 17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HAMMER etc etc etc Not enough info yet. Wait a bit longer. Rafablu88 17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not everything is a nail. This article isn't. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- seems to meet exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Umbralcorax (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is well-sourced, and is validly potentially start- or C-class. As I stated in my above comment, album is moving along nicely; they have 15 or 16 rough songs, with 2 or 3 finished songs; the lyrical themes have already been explained (and sourced); a rough release date has been given. To top it all, the band has announced its method for recording. It's very well-sourced, well-documented, and well-organized. The sourcing clearly prevents it from violating WP:CRYSTAL: the article simply states what its sources do, it never strays from that, so Wikipedia is not predicting the future, although the sources might be. However, I believe WP:CRYSTAL states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; while it says nothing about sources. As for WP:HAMMER, again, the information available regarding the production and the themes and the release of this album completely render WP:HAMMER irrelevant; whether or not the album has a title does not directly limit or enhance content, and should therefore not restrict content allowed here. That's all. Keep; it's well-sourced, and it's not violating anything. The Guy (edits) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some reliable sources, some of them aren't. No track list, no release date. Fails WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL (again). Niteshift36 (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL. Nor, indeed, does it "fail" WP:HAMMER (which doesn't actually set out the rule that you think it does). I suggest a careful reading of both, paying attention to what the former says about verifiability and original research and to what the latter does not say about blanket rules. "No track list, no release date." is not a rationale supported by any policy, from WP:CRYSTAL to Wikipedia:deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it does fail CRYSTAL. And I know that HAMMER is an essay, but I don't care if HAMMER is a policy or an essay, this fails it and citing this as failing it is simply a shortcut to avoid a lot of extensive typing. Of course you know it's a shortcut and are just being disruptive and argumentative. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: No, it does not fail WP:CRYSTAL. So far, the production of the album is well-documented, and we don't predict anything the sources don't. We're perfectly in-line with WP:CRYSTAL. The Guy (edits) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course you know it's a shortcut and are just being disruptive and argumentative. — I said nothing about shortcuts there, as you can see by actually reading what is written. I encouraged you to read the policy and the essays that you are citing, because they don't actually say what you obviously think them to say. I encourage you a second time, repeating the enouragement that you are given below by another editor, to familiarize yourself with what WP:CRYSTAL policy actually is, and what it is aimed at, and what rule of thumb WP:HAMMER in fact sets out. Again, your "no track list, no release date" rationale is supported by neither one, nor is it supported by deletion policy or any other policy. Please actually read and familiarize yourself with both what policies actually say and what is actually written in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources people. It isn't WP:Crystal if it backed up with reliable sources. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 16:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The editors arguing for delete have failed to take the time to actually read WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Sadly, they appear not even to have read as far as the third sentence of either page. For the policy, we'll note "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." That's what this article does. --JayHenry (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even more sadly, you can't accept that people disagree with you without making assumptions about how much they've read. There is no title. There is no planned release date. There is no track list. There is a promise that there will be an ablum called something, with some yet to be determined songs on it as some future date. And that is all your sources are reporting....something they can't name, containing something they don't know and arriving at some point they can't specify. That's a lot of unknowns to be in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are confirming my assertion. I am not assuming you have failed to read them, I am observing that you have failed to read them. I obviously agree that there is no planned release date, title and no track list. But if you would successfully read the links for WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL, you would see that neither has those as any sort of necessary or sufficient condition for the article to be deleted. For CRYSTAL, the actual policy, your arguments are not even relevant. You seem to claim that we "disagree" whether or not your arguments are grounded in the essay. True enough. This is the same sort of disagreement where I say the sky is full of air and you say the sky is full of spidermonkeys. It's true that we disagree, but you would also be empirically incorrect. --JayHenry (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you aren't as correct as you think you are. Unfortunately, you have displayed such an inordinate amount of arrogance and self-delusion that it is clear that further discussion with you is absolutely pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The issue here is that Crystal says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced" and Hammer says "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known." You can call me arrogant, if you like, but why not instead address that the text of the pages you're citing in your argument do not support your argument and in fact support the views of those with whom you disagree? Or, just more simply, what is unreferenced? --JayHenry (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm finding Niteshift36's arguments quite entertaining. His argument is so solid that he doesn't have to elaborate upon it at all for it to be true, and this JayHenry comes and tries to explain supposed faults, giving examples and a well-supported argument, and so he's the arrogant one. Because he explained the faults. Hahhhh. Niteshift36, get over yourself. JayHenry has dismantled your assertions legitimately, and he might have been wrong in assuming you didn't read your cited arguments, and he might have offended you. Fair enough. However, it is obvious that you haven't understood what you've read. Hammer's Law does indeed say "If the name of a future album is not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from Wikipedia." That's fair enough; however, you might as well cite that one sentence, and not the entire essay. Further, the essay continues, "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known. But if all you can do is look into a crystal ball or base your information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs or MySpace, then it's best not to create a page on the album until it's at least within a week or two of release." Nothing about it being absolutely necessary to delete a page if it has no title, track listing, or release date. Therefore, your rationale is not supported by that essay: It cites that there can be exceptions, you do not. The crystal ball, now, is something you have a completely wrong idea about. You say, "[...]that is all your sources are reporting....something they can't name, containing something they don't know and arriving at some point they can't specify. That's a lot of unknowns to be in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia." That is, again, your own agenda, not one supported by any of your cited arguments. We are not looking into the crystal ball to predict anything. These are unknowns you yourself are creating of thin air: does the article attempt to answer them? No, it doesn't. The article uses verifiable information to detail the production (thus far) and the revealed themes of an in-process project. Nowhere does our friendly crystal ball policy say "if too many things that are standard are unknown about an album, then an article shouldn't be there." It says, basically, if all we can do is predict things with unreliable sources, then the article shouldn't be there. We are not doing that. Should we rename the article "Production of Korn's ninth studio album" until we get what you desire? No, I don't think so. Bottom line, there is too much information for it to be anywhere else but in its own relevant article. Just because your own delusional standards don't support that idea, it doesn't mean we delete the page. By your standards, if we have a really well-documented album complete with a complete Production section, a complete Themes section, a complete Personnel section, a complete Reception section, etc, etc, it should still be deleted if it doesn't have three things: a title, a track listing, and a release date. How absurd is that? Really, completely. As JayHenry said, please re-examine these arguments of yours, factoring in the exceptions this time; which you've thus far failed to note. The Guy (edits) 20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think theres enough decent information for a keep. The album will be out soon aswell. Portillo (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should wait until the album comes out (and has a title) before we publish an article about it here. In this encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that could be the case if the article was just a couple sentences, saying nothing more then the album is going to be released, but this article has a lot more information then that, (it has much more information then other korn album articles.) What I'm saying is: if it's well sourced, and has a good amount of useful information, the fact that it has no tittle [yet] really shouldn't be that much of an issue. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article is notable, contains reliable sources and doesnt contain any crystal balling. As simple as that.... Roger Workman (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator

China Association for Science and Technology

AfDs for this article:
China Association for Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organisation fails to meet WP:N, having only self links. Initial searches provide no additional evidence of notability, with mentions in passing at most, and the article is unlikely to be improved.

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

Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Science and Rationalists' Association of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tarksheel Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irish Skeptics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indian Rationalist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sociedade da Terra Redonda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Artw (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. These organizations appear to be unrelated. I think they need to be evaluated on an individual basis, not to be lumped together like this. — Rankiri (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fair point - CAST is actually a bit of an odd man out there. I'll seperate the others out into their own AfD. Artw (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And in fact the news archive search is throwing uop much better results for CAST than the straight google news search, so I will be withrawing the nomination.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Properties LTD

London Properties LTD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Top 1% by volume in most business endeavours would be a reasonable indication of notability, so I declined the A7 speedy on this. However, the article may just be puffed-up statistics, so is best considered at AfD. Clearly it would need a move to fix capitalisation if it were kept. Splash - tk 14:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. According to Global Duns Market Identifiers, April 28, 2009, their total 2008 sales were only $510,000 (presumably in thousands?) and they have 8 employees. According to the FresnoBee.com News Blog of January 20, 2009, they have slightly under 500 agents. --Bejnar (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Muswellbrook

List of mayors of Muswellbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged A7, but I do not think that is applicable toa list of holders of an office that may itself be notable. The article though is rather thin, and should be considered by AfD as a result. Splash - tk 14:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a list of mayors of a predominantly rural Australian Local Government Area that has a population of only ~16,000. There may be an argument to include the list of mayors in Muswellbrook Shire Council so I've done this,[73] but the area and the individuals listed aren't notable enough, nor is there enough content, to justify a separate article. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Enough with the stupid lists already. JBsupreme (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't list everything that can be listed regardless of significance. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The proper place for it is where AussieLegend moved it. As this was a merge, it need not even have come here. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nahte Thurston

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

There are very robust assertions of notability here, specifically that this athlete has played professionally for world-class teams such as Perpignan and Crusaders, but that is quite impressive since the chap in question is only thirteen years old and operating under a pseudonym. Google did not help to verify this chap's existence, and I suspect much of the infobox content is copypasta from a pro.  Skomorokh  14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Secret Show episodes

List of The Secret Show episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, many errors in style PhillieLWillie(Talk) 14:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article has no sources, is terribly written, and sounds more like its advertising the show where it should be describing the episode. Delete and rewrite. PhillieLWillie(Talk) 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not blame me for any of the problems with this article, all I did was create it and add a few brief episode descriptions, which was two years ago. I never edited it beyond that. Nickelodeonfan2007 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about being blamed. You were only notified because you created the page. PhillieLWillie(Talk) 00:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried to save this article by throwing every cleanup tag on it, but it's clear that it's a rewrite or die situation, and the POV is so slanted that I wonder if the text was taken from another site. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. During the course of this AfD, the album title was announced, and the album itself has been covered in several reliable sources, thus disqualifying it from being labeled as WP:CRYSTAL. Toward the end of the discussion, apparently a couple of editors still held the opinion that it was too speculative for inclusion. However, there was no consensus to delete and those who favored keeping the article had stronger arguments and showed that there was coverage in reliable sources. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 14:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled seventh Weezer album

