Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 14

< 13 July	15 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Consider discussing a merge on the appropriate talk pages. Shereth 16:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Van_Cat_Naming_Controversy

This entry has been created as a pov fork to contain unsourced OR material of dubious quality that had been previously been removed from the Turkish Van entry [1]. The entry's creator was quite open about that being the sole reason (quote: "started page as resolution to dispute on Turkish Van page") for creating the entry. Meowy 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well I've hacked it down to the sourced content and cleaned out the rubbish. Will this now merge back into Turkish Van?Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think, HOWEVER I also believe the article Turkish Van should be renamed as Van (cat), and that both Turkish Van and Kurdish Van should redirect to Van (cat).Tris2000 (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree slightly with the rename - it was members of the US and UK cat fancies, not the Turkish government, that called the cats Turkish Van (originally they were registered just as Turkish cats in the UK), to distinguish them from the Turkish Cat or Angora ^[1]. Although if it keeps the peace....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "Van cat" and a "Turkish Van" are two different things: A "Turkish Van" is a specific breed of domestic cat found in the Americas and Europe, whose name was coined in the 1970s by cat fanciers, and whose quite precise breed standards and required pedigree are set by those fanciers. The "Van cat" is a domestic cat found in the Van region of present-day eastern Turkey and that has existed in that region for centuries. That is the true "naming controversy", not the fabricated content of the current article. I don't think there is anything in the current Naming Controversy article that is possible to merge with another article - even in its hacked-down state it's all low-grade, unsourced, OR, POV material. Meowy 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::I do see what you mean, however the article Turkish Van already confounds the two. It would perhaps be better to have one article on the Van cat, which references the "Turkish Van" and also discusses the current situation of the cat in its native region. And mentions the relationship between the native Van and the native Angora.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious flaws withing the two articles are not a reason to make the situation worse by merging them - a "Van cat" and a "Turkish Van" are two different things, so will continue to require two separate articles. Anyway, this is off-topic for this discussion. Returning to on-topic stuff, what content do you think is valid for a merge (be it into the Van Kedisi or the Turkish Van article)? The "some Kurds have referred to the Van as a "Kurdish cat", a symbol of Kurdistan, and even referred to it as the "Kurdish Van" rather than the officially endorsed name" claim is not valid content because it just comes from a blog. Nothing else in the article is actually about a "naming controversy". Opinions on the evolution of the domestic cat are off-topic for either article, and "The Van cat may therefore have a much more ancient origin than any of the current populations in the area" is just a pov claim made by a Wikipedia editor. Meowy 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've hacked it and read the other articles, here's pretty much nothing in this article that's worth keeping. The German cat rescue piece is from 2000, there's a blog, and the others are just statements of the blinding obvious, and fairly irrelevant at that. Somewhere it ought to make the point that the native breed is an old one and may go back to the Stone Age, but that's a different story. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd really like to say that there's NO reason to DELETE an article simply because of personal opinions. The blog quoted is, of course, a Kurdish nationalist blog, and its not as if its the only blog mentioning that either, frankly, there may be hundreds (I've found at least as much...). At least teh Kurdish internet culture is rather into the argument, and that is proven already. That's ALREADY enough for the article to be valid. On top of that, I'm well aware of the debate OUTSIDE the internet, not that you guys really care. Either merge or delete, whatever. If I remember correctly, this article was created as a compromise, and the info, as part of the Kurds vs. Turks conflict, is valid. And as the article mentions, its not only Kurds and Turks in on the debate, as Europeans also pipe in.

The article can be IMPROVED, yes. A lot. HOWEVER, simply deleting it is pointless, as if you don't want the information on a valid issue that is important with regards to the Van cat on the wiki. And yes, there is POV, its a debate, of course. The three POVs are supposed to be all portrayed in the article, so you can edit it to make it so if you feel necessary. However, as I stated before, THERE IS NO POINT IN SIMPLY DELETING IT, AS IT IS A VALID ISSUE.