Untitled seventh Weezer album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMERTIME.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) The ground has shifted under this nomination because the title and release date of the album have been confirmed by reliable sources (e.g. [74][75]) and the article has been changed to reflect these developments. Since the basis for my earlier delete vote has evaporated, I am accordingly changing my !vote to keep.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Simon Dodd. Rafablu88 17:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:NALBUMS vio. No title yet. Any info here can be, and is, easily presented in the artist's article. talkingbirds 17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep tracks are confirmed, and everything seems to be cited. All that is needed is the name and additional tracks/lengths. Even the release date is stated. TheWeakWilled 18:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep again, like the case of In Rainbows mentioned in WP:HAMMER, there's sufficient source information on the release date and other things about this album. The only things that haven't been announced is the title and the actual track listing. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There isn't a lot of sourced information, and the tracklisting is anything but at this stage, but given that a release date has been announced which is only ten weeks away and that there already exists some coverage of the album, I don't see a benefit from deleting this, as there will be certainly be more and more coverage before long.--Michig (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can create a proper article once said coverage exists, there is no deadline here. JBsupreme (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER. Release date by one (semi) reliable source. Only a partial track list. General lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Just removed several unreliable or SPS sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You want significant coverage from reliable sources? here's an articles from MTV, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork Media and NME. All reliable sources. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And those just say untitled album.......no track listing, like we said. I wish Ten Pound Hammer would get around to writing WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is half of Wikipedia IS a fansite of some sort, especially catering to the late night Cartoon Network crowd. We must have a hundred articles on seiyus which fail WP:BLP miserably. JBsupreme (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You guys should look at Korn's ninth studio album's AFD. There are many vaild points up there. A release date is out there, and sooner or later the title is going to be released or leaked. Simply deleting this article and recreating it days or weeks later is pointless. The album is confirmed and sourced by many reliable sources. If an article only had the title and tracklist confirmed, but no release date, nothing about production, and nothing about lyrics, would you keep it? Things stated on this article are just as important as a title and tracklist. TheWeakWilled 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that one out so I couold express why I think it should be deleted too. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. TheWeakWilled 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that Korn doesn't have a release date, and merely says that it's coming out eventually. That one I can see myself voting Delete on. Remember, I only voted Weak Keep on this AfD, as my big holdback from a regular or strong keep is the lack of a title and tracklisting. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this AFD started, we've gotten both a title and lead single from this album. --Guess Who (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a primary source.....and you've decided to change the title while the AfD is in progress. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. --Guess Who (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course you don't. Why should rules and policies apply to you? They're only for other people. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article now has reliable sources, and an official name. It wont be long it's start getting coverage in reliable third party sources, as the band is very notable. Suede67 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When we know more about the album we can make an article about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As predicted, we now have both a title and a release date, and several examples of (at least semi-)significant coverage from Clash magazine, MTV, and NME. The album has been recorded. It exists. If it was never released it would probably still be considered notable as an unreleased album.--Michig (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also for the people that say it fails CRYSTAL, there are reliable sources, so that arguement doesn't hold. TheWeakWilled 12:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The album's title has now been announced [76] & the article has been moved to that title...Raditude. There's been plenty of significanct secondary source coverage of this album's recording & release plans from major music publications, certainly enough to pass WP:MUSIC standards. This is one of those cases where plenty of sourced material exists even though details like the tracklist, cover (& up until today, the title) have yet to be announced. Note the sources in the article: NME, Pitchfork, MTV. I might have !voted delete at the time of nomination on the basis of WP:HAMMER, but at this point doing so would be inappropriate as the artice has been significantly improved. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Due to the recent change of events, I don't think anyone would have any problems with keeping the article now. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'C' of Tranquility

AfDs for this article:
The 'C' of Tranquility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 clear consensus JForget 23:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Banks's third studio album

AfDs for this article:
Lloyd Banks's third studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMERTIME.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "American rapper Lloyd Banks will release his third studio album in sometime this or next year." Enough said. WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMERTIME. Rafablu88 17:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable future album release which has yet to have been titled. Any information available can be stated in Lloyd Banks. talkingbirds 17:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE its WP:HAMMERTIME alright. JBsupreme (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammertime TheWeakWilled 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't feel that there is enough confirmed information yet to merit an article - what is know can be covered better in the artist's article.--Michig (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Seems to violate [{WP:CRYSTAL]], although I concede that there is more sourced information here (e.g., who will be providing beats) than the typical such article. Nonetheless, I don't think that is enough yet. Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOD/CAT

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

This articles primary purpose appears to be to promote the selling of the SOD/CAT dietary supplement. The science behind this article appears to be extremely dubious. Quoting from the article "SOD/CAT ... includes naturally occurring prebiotic oligosaccharides, as well as probiotic bifidobacteria and lactic acid bacteria, and organically bound selenium" that "induces a signaling cascade, ultimately activating the genes for a family of protective antioxidant enzymes". The way that [[phytoestrogen]]s work is to activate the [[estrogen receptor]]. There is no evidence that "oligosaccharides", "bifidobacteria" or "organically bound selenium" can activate the estrogen receptor. The article includes many citations to support the link between phytoestrogens and increasing the expression of antioxidant enzymes. However the article contains no reliable source which would support the link between "oligosaccharides", "bifidobacteria" or "organically bound selenium" and increasing the amount or effectiveness either of phytoestrogens or antioxidant enzymes. Boghog2 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

read [77]

Speedily Delete - This article meets WP:SPAM, why was it not given a speedy template before this AFD?keystoneridin! (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have added the {{db-g11}} template to the article. Boghog2 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, speedily delete and similar templates were added here and here but removed here. Boghog2 (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try suggesting

Improvements Before Recommending Deletions:Its just like Assuming Good Faith Well, you're right . . . There is no evidence that "oligosaccharides", "bifidobacteria" or "organically bound selenium" can activate the estrogen receptor The article discusses and supports the mechanisms of action as proposed by the manufacturer, and cites a wealth of research which performed independently within third-party institutions, which document the likely pathway between "oligosaccharides", "bifidobacteria" "phytoestrogens" and SOD1, SOD2, SOD3 and catalase. The manufacturer also provides research which was published by independent third-parties (LEF.ORG)<reg> Unlike most drugs, and unlike LifeVantage, the makers of Protandim, Joe McCord doesn't work here, so the Journal of Free Radical and Biology might not simply publish an article about this novel methodology. Well, Dr. McCord's $12 million common shares in LifeVantage didn't even warrant a COI disclosure from there article. (That's another issue.) .</ref>. The scientific support you demand is contained within the article and the supporting research without question. Novel mechanisms of manufacture, probiotics, prebiotics, and all the other documented methodologies support the claims asserted. The product contains key phytoSERMs and the pathway to cell signalling cascades generating the antioxidant enzymes are clearly documented in the supporting research: The conversion of weaker phytoestrogens (e.g. diadzein) to S-Equol which, inter alia, unregulates SOD2 and catalase activityAs the article attempts to explain, the organically bound selenium is an additive which proposes to support glutathione peroxidase activity, not upregulation of gene response, and the same can be said about the support for its cyanocobalamins, and methacobalamins (forms of vitamin b-12) are there to support methionine reductase activity. If I weren't so new to Wikipedia, I would have had better syntax on the references and I would be have become accustomed to the balace between less is more in my encyclopedia entry without requiring the reader to pore through the referenced work for the ah ha moment. A great deal more needs to be done here to complete this article. At this time, I find the support afforded me by editors like DGG and (whoever that other person was after him) to be the principal reason to participate in this Wikipedia project. ) This technology is widely available under (mostly other third-party tradenames other than SOD/CAT.) The product has, does, and will continue to make money, but no one is getting much of it here, so please assume good-faith and don't accuse the value of the work with simple fact that something one knows this well is likely part of one's means of earning a living, at least to some degree.

Response Please keep in mind: WP:TLDR.

  • "I would appreciate more input into what is necessary for a layman to understand the connected dots."