As for the merge issue, frankly, I think its really more of a political article, and as certain people have their own... objections towards politics and cat fancy being mentioned together on an important page, I don't think the merge will really be very popular, though I could be wrong... --Yalens (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be badly sourced, non-neutral, original research. I do not think that any of the current content of the page belongs in the encyclopaedia, the whole thing seems to be based around a blog post (not a reliable source) and the rest is effectively linked by synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Having now had a long look at Turkish Van, I think Tris2000 is right, that article should be renamed to Van (cat) in line with Persian (cat) and Siamese (cat) (the other old breeds) and any information from here that meets WP:V should be merged into it. The idea of a cat becoming a political icon is of itself quite interesting, and there is (if Meowy hasn't deleted it again) already a section on the current status of the cat in its native land. I have suggested same on talk page of Turkish Van Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmm... if people will support ElenoftheRoads' idea, I will back it too... (i.e., Meowy not taking initiative and simply deleting everything w/o any negotiation at all as usual). Better than nothing. --Yalens (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note Van Kedisi article created by nominator. Anarchangel (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above editor is mistaken. I created an article titled "Van Cat", which was then hijacked and misused by another editor and renamed Van Kedisi. It seems Elen of the Roads aspires to do the same with the "Turkish Van" article. Meowy 00:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Van Cat was created in January 2005 by Mu5ti

Van Kedisi was created by Meowy at 21:00 on 4 December 2006.

Van Cat was redirected by Meowy to Van Kedisi at 21:13 on 4 December 2006. Anarchangel (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False implications are being made by the above editor. The Van Cat as created by Mu5ti was simply a POV redirect, a redirect to the "Turkish Van" article. I created the Van cat article but initially had to call it Van Kedisi because of the pre-existing redirect (and being a new editor I didnt know how to remove the redirect). The article's name was later changed to Van cat, but at an even later date changed back to Van Kedisi by a Turkish Van-owning administrator. If you examine the talk page, and edit summaries, I have on a number of occasions argued for the article to be called "Van cat" and attempted to get it changed to "Van cat", never once did I argue for it to be called "Van Kedisi". Meowy 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nominator summed it up. Black Kite 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary & St. Abraam Church, Ain Shams

coatrack for news event. Duffbeerforme (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear coatroack, as there is almost nothing about the church here. If the event itself is notable (doubtful) it can have an appropriately named page, but there is nothign worth saving here since this is just a news account currently.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University_of_West_Alabama#Greek_Life. ... where the article is duplicated. Black Kite 22:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at UWA

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Article does not comply with the notability requirement in WP:UNIGUIDE. --Scpmarlins --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the student life section of the article on the university; no justification for a separate article just to list these 12 fraternities. DGG (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the article about the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic directory failing a variety of notability guidelines. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Eckardt

Recreation of a previously deleted page, still no indication of notability. The article is essentially a resume for Mr. Eckardt. I can't see the previously-deleted article to compare, but there's no indication of notability here, other than a listing in a top-250 list of an industry website. The same editor Iesc08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) apparently also had attempted to recreate Mark Blaxill, another associated page that had also been deleted. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not speedy delete this one?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did try that first, but it was declined. TJRC (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most notable thing is his book--but only 74 libraries have a copy, according to worldCat. Not a notable author, and probably not for anything else either. Blaxill, similarly. DGG (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alefbe (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy shouldn't have been declined. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty project

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. No coverage from independent reliable sources. Algébrico (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of coverage by reliable sources, I can't find anything. Guest9999 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that I removed material from the article that was copied verbatim from their website. --

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jonas Brothers tours. There's no strong consensus here, but several editors seem to agree that merging is a good solution. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers World Tour 2009

A tour does not require it's own page, especialy for this short of an article. Not to mention the absence of sources. Some information could be merged into the album article or the band article, but there is very little information. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC) i do not agree with you all world tours should have their own page their is more then enough information maybe not on wikipedia but on other sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by King007ofrock (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC) We should keep it its gone too far to much hard work to quit now[reply]

Merge and redirect I think a merge with the jonas brothers (or Lines, Vines and Trying Times ) would be more than appropriate here. When more information becomes available a fuller article could be developed Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we put this back in jonas brotehrs tours and we put up when theirs more information —Preceding unsigned comment added by King007ofrock (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Key information to the album. MS (Talk|Contributions) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect (I correct myself, I meant to say redirect) - To Jonas Brothers tours where the page/information has been since the information was released. It's also where every other single tour has its information at. There is no reason for this tour to have its separate page.--Rockin56 (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jonas Brothers tours. Delete, a good deal of information seems to be present at that article. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Sufficiently referenced article about a large scale tour by a sufficiently notable band. The nominator does not state any sufficient policy reasons to delete this article. Chuthya (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete at G12. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial robot organism