I am moving this discussion back to Talk:SOD/CAT. Boghog2 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RGK (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - DGG already decline speedy deletion. It still reads like shameless promotional language to me, with obvious spammy intentions. I will defer to DGG, however, who seems to see some merit in it invisible to me, and revert my speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about the merits of this article have been moved to the article talk page. RGK (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to phytoestrogen as the article has some good references which should be salvaged at least. Meodipt (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I would support a merger of the references into phytoestrogen. Boghog2 (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, PubMed contains PMID 17506982 about "SOD/CAT", but this refers to an entirely different substance with the same name. Similarly, some of the papers cited in this article as if they refer to this supplement in fact do not talk about it at all but discuss the enzyme of the same name (PMID 17122956 for example). No reliable sources about a topic = no article in Wikipedia. Tim Vickers (talk)
    • Response to TimVickers No SOD/CAT the abrev. wasn't intended to be SOD/CAT the product. More importantly, at least read about the Life Extension Foundation research here: [78] It's a very strong, independent confirmation of the technology. What about the Belorussian Study? It's a peer reviewed journal. Also, read about the trials and tribulations of the startup biotech (recently added.) I'm sure they would have preferred to publish their findings in The Journal of Free Radical Biology and Medicine too but what they have published is offered as verifiable support for the claims, and accomplish the goal of providing a reliable source. Could someone please show me where it says all reliable sources within this context must be from peer reviewed journal approved by XXXXXXX body of science. My guess is that it doesn't exist. Judge the statements on the merits. Judge the source on the merits. The concept of peer reviewed journals only hurts my head because it excuses everyone here from reliance upon their own intellectual curiosity by instead inserting legalistic 'a rule,' which renders the Wikipedia experiment as nothing more than another elitist's tool to be captured and manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry. RGK (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MEDRS for a detailed discussion of our policies in this area. I am very unimpressed by the addition of multiple references that do not mention this supplement, in what appears to me to be a transparent attempt to confuse the reader about the lack of any research basis of this product. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dr. Vickers, how would you suggest that one document the mechanisms underlying twenty-one years of anecdotal observation? (Not just mine, but those of hundreds of clinicians like Martin Goldstein, D.V.M.) You can see for yourself that work on ER-beta agonists supports Mn Sod induction [1] and also acts as a strong anti-inflammatory. [2] Of course, I've known this facts for years, but I had no idea that ER-beta sites even existed. However, thanks in large measure to articles published here on Wikipedia, I now have a very clear understanding of the mechanisms which translate simple phytoestrogens into erythrocyte SOD2. I suppose I could keep all this information to myself, but that would let self-important elitists censor Wikipedia to the point that it becomes just another tool in the drug-company-paraphernalia-toolkit. Perhaps I'm just too Irish to let that happen without a fight. Thanks to the SOD/CAT article, were your 'Mr. Loki' to experience the devastation of feline leukemia, rather than simply killing him with corticosteroids, you might consider using the information you've read to reduce his inflammation using a safer, albeit unproven alternative approach. That's the glory of having the information. You get to decide if its relevant or just a bunch of hooey. (To paraphrase Charles Darwin, There is no inherent danger in bad information, but there is danger in bad data." Neither of us can prove that the sun will in fact rise again tomorrow, but we both know that the truth is the truth whether its in two-hundred peer reviewed journals or simply printed out and stapled to one's forehead. I am always unimpressed by patronizing 'authorities' who ignore the truth of a matter in the name of protecting the unwashed masses from themselves: It presumes that the unwashed masses wanted a gatekeeper to protect them from information in the first place, and that we, in the aggregate, cannot discern between apples and a__holes. We, the unwashed, can take care of ourselves Dr. Vickers, we don't need an interpretor to anoint what constitutes sound science and what's just quackery. Thus, the WP:MEDRS policy discussion appears to be helpful and relevant to discussions approved drugs, it has clearly--given the examples I've offered in support of my competing-technology-precedent discussion--fails to provide a consistent policy standard for publishing information about dietary supplement. Thus, it may be the entire, extraordinarily expensive and rigoreous drug approval process that results in a consistent standard for discussions related to approved drug mechanisms, not this same WP:MEDRS policy. Neither example I've cited in my competing-technology-precedent discussion resulted in any measure of a greater truth being ferreted out between the competing antioxidant enzyme induction theories discussed here on Wikipedia. Perhaps that's why DSHEA of 1994 became law. Open your mind to the possibility that yours is not the only path to the truth. It may help you to develop a better WP:MEDRS policy. RGK (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, phytoestrogen is only one aspect of this important technology. The assertion that SOD/CAT and trademarked SOD/CAT are trying to be passed off as the same thing is untrue. Some citations address the technology (for instance selenium as it relates to glutathione peroxidase) It is not intended to as a direct citation to studies on SOD/CAT and it cannot be helped. The research conducted by Life Extension Foundation was independent, peer reviewed and is reliable, at least more reliable than competing technologies "peer reviewed journals:" See Protandim comments at talk page. Read the about the pathway leading to the peer review process. It's expensive, requires extensive venture capital, etc. If Wikipedians intend to declare everything outside of the Journal of Free Radical Biology and Medicine do not merit consideration as a reliable source, than why not just cut to the chase and declare that all branded dietary supplements are not welcome to publish an article about their products here. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE CLOSELY. Read the NYTIMES article, read about Protandim, a competing technology promoted by guys with unmitigated access to the Journal of Free Radical Biology and Medicine. Note that by 2005, they had spent nearly twelve million dollars of someone else's money and had not developed at single thing. I suppose it makes it easier to set aside one's high moral standards and simply publish the garbage they published, and without even disclosing their COI. What is wrong with the people here? Can't anyone comment on the uneven application of standards inherent in this comparative analysis? RGK (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - Well, actually, manufacturers of products are not welcome to publish an article about their products here and they never have been! We call that spamming and gross conflict of interest and we do our best to nip it in the bud, or to revert it if it happens. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep On 14 Aug, 2009 the article was substantially broadened to include its value as a sort of cautionary tale regarding what can happen with promising starts in the biotech industry. See notes on intellectual property litigation. Meodipt might find the addition of that information especially useful as a citation for his clients who are perhaps unconvinced about the merits of upfront investment in intellectual property. For, example, compare SOD/CAT technology with Bionovo Inc. (I.C., M.T.), Emeryville, California 94608, now in phase II and III drug trials for substantially similar technologies. Intellectual property may not seem important, but try spending all one's resources in Federal Court for twelve-years, and watch the others pass you by. RGK (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can only vote once Robert. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SOD/CAT has not been the subject of significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. This is an advert. Fences&Windows 17:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Add these publications to the significant coverage debate "Prescriptions for Nutritional Healing," by Balsh MD, et.al.; "Healthy Healing," Rector-Page Ph.D, Linda;Nature of Animal Healing, Goldstein, Martin DVM RGK (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the "Search inside this book" feature that is enabled for Rector-Page and Goldstein, no pages discussing "SOD/CAT" are returned in searches of either reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Tim, the one SOD/CAT article is meant to refer to Biotec Foods, Biovet, Biomed Foods, IsoSproutPlex, Cell Guard, Ageless Beauty, Anti-Stress Enzymes, SODZyme, AOX/PLX, GP/CAT, MET/CAT, Biovet Dismutase, Canine Support, Feline Support, Antioxidant Petwafer. These are all the same thing, but if you think it is difficult to support one article, try 15. Now, that would be spam! This information is disclosed in the article under 'Other tradenames.' Dr. Page appears to use the tradename 'Biotec Cell Guard' the most. Dr. Goldstein appears to use AOX/PLX the most. RGK The cites in "Prescriptions for Nutritional Healing are here (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a reliable source stating that this concoction is sold under all these names, you can't use a reference to one product to support the notability of another. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a few references that might be of interest (e.g. for the article on phytoestrogens), but it would be better to read the references and incorporate them into the article than to carry over commercially-biased spam. Speculations using phrases such as "likely converted to" don't need to be preserved. Without the sales blurbs, the current text becomes original research. Novangelis (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia original research policy supports keeping this information in a separate article rather than merging it into phytoestrogen. Ignoring the reality that Protandim and Glisodin exist here and that SOD/CAT would not, creates an abridged record of superoxide dismutase induction technologies. That is a key point in this discussion. So, the real issue here seems to be boiling down to merits of what constitutes a reliable source for citations within the context of dietary supplements. If this were an issue about an approved drug, the extraordinarily expensive drug approval process have assured a level playing field. Dr. Vickers is an expert on WP:MEDRS policy, and this is an excellent opportunity to discuss and debate that policy in the context of dietary supplements. In previous discussions I've discussed two similar articles and cited the trouble with their cited sources in comparison to the cites used in this article. Using a hard-and-fast-rule that "peer-reviewed journals" always equate to a "reliable source" is disingenious and contrary to the facts as I've previously documented. Declaring other, quasi-peer reviewed articles as automatically "unreliable sources" is equally falacious and facile. There should be a middle ground. I have no trouble with theWP:MEDRS policy when discussing approved drugs, but dietary supplements are not medicine by legal definition. Therefore, I would propose that dietary supplement articles should use disclaimers, just as DSHEA of 1994 has required in the US. This should be incorporated into the WP:MEDRS policy. Otherwise, what we have here is an uneven application of policy based upon an arbitrary application of power. RGK (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
encyclopedic
Main Entry: en·cy·clo·pe·dic
Pronunciation: \-ˈpē-dik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1824
of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : comprehensive <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor> — en·cy·clo·pe·di·cal·ly \-di-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur

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

Article about a French word. Belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers T 13:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Apart from being the French equivalent of "sir", Monsieur is also a historical title that referred to the second son or the eldest brother of the king of France. Britannica has an article on it[79], which is more than enough for me. Also, see Category:Honorifics and Category:Noble titles. — Rankiri (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another three references: [80]2b, [81], [82] — Rankiri (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that the word exists, or that it is used as described. But an article about a word must have extensive sources that are primarily about the word itself -- the "significant coverage" clause of WP:V. See, for example, fuck. That word has had entire books written about it; not so "Monsieur". Powers T 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point but an article about a historical title is an article about a subject, not a word. So WP:NOTDIC doesn't really apply and the above references discuss the subject in enough detail to satisfy WP:GNG. Again, your dissatisfaction with the current state of the article is quite understandable (hopefully, WP:ARS will do something with about it until this discussion is over), but I'm convinced that the page can be improved through regular editing and therefore shouldn't be deleted. — Rankiri (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not remove the rescue template. This is not votestacking but a genuine desire to improve an underdeveloped article that may be worth saving. — Rankiri (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, if you can find some significant sources that are about the title, fine; otherwise, it looks like Fils de France#Monsieur has most of the relevant information already. Powers T 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I already mentioned some reliable sources with sufficiently significant coverage. Here's two more results from Google Scholar and Google Books: [83][84]. I also started making some changes to the overall structure of the article. Please take a critical look and tell me what you think. — Rankiri (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but the only one of those links (including the four above) that really comes close in my opinion is the PDF from ox.ac.uk. The others are either dictionary entries, references to the person holding the title at the time of the narrative, or brief descriptions of the word's meaning. I don't see anything much substantial here beyond what could be found for virtually any word. A separate article on this singular title still seems like overkill. Powers T 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just have to disagree with you on this one. For one thing, I believe that the article in Encyclopedia Britannica also offers significant coverage by a reliable secondary source. — Rankiri (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I missed that one due to its separation from the other links. I agree it's at least instructive, but I'm not clear on how one paragraph is significant coverage. If that's all there is to say on the subject, the section at Fils de France seems sufficient. Powers T 14:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I looked for references, I saw numerous descriptive statements like this:
  1. During lits de justice, Monsieur, the king's brother, sat on the king's right and nearer to him than anyone else.
  2. The King gave orders also that Monsieur, whenever He attended the Parliament, should have, in addition to His established Guard, a Guard of honour composed one hundred of the Swiss Guards and one hundred of the French.
  3. Gaston had patiently represented the regent's interest in parliamentary sessions, and had attempted, as a mediator (his word), to work out the compromises which might restore public order...
I'm just not sufficiently familiar with the subject to say if any of such statements are characteristic of all Monsieurs. To my regret, I also don't speak French and the search results are filled with French-language literature. — Rankiri (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q whether may be best to merge with one of the titles entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.37.130 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful article that does more than just give a definition; it gives comparisons, etymology, significance, etc. Abyssal (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said it was just a definition. All that other stuff belongs in a dictionary, too. Powers T 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rankiri makes a good argument. It is an article about a royal title, not just a definition. Dream Focus 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said it was just a definition. Powers T 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If it's good enough for a print encyclopedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a concept as well as a word & does not correspond to any actual English concept, so it's needed as an article. I can think of very few common nouns in wide use that could not be Wikipedia articles if the work is done. There is no sharp dividing line between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A J M Industries, LLC

A J M Industries, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

articles main claim for its subjects notability is "they have a lot of trucks" WuhWuzDat 12:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your recent help in editing this article and I apologize If I've done something to offend you in the past. This article was written, and continues to be edited, in good faith within the policies set forth by wikipedia.

The content of this article clearly meets all requirments for inclusion, falls within the scope of several wikiprojects; including New Jersey & Business, and contains content similar to hundreds of other articles that appear in the categories that this article belongs to.

I must renew my request that the "consideration for deletion" be withdrawn, and kindly ask that you re-evaluate your initial posture regarding this article.

      • Also please note that the above referenced quote "they have a lot of trucks" never appeared in the article. I request that this origional entry be withdrawn due to the fact that it is fundamentally wrong and it misrepresents the spirit of the origional text***

This article has since been re-edited to further address your concerns. --Helpful4sure (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful4sure (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD debates typically run for 7 days, and are closed by after consensus is reached. While the content of this article is not objectional, the Notability of its subject is debatable. WuhWuzDat 18:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Author is writing this article at the request of the subject's owners. WuhWuzDat 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it's contribution to the growth of the iron and steel industry. It is notable for it's role in supplying publicly owned corporations. It is notable because it has received the acclaim and approval of the United States Small Business Administration. It is notable because it is recognized regionally. It is recognized internationally. A J M is notable due to the fact that it's annual sales are over $3 Million, which in itself is notable. I would like to point out that notability is EXTREMELY subjective and merely stating that a subject is not notable does not make it so. I have been upfront and open about my relationship to the subject which is that I was casually asked in conversation to write a peice on the company because of my "perceived" writing skills. I have no conflict of interest here and also have openly invited other members to edit the article. Which they have done.--Helpful4sure (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment other editors contributions to this article, up to this point in time, consist of fixing formatting errors, removal of an inappropriate category, and placement and removal of various deletion tags. WuhWuzDat 19:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: The above referenced quote suggesting my conflict of interest is in fact a misquote. The entire entry reads:I am not a stakeholder in the Company A J M Industries, LLC however I have been asked, at the request of ownership, to write an objective article about this business in Saddle Brook, NJ. The content of the article shall be neutral according to terms and referenced properly with varifiable information.

Reply, clicking on the blue text in my previous reply (timestamped 18:53) will bring up the exact quote referenced above. WuhWuzDat 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment: This is in fact the second time text I've written has been misquoted or misrepresented as to the spirit of the comment.

Further reply, The primary assertion of notability, indeed almost 50% of the article, as it existed at the time of AfD nomination, was this companies fleet of trucks. Quotation marks have been struck out, however, I stand behind my original rationale for deletion. WuhWuzDat 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Further Comment: The banners I placed on the discussion page indicating that this article fell within the scope of the wikiproject New Jersey and Wikiproject Business were removed. I kindly ask that they be replaced because they are obviously relevant to this discussion. --Helpful4sure (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, The removed "Banners" were placed on the talk page of this AfD discussion, which is not part of either of the aforementioned Wikiprojects. WuhWuzDat 22:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to be notable, I can't find any significant third party coverage. The references given in the entry do not establish notability at all; the author does not seem to understand what a good reference looks like, even after some guidance. Hairhorn (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous editor's post regarding his ability to find significant coverage has been discussed on my user page. This editor appears to devalue sources that cannot be "freely" googled at no cost to the researcher. I submit that if one is truly interested in establishing the notability of the subject they would invest time and money (which I have done) and make an unbiased decision (which I have done). The third party coverage requested does in fact exist and has been referenced more substancially than many articles in the categories that this article appears in. Again, notability is NOT established in a 2 minute google search. I invite you to invest in the research, come to New Jersey, talk with residents, attend a Steel Industry convention, talk with seasoned industry professionals, as well as decision makers at publicly traded corporations, once you have done this...then your arguement whether the subject is notable or not will have some credibility. Cheers --Helpful4sure (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact my main complaints involved manifestly unhelpful references, such as:
http://www.industrynet.com/company.asp?start=AJM
A simple listing of companies that does nothing more than establish their existence. Mere existence doesn't establish notability.
  • Comment I shall remove this link, in the interest of reaching a consensus--Helpful4sure (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.sba.gov/loans/businessdetail/output/2007/busnj.html
A page that lists many hundreds of businesses in New Jersey, listing only the name of the company, the city they're in, and how much of a loan they received. This is not ony a primary source, but also demonstrates nothing beyond the fact that this company, among hundreds of others, received a loan for $50,000. Many companies received far more.
  • Comment Millions of Companies received nothing. Being a part of this small group makes A J M notable. In fact, A J M has received far more than $50,000 in financing as well...I shall continue my research to suport this.--Helpful4sure (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.gaebler.com/Paramus++NJ++COLUMBIA+BANK--SBA-Loan-List
The same list as above, only shorter
  • Comment Goes to notability in that A J M is contributing to the economny of New Jersey this article falls within the scope of the wikiproject New Jersey--Helpful4sure (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... I did not even notice that "DNB.PowerProfiles.com" required registration to read the full profile. This was an oversight on my part; it looked too much like another junk listings site. Hairhorn (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment'''' Thank You! There are other sources I've listed which require registration and fees as well...These are quality sources that should not be trivialized--Helpful4sure (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. The article has been fundamentally changed and re-edited since it was submitted for deletion. All articles of concern have been addressed and a consensus has been reached on previously debated issues--Helpful4sure (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Editorial issues aside - IMHO this barely passes WP:CSD G11 - I just can't find any evidence of notability. It boils down to "they received government loans", "they transport weird goods", and (as nom put it) "they have a lot of trucks". That's a long, long way from WP:CORP or WP:GNG's requirements. Tim Song (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Top Ten Reasons A J M Industries, LLC is Notable:
    • 1) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it's contributions to the growth of the Iron & Steel Industry.
    • 2) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it Role in supplying Publicly owned Corporations.
    • 3) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it has received the acclaim and approval of the United States Small Business Administration.
    • 4) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Regionally by millions of people who view their trucks & products travelling the roads every day.
    • 5) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Regionally for its role in supplying many Large-Scale Construction Projects.
    • 5) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Nationally by decision makers of Publicly Held Corporations.
    • 6) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Internationally by it's trade partners and customers.
    • 7) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it has been in existance for more than 5 years.
    • 8) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it's sales have increased over a short period of time to over $3 Million. This is undisputably notable within the business community.
    • 9) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it was founded by a Third Generation Entrepreneur.
    • 10) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it's contributions to the Economy of The State of New Jersey. —Preceding unsigned --Helpful4sure (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is Wikipedia, not Letterman. We are seeking Consensus, not Comedy. WuhWuzDat 21:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This comment is uncivil and I kindly request that it be removed.--Helpful4sure (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability has been established.----Helpful4sure (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One opinion recommendation per person, please.....and you already expressed yours above. WuhWuzDat 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User Dat has nomintated article for deletion 3 times, arguably prematurely and arguably "biting". Also has posted numerous opinions on this page as well other discussion pages.--Helpful4sure (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Notability has been established. This addresses a previous concern that a fellow editor had regarding notability, which has been addressed. I thought this was a discussion. Please keep an open mind and be willing to change your initial opinion.--Helpful4sure (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already recommended to "keep" above, repeating your opinion does not help the discussion. WuhWuzDat 21:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was not merely repeating my opinion but was stating that in light of the notability that has been established, the article should be kept now. A consensus has been reached on all issues that this article was origionally nominated for deletion because of.--Helpful4sure (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Also, is it customary for editors to "cross out" other people's writing?? Because, I find this practice a bit rude and presumptuous.--Helpful4sure (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One person does not a consensus make. WuhWuzDat 22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...said the preacher to the choir.
The business community, as well as other decision makers locally, regionally, nationally & internationally have reached a consensus on this subject (see top ten list above). The editors who have voiced opinions here as well as the broader wikipedia community have acquiesced. I'll let you have the last word if you insist but I'd rather hear from individuals that can contribute constructively to wikiprojects such as wikiproject New Jersey, wikiproject business and wikiproject corporation. --Helpful4sure (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus on what subject? Wikipedia notability? I really doubt that's come up in the business community. And I see no one that has "acquiesced". Hairhorn (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Consensus, my dear young friend, on the inclusion of subjects such as A J M Industries; including their "wikipedia notability," has indeed been established by the business community and by the wikipedia community. The business community here on wikipedia, as well the broader community, have in fact acquiesced, with the exception of a couple of editors with a reputation for deletions and speedy deletions.
List of Ten Reasons a consensus has been established on the inclusion of this article:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Shore_Steel
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Steel
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_New_Jersey
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Distributors
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_established_in_2004
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wholesalers
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Jersey
8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies
10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transportation_in_New_Jersey
--Helpful4sure (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Item 1, a long established, unrelated, rolling mill. See WP:WAX
Item 2, a large, unrelated steel stamping plant supplying the auto industry, See WP:WAX
  • Note: Large according to who? Unrelated according to who??--Helpful4sure (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:WAX does not prevent this type of arguement, especially since this is just a small part of the broader cogent argument for inclusion.--Helpful4sure (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Items 3 thru 10, categories that YOU added YOUR article to, proves absolutely nothing, beyond the fact that you figured out how to add your article to categories. I could add Caterpillar Inc. to Category:Watchmakers, but that wouldn't make their products useful for time telling, nor comfortable to wear on your wrist. Wouldn't you look silly with a huge yellow bulldozer on your wrist?
Your repeated lists of meaningless trivia, and unilateral proclamations of consensus!, and notability! do nothing to establish these criteria.
I am reminded of the old saying, "...If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!"
Consensus will be established here, on this page, not in your mind, or in some broader business community. Wikiprojects, categories, and images do nothing to prove notability. WuhWuzDat 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note:I don't appreciate your tone, your sarcasm, or your use of foul language. You are repeatedly acting in an uncivil manner and adding nothing constructive to this discussion.--Helpful4sure (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is inaccurate, I didn't add the article to all of these categories or wikiprojects. The categories that I did add, were added at the request of another editor and all categories are rational, and relevant; unlike your caterpillar example.--Helpful4sure (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, diff showing YOU adding items 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 here. Item 7 here. Item 8 here. Item 9 was NOT add by you, (my apologies), but was added as an indirect result of your addition of item 7. WuhWuzDat 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point?--Helpful4sure (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To counter your (inaccurate) claim of my previous response being "inaccurate". WuhWuzDat 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous response was inaccurate, you admitted it, then clarified it, then went on to infer some weird meaning that somehow it shouldn't matter that another editor added this article to the wikiproject companies project. To which I ask the question...What's your point?--Helpful4sure (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus on whether or not to delete the article is established on this page, and so far you are the only one not voting to delete. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, are you saying that you still want this article deleted, even after all of the research, re-editing, notability and similar material that has been presented here on this page?? Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpful4sure (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is extremely obvious to me that the original author of the article in question intends to bury any meaningful additions to this discussion in endless mounds of trivia, "top 10 lists", unrelated facts, accusations of incivility, baseless rebuttals of any argument to delete, and unilateral proclamations of consensus!, and notability!, I will now withdraw from this discussion, to leave him here talking to himself. I would suggest that future participants in this discussion limit themselves to a simple recommendation of action for the article, with reasoning. WP:DENY may apply. See also: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass My original nomination to DELETE still stands. WuhWuzDat 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I move that my article, which was written in good faith; and immediately bitten (See Biting), and nominated prematurely for deletion be allowed to stay. I am more than willing to accept constructive criticisms or help on this article (See: Don't be a Dick), welcome editing and will entertain any civil discussion from my fellow editors.--Helpful4sure (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there is a conflict of interest issue noted above, and the history section is written like a publicity piece, the underlying problem is that the company hasn't done anything notable. I looked at the D&B Power Profile linked from the article, and it's a small company (<25 employees, <$2 million annual sales). —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for participating. I would like to know what you think of the list of top ten reasons for notability and also what this company could do to become more notable if you think that these reasons are insufficient. I've read the article on notable notability that you reference and from my point of view this company has met all of the criteria. Also, since you don't like the history section...would you take some time and help me out by re-editing it. Thanks--Helpful4sure (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top ten reasons "for notability" boil down to one thing: other stuff exists. Nothing there is an argument for the subject being notable. If that's the strongest evidence, I may need to up my recommendation to a strong delete. As for rewriting the history, once there are better sources, I'll look at it, and re-evaluate the article. I'll also monitor the article's talk page. But until independent sources are added to the article, I'm done with discussion here. SK —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for participating, but I was referring to this list:
    • Comment: Top Ten Reasons A J M Industries, LLC is Notable:
    • 1) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it's contributions to the growth of the Iron & Steel Industry.
    • 2) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it Role in supplying Publicly owned Corporations.
    • 3) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it has received the acclaim and approval of the United States Small Business Administration.
    • 4) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Regionally by millions of people who view their trucks & products travelling the roads every day.
    • 5) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Regionally for its role in supplying many Large-Scale Construction Projects.
    • 5) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Nationally by decision makers of Publicly Held Corporations.
    • 6) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Internationally by it's trade partners and customers.
    • 7) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it has been in existance for more than 5 years.
    • 8) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it's sales have increased over a short period of time to over $3 Million. This is undisputably notable within the business community.
    • 9) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it was founded by a Third Generation Entrepreneur.
    • 10) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it's contributions to the Economy of The State of New Jersey.
  • Which doesn't say anything about other articles. Even if you chose not to contribute to this article can you, or the next person that comments on notability, please be more specific. Also, please read all of the sources that were provided. Not just one. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion with editors that are rushing through all of this (and I am sympathetic to the fact that it is alot). Thanks--Helpful4sure (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose that this article be kept because it meets the notability guidelines. If another wishes to propose a deletion please read all:
  • References: (By Request)
  • Dun & Bradstreet Power Profiles
  • State of New Jersey
  • For Entrepreneurs, Raising Money in Rochelle Park, NJ: Financing for Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
  • Manufacturers News
  • www.sba.gov
  • www.accionusa.org
  • www.manta.com
  • www.hoovers.com
  • www.dnb.com
  • http://www.sba.gov/loans/businessdetail/output/2007/busnj.html
  • http://www.gaebler.com/Paramus++NJ++COLUMBIA+BANK--SBA-Loan-List
  • http://www.gaebler.com/Paramus++NJ++COLUMBIA+BANK--SBA-Loan-List
  • http://haccpassaic.com/interest.htm
  • As well as the Top Ten Reasons A J M Industries, LLC is Notable: (Reprinted for Convenience)
    • 1) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it's contributions to the growth of the Iron & Steel Industry.
    • 2) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it Role in supplying Publicly owned Corporations.
    • 3) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it has received the acclaim and approval of the United States Small Business Administration.
    • 4) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Regionally by millions of people who view their trucks & products travelling the roads every day.
    • 5) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Regionally for its role in supplying many Large-Scale Construction Projects.
    • 5) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Nationally by decision makers of Publicly Held Corporations.
    • 6) A J M Industries, LLC is recognized Internationally by it's trade partners and customers.
    • 7) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it has been in existance for more than 5 years.
    • 8) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it's sales have increased over a short period of time to over $3 Million. This is undisputably notable within the business community.
    • 9) A J M Industries, LLC is notable because it was founded by a Third Generation Entrepreneur.
    • 10) A J M Industries, LLC is notable for it's contributions to the Economy of The State of New Jersey.
  • After doing this, and by the way, some of the references require a payment before you can view the whole article, but after reading all references, including the ones that are Not Free then by all means please comment on this. But I do ask that you read ALL references before making an assumption that this subject is not notable or that notability is not verifiable. Also I recommend asking me to explain my reasoning in advance for something you may object to in order that we can avoid a prolonged debate over a topic. Thank you--Helpful4sure (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of readability of the AfD, please stop giving the same reasoning over and over. Repetition is not going to change anyone's mind. Hairhorn (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True: Just wanted to get the point across that without reading all references, including the ones that Not Free, that a decision on notability & verifibility could not be made--67.83.175.240 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too small to be notable unless there is something exceptional, and there is not. Not a single one of the accomplishments listed above are more than utttely routine and trivial, separately or together DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been contemplating this statement for some time, because I see that the user who posted it is a well respected expert in a certain field. But, after doing much research, I have not been able to find one single company like this one. This company is not routine or trivial because it is the only company that has been established within the last five years (or ten for that matter) supplying these types of products to this region. It is one of only a handful of companies (less than 5?) that do what it does in the region and it is the only one doing export work in the caribbean. I don't think that qualifies as "utterly routine and trivial" I would say it is rather "unconventional & unique" worthy of an article.--Helpful4sure (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, when you consider the Barriers to Entry that exist in an Oligopoly such as the Steel Industry, as well as the Exclusive Nature of the industry and products, this company appears to be more notable, IMHO, than origionally considered.--Helpful4sure (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated A J M Industries, LLC article. Looking for constructive criticism. Thanks--Helpful4sure (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you constructive criticism, but it will largely be issues that have already been gone over again and again, because the entry has the same problems as before:
-Why does it say they "made news", but then the reference is to a list of loans? Where's the news coverage? (and why is the amount of the loan in the article twice as much as that given in the list?)
-How is it that you make a number of claims about the company, the steel industry ("the steel industry is an oligopoly") and other matters, but the entry only has one reference, the list of loans? My very first suggestion to you on the talk page of the article was to go over the guidelines on original research, but they don't seem to have sunk in.
-the article uses the words "notable" and "notably" several times, but as other have tried to point out, pointing and saying "notable!" doesn't make it so, especially with no references to back it up.
-the entry says that steel coils are very uncommon, but the wiki entry for steel coils says that "Almost all types of sheet steel come in coiled form". Which is it?
But as always, the main issue with this article (apart from promotion) is notability, which is still not established, by my reading. Also:
-You have still not addressed the conflict of interest matter, which is significant
-Many of the wiki links are done as http:// links, when they should all be internal wiki links using double square brackets.
-it's with an apostrophe is a contraction of "it is" or "it has", the possesive "its" does not have an apostrophe.
Hairhorn (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:
1) I did not add the first reference to this article, another editor did, I have since added more references, now that I know how to do it.
2) There is no origional research in this article, everything I state in this article is properly referenced.
3) I have taken out some of the "notable" in the interest of consensus.
a) Pointing out reasons the subject is notable is inherent to a discussion about the subjects notability, I don't see any way around that especially when people just keep saying "not notable" again and again without reading the article, the references, or doing any background research on the subject. Also, pointing and saying "not notable" doesn't make it so either.
4) I wrote the article on "steel coils" they are uncommon enough that an article didn't exist on wikipedia about them. Anyway it's a stub that I wrote pretty fast and I'm not sure that all types of flat steel do come in steel coils, that article could be improved.
5) I don't have a conflict of interest, read my page, I don't work for A J M, I work in the industrial park where they are located and find what they do very interesting. I had never seen the type of products that they sell before. The owner is a young guy, I was curious and struck up a conversation about his business and then thought that others might be interested in the products they sell, what they do etc.
6)There is no promotion in the article, only facts, and even if there was you could fix it by editing it for neutrality.


In today's environmnet where Government Money is going is notable
Players in an Oligopoly are notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.238.43 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your yourself said "I have been asked, at the request of ownership, to write an objective article about this business". At any rate, no amount of tinkering with the entry is going to make this company more notable. Hairhorn (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply:
      • "I am not a stakeholder in A J M Industries...I have been asked, at the request of ownership, to write an objective article about this business in Saddle Brook, NJ. The content of the article shall be neutral according to terms and referenced properly with varifiable information." That is the quote that I said on my user page.
      • I am just letting you know that I've had a conversation with the owner about the article, and I asked permission before I wrote it, he said, if you write just make it objective. My only conflict of interest is that I'm trying to defend a good article that was bitten and prematurely nomintated for deletion (literally 2 minutes) After I posted it...it's a work in progress.
  • Its obvious to me that no matter how notable this suject turns out to be, you're just going to say that it should be deleted. This sort of snobbish attitude See Snob towards companies being included on Wikipedia is exactly why wikiprojects: Business, wikiprojects: New Jersey and Wikiprojects: Corporation were created in the first place.
  • Players in an Oligopoly are Notable:
  • Delete per others above. Creating good business articles is a worthwhile task, but seldom easy. This company poses a challenge because it's so small ($3.2 million revenue). From WP:CORP: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The flipside to that coin is WP:CORP: "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, ECONOMIES, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.--Helpful4sure (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone except for the SPA with a COI who created the article. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regards of COI, the company isn't notable, and the elaborate discussion to try to show it is indicates an unfamiliarity with our processes. It's good to learn something about them before settingout to write and defend articles for others. I suggest the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print) or the free online version of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton (also available in print) . DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It cannot be notable for it's contribution to the growth of the iron and steel industry as that industry has had no significant growth since 2004 when A J M Industries was founded. It does not have secondary source coverage. There sales in 2008 were $300,000. Global Duns Market Identifiers of April 28, 2009. --Bejnar (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Editors and Potential Editors: No matter what they tell you here, Don't drink the Kool-Aid! I would suggest to the ones that are not too far gone already to read Group Think and Jonestown before it's too late! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.175.240 (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Carlisle United 2-1 Plymouth Argyle (1999)

The result was to delete the article.

Carlisle United 2-1 Plymouth Argyle (1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This match is not notable; it's only "claim" to fame is that the result of the game meant the winners Carlisle was saved from relegation, and another team (Scarborough) were relegated in their place - but such consequences happen in just about every single league, every single season, and one wouldn't (and indeed shouldn't) see articles created for all those games. The fact that the goalkeeper scored the goal is not notable either, and is certainly no reason for the article to remain. GiantSnowman 11:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anything of notability regarding a goalkeeper scoring should be in the goalkeeper's article, there's no need for this standalone article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I objected to the deletion of this article, primarily because the match is notable, proven by the fact that it was voted in at 72nd in Channel 4's 100 Greatest Sporting Moments of all time. It is one of the only football matches in that list which doesn't have it's own article. England beating Germany 5-1 has an article, and Hereford beating Newcastle in the FA Cup in 1972 was voted behind this game in 97th place and has it's own article. The game may have been from a lower division, but is still an incredibly famous sporting moment. Steveww 11:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It is highly unlikely that this match would receive any more than a passing mention in the history of either club. Merge any relevant info to Jimmy Glass, 1998–99 Football League, Carlisle United F.C. season 1998–99 and Plymouth Argyle F.C. season 1998–99. – PeeJay 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A goalkeeper scoring in injury time in when the team is hunting a desperate "do or die" goal is unusual but not entirely unique. Unusual events in games at the bottom of the third division level are more trivia than significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable game. This game is mostly unknown outside UK. --Carioca (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah you can delete it if you want, I don't really care, I'm not even a Carlisle fan and it only took me 20 minutes to knock together anyway! Thought it would get more support but doesn't matter. Delete it! Steveww 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Julia Garvey

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

The subject of this article does not meet the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor does the subject appear to meet any of the other, more generalized criteria for Notability. The article has no Sources what-so-ever, and while it has only been tagged as such since August 7, the article itself has existed since July of 2005, which seems a sufficient interval to expect someone to have included Sourcing for this little stub. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @226  ·  04:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost & Found: blink-182 - EP

AfDs for this article:
Lost & Found: blink-182 - EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Doesn't even appear to be an official release. Only albums and singles that have charted are generally notable Nouse4aname (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not seeing any evidence of Notability, nor of Reliable Sourcing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Renamed it per Allmusic, but Google search yields zilch. Rafablu88 17:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 regarding editorial decisions should continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Wolverine

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

The whole article as the title indicates is a plot summary. A development history of the character would be fine but this? no. In addition to the fact that we don't write plot summaries, the article is inherently misleading because it presents the history as a linear narrative when none exist and therefore is original research (because the dating of some events is unclear and you have to guess where to place them). Cameron Scott (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unwarranted content fork. Basically one big in-universe plot summary. Not even worth merging into the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be sourced. Also check the what links here to see how many red links it would make. And it is a popular page. Average of 600+ hits per day and sometimes more than 1k.Mark E (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not a valid rationale for keeping it. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it can be agreed that the current construction of the article into a faux lineation is problematic, it is not irresolvable. The article, and others similar, have been nominated, and the nfailed to come to consensus regarding deletion. Regarding this article, 3rd party sources about storylines and fictional history are availabe in abundance [85], [86], [87]. The creation of a fictional history provides help to manage a popular and ever-growing page, [88]. This page needs to exist to create a centralized point to manage such fictional material, which has merit due to the iconic nature of the character (regardless of how well or poorly it has been managed).-Sharp962 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Most of the prose that bloats the page sizes here is plain junk. If you remove all the in-universe OR, you can deal with the bits of Wolverine's history that can be cited to reliable third-party sources in Wolverine (comics). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to the parent article. It looks like it relies completely on primary sources and is an overly detailed content fork. AniMatedraw 09:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs to be properly sourced and fixed to include a development history of the character. If that proves impossible, we can always merge the most pertinent bits back into Wolverine (comics). BOZ (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But why would we have a development history in a fictional history? Why not just have an article on the development history and avoids those problems to start with ?--Cameron Scott (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or *merge equally reasonable for a major character at the center of multiple series. The key thing is the kkep the information. The advantage ofmerging is that a good deal of the necessary material duplicates; the advantage of keeping separate is clarity. I totally disagree with the idea that when merged it should be drastically cut, except with respect to the duplication--admittedluy, there's quite a lot of it. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @224  ·  04:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Maktari

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

Autobiography with minimal sourcing. Research shows that he has one borderline claim to notability—winning a 1st and 2nd place in a font design competition—but I couldn't find enough references about the subject to source the information he provided. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Circus (Britney Spears album). \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out from Under (Song)

Out from Under (Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

song not single, not notable for its own page Spears154 (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect- Britney Spears.--keystoneridin! (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per WP:MUSIC: "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 charted on a national music chart. So how is it a failure of WP:MUSIC? Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphasis on "probably." In the next sentence, it states "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Even with those brief reviews, I don't see that happening here. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The song Unusual You also has it's own page and that song isn't notable at all...OFU has at least charted somewhere out of the US (Sweden #40). If this page is deleted then the page for Unusual You should be deleted too. --Ikkomuitnederland (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Circus (Britney Spears album); the charting info and reviews could be merged into that article. Also note that this song is not a single from the album. talkingbirds 18:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Songs don't need to be singles to meet notability. Charted in Sweden, so meets WP:NSONG. Has reviews to justify an article. So see no valid reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, not that it really matters, contrary to te nomination, according to the Swedish Chart reference, this is a single. Rlendog (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll add that I have no prejudice to recreation if this song goes somewhere. youngamerican (wtf?) 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Several of the tracks from this album have articles and as far as I can see none of them are notable. There is almost no content to the article. - eo (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Why do you say this particular song is not notable when it charted on a national chart per WP:NSONGS? Rlendog (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This song was a single in Sweden instead of Radar!... It must not been deleted. PlatinumFire (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And yet there is not a single source on the web stating it was a single, but a chart position, which doesn't mean it is a single. ---Shadow (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Redirect to Circus album page. There is no source stating it is a single, and so there is no reason for this to have an article. ---Shadow (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. SNOW. Too many concerns, no chance this gets through. Tone 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Studio Album (Ciara album)

Fourth Studio Album (Ciara album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. WP:HAMMER. WP:CRYSTAL. I really think there should be a hammer CSD criterion. Tim Song (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:FUTURE. Wikipedia:Future event is another one. -- œ™ 04:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I am not sure if people already do this but perhaps someone should tell the user to put the page on their username and when the album is actually released (and notable then) to put it back on wikipedia?
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, WP:FUTURE, and please remind the article creator that artists that put out albums three months ago likely are good on albums for awhile, around two years on average. Nate • (chatter) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No prior music has made her famous, she therefor fails WP:MUSIC. Her current information on the upcoming CD does not meet WP:FUTURE. Finally, she fails to meet WP:N, as she has not seen a billboard hot 100 release.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ciara is notable. -- Ϫ 05:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps Notable one day, but not yet. Also, effectively no Sourcing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I also second the nominator's proposal of a hammertime CSD.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What everyone else said... Rafablu88 17:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a hoax either... talkingbirds 18:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hammertime. TheWeakWilled 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fakes/hoaxes count as vandalism, this goes deleted. Tone 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Société Athlétique

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

Finishing AfD nomination started by IP; their reasoning on the talk page of the article follows:

At least the part about the clothes company, but most probably the whole article, seems to be part of a "guerilla" marketing campaign. The company doesn't seem to produce anything yet, and that it does anything for charity is unproven, to say the least. But above all, I don't find convincing proof the Societe ever existed.

Entry of the company registry in Switzerland: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/u/societe_athletique_sa_CH-440.3.022.130-7.htm

Badly written pseudo-history: http://www.societeathletique.ch/

Fake documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hp1LWWlpMk

An article of the same name was recently deleted from the german wikipedia as "fake". http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Athl%C3%A9tique Hairhorn (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as viral advertising fake. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per lack of reliabale sourcing among others. Awickert (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The page should be deleted and returned by a willing author who can make this article encyclopedic. Also, this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:SNOW. There's a clear, evidence-based consensus that Thomson Directories are notable in the United Kingdom, and I see no realistic prospect of anyone demonstrating otherwise. AfD is busy and other articles desperately need participation from experienced Wikipedians, and I see no ongoing discussion to finish, so the benefits of a snow closure now seem to me to outweigh the drawbacks.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thomson Directories

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

I declined the {{db-spam}} nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Canon camcorders. The general consensus is that the camcorders are not individually notable, but there is no consensus for outright deletion. Several editors agreed that merging them all into an article along the lines of List of Canon camcorders would be the most appropriate course of action. As such an article does not yet exist, some editorial work will be required. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canon DV 012

Canon DV 012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Canon XL-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon XL-1s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon XL H1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon XH-A1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon XM2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon MVX250i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon MVX100i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon HV40 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon HV30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon HV20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon HV10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon HG10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon HF100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon GL2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon Elura 70 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canon Elura 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All Canon camcorders with basically reiteration of technical specification and abilities copied from instruction manuals for the camcorders. These devices in themselves are not notable for their own articles. See WP:NOTCATALOG. Ejfetters (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Ejfetters (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree, unless you plan to collect the varied information into a single page that summarizes the development of digital camcorders. The Canon XL-1s and Canon XL-2 in particular were instrumental in bringing 3-CCD quality to the independent film industry. -- Autopilot (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't give the cameras notability still, the technology in itself is notable, and has its own article at Three-CCD. Any pertinent information here can be reiterated there where it belongs. The complete technical specifications and abilities of the camcorders themselves should not be listed there, per WP:NOTCATALOG. Ejfetters (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three-CCD only discusses the technical aspects of the technology and how the trichroic prism works, not the development of the independent film community that came out of (relatively) inexpensive, high quality cameras. -- Autopilot (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then add it to the article. Ejfetters (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lithorien (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Who writes all these device model articles that have been on AfD lately?... --Cybercobra (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for every Canon camcorder that exists or has existed. Nothing to suggest independent notability. Tim Song (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- History belongs on Wiki, Spam does not. This is clearly the history of the digital video recorder.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, what are you basing that on? It's not as clear to me that that's what these articles are. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why not delete most articles under Category:Camcorders and Category:Digital SLR cameras for the same reasons? Shawnc (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge per Autopilot: "The majority of them could easily be merged into a per-manufacturer list, but some do deserve their own articles." Keep articles for which notability is asserted, redirect others to a list. Shawnc (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into groups for related models--appropriate compromise. Given that major consumer products of major companies are notable, and they all invariably have reviews, it would in principle be possible to write an article on each that has been released, and unreleased ones that have been discussed in the press also, , but this can usefully be condensed somewhat. This material is typically available on manufacturers sites only when the product is still available, so it is appropriate for us to provide the coverage. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely concur with DGG here. We do not need individual articles on every individual device, but it's perfectly appropriate to merge them all into a list of Canon camcorders. (Individual items on a list do not need to be notable—see WP:CLN for more information on the purpose and value of lists on Wikipedia.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes the camcorder line notable then? I fear a combined list article might still run afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly think that applies. Nobody was planning to add a price list.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into list of camcorders or similar article. Unless a particuar model introduced a notable tenchnological advance, one camcorder is no more notable than any other camcorder... and Wikipedia should not end up as an advertizing venue for Canon. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree First, Sony, Panasonic and other camcorders also have entries in the Wikipedia. Second, this is not a catalog, these are entries that are supposed to contain links to notable reviews, discussions, howtos, ets. Also, practical usage is noted, like usage in movies and TV shows, and technical details are revealed. The fact that many of these articles are too short is not a reason for deletion. In particular, the XH-A1 is the first HDV 1080 progressive camcorder, the HV20 is the first consumer progressive-scan HDV camcorder, the HF100 is the first Canon card-based camcorder with 24p and 30p modes, etc. Many of these models are "first" in one or another regard. I suggest you thinking twice before deleting these articles. Mikus (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF generally isn't accepted as a valid argument in AfD. I would also support the merging of panasonic, sony, etc camcorders into lists. -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The camcorders in themselves are not notable. The technologies may be notable and have there own articles. The only thing these devices have are technical specs and capabilities. A list of devices would not conform to WP:NOTCATALOG - leaving off the prices is by far the only thing to do to conform these articles. As far as camcorders by other manufacturers, they should be deleted too, Panasonic has several I nominated too. There are likely thousands and thousands of camcorder models, what makes these ones themselves notable? Should we make an article for every single camcorder ever made? Ejfetters (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The camcorders in themselves are not notable." -- Dude, you are obviously not into video, you don't know notable from not notable. Why do you care at all about stuff that you don't know much about? These entries will evolve, every camcorder has its fans and its aura. It is not just a model number in a price list. Mikus (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting Wikipedia should have an article for every model of every single camcorder just because someone likes every single camcorder? That's not notable. Merge to a list of camcorders will suffice. Ejfetters (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you said a main point in the articles is to have a how-to for each camcorder, please see WP:NOTHOWTO. As for the instruction manual reiterations please see WP:NOTMANUAL. Your arguments don't conform to these guidelines. Ejfetters (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur that if you aren't into film making you might not realize how notable some of these models really are. The majority of them could easily be merged into a per-manufacturer list, but some do deserve their own articles. -- Autopilot (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, reviews themselves aren't notable enough either. Its likely every single camcorder ever released has a consumer review. Ejfetters (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And also, I was awaiting to nominate the Sony, Panasonic and JVC camcorders with articles pending the outcome of this AFD. Ejfetters (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into lists based on series. Sometimes putting all the information from a number of articles into a list is better than the sum of its parts -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 20:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list would be fine, a chart-type list of features, etc. One list for each manufacturer? The entire article should not be merged for all of them though. Ejfetters (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a chart-type list of features" -- you really don't know how the technology works. You cannot have a chart for all models simply because each new model adds a new feature. Are you suggesting updating the characteristics of ALL models and updating THE WHOLE table when a single new model adds a single new feature? This is insane. Mikus (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't list every single feature the device has, that would just reiterate the instruction manual specs again, as I have said, see WP:NOTMANUAL. Ejfetters (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting direct from WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:... 7. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. And from WP:NOTGUIDE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:... 1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style, owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project, Wikibooks. Furthermore you stated it is the article's purpose to provide links to howtos and reviews... This is not a Wikipedia article's purpose. WP:NOTLINK states the following: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not:... 1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines. Ejfetters (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what you've done for Wikipedia, seems that you are on a crusade for deleting "unimportant" pages. Maybe you should bring in something for a change. Mikus (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks have no place in here, please see WP:CIVIL and keep the discussion about the AfD. Ejfetters (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one article or list, or a few articles or lists. Some of this information could be helpful, interesting, or useful. I got to one of these pages by clicking a link on a TV show's page, which said that one of these cameras, the Canon XH-G1, was chosen for its compactness, to allow producers to design sets that give the show a more intimate and realistic feel. I don't think all this information needs to be struck from Wikipedia, but I agree some of it is just not notable, so I think the most popular or revolutionary (first to have a particular feature) cameras could have their own articles, which would explain why they are notable. The others could appear in a list or chart, or they could be mentioned in the articles for the more notable cameras. Gary (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, retain redirects. Nowadays, many people use Wikipedia rather than Google... --Janke | Talk 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - many of these models do have notability based on the normal definition - significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Usually this will be from things such as product reviews in consumer or industry magazines. Notability aside, they are deserve to be cover at minimum as part of a combination article. I have no problems merging them all into one article, as they can always be split back off later if a need to do so is established. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: List_of_Canon_products#Digital_video_camcorders currently exists. Shawnc (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with merging these there then. I understand some may be notable and information to prove as such should be brought to said articles so they can be preserved. Ejfetters (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 67.33.105.219's comment has been discounted because no sources is not a reason to delete. With that discounted, the consensus here is to keep. (X! · talk)  · @223  ·  04:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy pop

Pinoy pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Strong Delete. There is no such thing as "Pinoy pop" and even if there is, it is not in the form written in the article. The term for popular music in the Philippines is OPM (Original Pilipino Music). The user who created the article is obviously disgruntled by the music scene in the Philippines and is trying to discredit its artist. I suggest the article is deleted and is only recreated when necessary (preferably when relevant sources appear). 23prootie (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or maybe redirect to Pinoy rock. I don't know enough how this differs from Pinoy rock, but per WP:BEFORE it does not appear that the nominator did any due dilligence before nominating this term for deletion. Relevent google news search seems to indicate the term comes up often enough in reliable sources to indicate it is a valid title for a music genre. See this reference which uses the term in the title of a news article, and here's another one and here's another one. All of these seem to use the term as a generic term for a genere of Filipino music. Based on this, it appears that, while the article itself is poorly written, it is clearly a distinct and notable genre, and deletion is not cleanup. NPOV and referencing problems noted by the OP can be handled by simple cleanup, as the subject itself seems to be notable enough to warrant an article. --Jayron32 05:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Those are not-so-reliable sources as they do not define what the genre is.--23prootie (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair ehttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngnough. But could we not just redirect the article to a more accepted title for this genre? If its merely an alternate name for a real genre, as you claim, then shouldn't you have started a merge discussion instead of a deletion one? It would seem to me that the term is used often enough that it may come up in a search term or as a link in another Wikipedia article; could we not just merge the content OR redirect the title to the proper genre name? --Jayron32 02:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe importance of the article only matters if it has sources,articles can only stay if they have sources.67.33.105.219 (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, where is that any part of Wikipedia policy? Articles are not deleted because they do not currently have sources. Never have been! Articles may be deleted because the subject of the article is not notable, but that is not the same as not having sources. Adding sources is a trivial matter if they exist, and there is no need to delete an article if sources do exist, even if they are not part of the article. --Jayron32 02:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable topic. There's an argument to be made that it should be renamed Original Pilipino Music, but that can be worked out on the talk page. It needs some clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The is already an OPM article so this is unnecessary. I guess a merge to that article is better.--23prootie (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an article on OPM, it's a section of the Music of the Philippines article. Pop music of the Philipines, whatever title it should be under, is notable neough for its own article. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better to delete this article and write a new one. This one is too offensive to be kept.--23prootie (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I think the deletion of this article is premature. But I think there is an alternative.--23prootie (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take out anything that's incorrect and clarify it to your heart's content. If someone objects we can discuss on the article talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fort Lee High School . Consensus seems to be Merge; a redirect will be need for the GFDL. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Fort Lee High School Transcript Scandal

2009 Fort Lee High School Transcript Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NOT#NEWS Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ptui. DS (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican spitting pigeon

Mexican spitting pigeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax article; am unable to find evidence of such a species Triplestop x3 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eibach

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

I've tried to find information on this person, and everything I come up with is a press release or some other self-published source. I can't find any verifiable refs to back up anything that would make him actually notable. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all I'm finding is is press releases or self publish sources as well, or unreleated hits on a similar name who is a spokesman for a baseball card company RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked Google News archives and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and the result of my searching was similar to those of my fellow editors above. Delete unless some independent reliable sources turn up by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - User:24.43.47.67 deleted the AFD notice earlier today; I've now re-added it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Snow close, nothing to do here... Tone 13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little House on the Prairie TV series facts

Little House on the Prairie TV series facts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. A fork from Little House on the Prairie (TV series) with very little additional info. Sprinkled with a little bit of opinion. Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing worth merging here, but consider my !vote a merge if any other editor identifies good content that should be merged into the main TV series article. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can probably be deleted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I hate going to the argument...but it's trivia. And WP:OR. It's just not fit for an encyclopedia. Anything useful has already been stated in Little House on the Prairie (TV series). talkingbirds 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict with above vote) Unsourced trivia page. Seems to be some sort of a personal essay on how good the show allegedly is. All information in this article is already in the page for the television series in a more well written form. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this is a first contribution from a new editor, I'll try not to sound too harsh. However, since there is a very good (and fact-filled) article about the TV series based on Little House on the Prairie, and since this is the encyclopedia that anyone (including Ipodlvr124) can edit, there is no need to create a separate article. To IP124, I'll ask, is there a particular fact that you think should be mentioned, that for some reason isn't mentioned? Bear in mind that anything additional (such as the dogs' names-- Jack, and Bandit) still has to be verifiable from something other than your own observations. Mandsford (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article consists entirely of random trivia. Not only is the article poorly-written and unencyclopedic, but all of the information contained in it can be found on the Little House on the Prairie main article.--66.177.73.91 (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:OR and WP:N. South Bay (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random trivia, no real encyclopedic value. Possibly some new user's test article. JIP | Talk 11:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Doc Strange. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Component

Unknown Component (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article says virtually nothing about this artist, instead it devotes itself to pointing out how notable he is. So it's not a speedy deletion candidate, but it is not a good sign that the author feels so much justification is needed. Indeed, there is no actual evidence the artist is actually notable - the only links are primary. I sought out the references suggested, but not explicitly linked, and came up with only one: Reax Music Magazine says "Unknown Component ... is a one-man pop-rock project ... that's really what we're talking about here at the end of the day" - so, in fact, it tells us that the act is not especially notable. I cannot find confirmation of anything else and even if I did it seems nothing quite reaches the standard needed for WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the above, the Unknown Component article does meet the following standards listed in the WP:MUSICBIO. requirements
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (The 4th Life)
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (Undercurrents) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pivotal11 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I contend these are two of the "does not quite make it" categories.
10. The film has to be notable but this one appears not to be - it is an experimental film with very limited release. (As an aside, the requirement is that there was a performance in the notable film and it was performed for the film, which I am not sure is not the same thing as having a piece used.)
11. The radio requirement is for an artist to be placed on rotation by a major radio network. The show in question is aparrently syndicated to a number of local stations but that does not seem to meet the definition of "major radio network". And "on rotation" requires multiple plays over multiple shows. Plus, there needs to be verifiable evidence.
Perhaps this is a rising star who will go on to meet MUSICBIO, but he does not appear to have done yet. I42 (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 8 August 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 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm just not seeing sufficient Notability (admittedly, the subject comes closer than many other misses we see here), and has very weak Sourcing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Has an Allmusic page, but with no written content. The sources provided thus far are sketchy and minimal. I'm not seeing sufficient N and V either. Rafablu88 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that most of the participants here have been blocked as sockpuppets, it would be impossible to fairly judge consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Jan Khan

Dil Jan Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't meet the Wiki:Notability, as the rank is not anything but equal to Additional Secretary / Secretary of British Bureaucracy. There are hundreds of Inspector Generals of Police in Pakistan. In any case it is not something which shouldn't be hinted. Recommended for Strong Deletion --LineofWisdom (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to Admin - The AFD discussion header was missing causing it to be easily overlooked in going through the AFD lists. The duration of the AFD likely should be extended. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a bureaucrat with a job. Not much else. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the page's editors must make a better case for the notability of the subject. How significant were the positions held? Where are RS covering him? JJL (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Why the deletion is delayed, when there is no chance at all to prove his notability. --LineofWisdom (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The discussion is being help open because the nomination was malformed. There was no proper header for the nomination making it difficult for other editors to see it in the list of nominations. -- Whpq (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Reply - I was unaware to create it, However, the Header created by you has even taken a time. But no problem, I can wait for a decission. --LineofWisdom (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apparently the nomination seems to be based on personal vendetta and family feud. The person who has made this nomination has only focused on two articles only. On the other hand this article has been on Wikipedia for more than two years and fulfills the criteria of being the head of an International Agency. I recommend a Keep. -- MARWAT  17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know, how come you, [[User:Marwatt| have accussed me for personal vendetta and fasmily fued, while I am son of a Punjabi speaking family and nothing to do with Pashtuns. Should I start nominating 100 articles, rather the two seems appropriate to me. What if the un-qualified Article exists for more than a decade here? Does it gives it sanctity? No, he has never remained the Head of International Organisation. It is just a desk at UN, who he was head. If he is qualified for creating an article for him, there would be hundred thousand of new articles for every desk-head at UN since its birth, back in 1946. Once again, Strong Delete. --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closing Admin/Editor - Whatever the result is but the closing Administrator/Editor is requested to kindly look at the history of the user who nominated this article as well as the other article on Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. The point is that both the articles relate to two gentlemen who belong to the same clan of Marwat's and that almost all of his edits are related to insertions of his family member names in the parent article on Marwat which was created by me. So before finalizing this AFD vote, his true biased intentions may also be kept in mind as he was yesterday confirmed to have a sock which was banned by another admin. Thanks. -- MARWAT  11:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note to Administrators Wether, I am a biased person or using sock, which i am not, still it wouldn't harm the wikipedia's policy regarding deletiong of this article. On one side, the ;"> MARWAT  is accusing me of inserting the familuy fellows, while on the other he is accusing me to be RayofWisom. Note that both, me and RayofWisom has voted against each other. My intentions couldn't be guessed by anyone else, as it is God only and myself who knows my intentions. But once again, wether I am a criminal or whatever, will it harm the policies of Wikipedia regarding this article? The article be deleted.--LineofWisdom (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regardless of whether Marwat is correct in saying that this was nominated because of a vendetta, this article concerns a nonnotable person. Ultimately, it doesn't matter; if I nominate two articles about people in a group with each other, does that mean that I'm biassed against them? Even if it is meant to make a point, we can ignore that for now and delete it just as if this nomination were made by a neutral party. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although, a personal relative of mine, Dil Jan Khan, has never remained on a notableposition. The position he held in UN is totally a bureacuratic position, where usually Grade-21 (equvalient to Major General) officers are inducted from member countries. --Marwat786 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC) — Marwat786 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to Nyttend - I respect your opinion however, what would you say about a vote by Marwat786 who appears as another sock puppet of LineofWisdom as this account was created only today and solely for voting on these two pages of Dil Jan Khan and Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. I can counter LineofWisdom by creating fake accounts, however, I don't believe in such absurdities. As an administrator it is your duty to keep an eye on such malicious elements. I would once gain repeat that what ever the result of this AFD, I would request to strike out all such fake votes and ban this user as well. -- MARWAT  12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Nyttend I not only respect your comments but of each individual here. I am surfing Wikipedia since 2008, atleast once in fortnight. I recently created this I.D when it felt that being a native and Marwat myself, I must not keep quite on the issues relating to my tribe and its elder. I don't know how Marwatt is so confidant that I am Sock of other user who is much criticised for none. Now, when he has challenged my indetity, it is his moral duty to prove that I am using sock. Actually, he cannot see someone voting against him. He neverwants someone else than him, espcially from Marwat tribe, to speak and have freedom of writing here. If I am uneligible to vote on the very first day - my aim for making this I.D is cleared above - then my vote be declared null and void. But I request you administrators to track the previous record (from 2006 to date) of this user Marwatt to know his state of mind on article Marwat. It wonders me that he never talks regarding the deletion or whatever the subject is, but always challenges the Users' authority to defend any of the Articles that he wants to be here, wether of a Notable or obscure personality. In the end, is it fair to talk about users at Article for Deletions, rather debating and addressing the issues? Is there no administrator to stop his such notorious writings? --Marwat786 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I laugh to hear the discussion. The Administrator are requested to search through the official website of the Government of Pakistan i.e www.pakistan.gov.pk . Dil Jan has remained Federal Secretary Interior, SAFRON and Narcotics Control. This is the highest rank a civil servant can aspire to reach. (Begukhan (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This user is a checkuser  Confirmed sock of Rayofwisom (talk · contribs). J.delanoygabsadds 17:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Aleksandra Cvoro, Sreenivasan Paruthiyil; Leitman, Dale C. (Feb 2007), "Transcriptional Pathways by an Herbal Extract", - 547, 148 (538): 547
  2. ^ Cvoro, Aleksandra; Leitman, Dale C., "Selective Estrogen Receptor- Agonists Repress Transcription of Pro inflammatory Genes", J Immunol, 2008 (180): 630–636
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_15&oldid=1142645783"