Even though this article has photographs and seems really cool, it is unfortunately original research published on Wikipedia. The sources used support my claim that this is original research, since they are spun together to build a case for artificial robot organisms without actually using the name or the particulars of the entities pictured. The main article for this seems to be Swarm robotics. Abductive (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very cool, but not notable; no sources given to demonstrate notability --Cybercobra (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of sources is true in general; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Poorly titled. Article views possible developements in robotics. Robot in a robot swarm with artificial intelligence is a robot, new or old generation. Additionally there is a ton of conjecture and crystal-ball-peeking (say in regard to evolutionary behavioural aspects). "May be possible" is not encyclopedia-worthy. Casimirpo (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a cool article, I hate to delete. I think Merge may be the best option here, or at least for the images. Use the sources to expand the other article (Swarm Robotics). Gosox5555 (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G12, WP:COPYVIO. See Symbiotic Robot Organisms: REPLICATOR and SYMBRION Projects. — Rankiri (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, shame, obvious time and effort there, but lack of sources and possible original research does it for me. Hope to keep the images though! They are very good. Andy (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the licensing of at least one of the images used in this article, the article's creator claims to be one of the lead authors of the paper cited by Rankiri above. However, the permission notice on the first page of that paper is incompatible with WP's GFDL/CC-BY-SA licensing, so in the absence of an OTRS ticket releasing it under a compatible license, in the name of whoever actually controls the paper's copyright, most of the article's text cannot be used here. Unless this copyright matter is cleared up, the article will have to be deleted (or radically stubbified), I think. Deor (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has now been tagged with copyvio in accordance with policy. G12 could very well be applied in this case, but as there are major concerns about the rest of the contents, letting the AfD run its course may be the best, if only to provide the authors with pointers to recreate an article which passes our inclusion criteriae. Neutral on deletion vote, haven't formed an opinion on the matter. MLauba (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisted once, no strong consensus as of yet. No prejudice towards speedy renomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrent relation

Little evidence the term is actually used. The "having element p" in the definition makes no sense. If the range and domain are the same and the relation is transitive, as in the examples, it's a directed set, which appears to be the standard name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article by copying the definition from the source, as the article creator mangled it to the point where it doesn't make any sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, example 2 in the encyclopedia doesn't make any sense, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Binary relation. 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJL (talk • contribs)
~~Either Keep or Merge into nonstandard analysis or one of the model theory articles.~~ This is not about directed sets. I think typically X is actually a proper subset of Y. This concept is used in nonstandard analysis, perhaps especially when applying it to point-set topology. There's an account of it in Martin Davis' book on nonstandard analysis. I think Davis' book is not suitable for explaining the topic to typical mathematicians, even though it's perfectly comprehensible to such people, precisely because it concentrates heavily on technicalities before being clear about what they're used for. One of those is the concept of concurrent relations. The simplest example in a nonstandard analysis context is where X is the reals and Y is the nonstandard reals, and the relation is less-than. Concurrence and internality are two of what Davis calls the three important basic tools of the subject. The third is the transfer principle. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not with that definition of concurrent relation, nor with those examples. I can believe that something along those lines might be usable in non-standard analysis, but the statement as stated is true for "<" with X and Y both the reals, so the concept does not seem particularly helpful in non-standard analysis. Perhaps with a non-standard definition of finite? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see.... he's mangled the definition. More later...... Michael Hardy (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Create a new article titled concurrence theorem and merge into that. Only then does the actual point of this concept become clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the use in non-standard analysis is something like: Let N be a *-finite subset of *X which contains X (or, perhaps, for each x in X, there is an n in N such that st(n) = x) Let y be an element of *Y such that for each n in N, n *R y.... But the definition in the Encyclopedia is not helpful, and he mangled it further when creating the file. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and then move. I looked at Davis' book a few days ago. Let's see if I can remember the definition there. A concurrent binary relation R on a set X is one for which, for every finite subset A of X, there exists y in X such that for every x in A we have xRy. Nothing "nonstandard" there. But then we come to the concurrence theorem: If R is concurrent on X, then there is some member y of ^*X such that for every x in X we have xRy. So the important issue seems to be the concurrence theorem. (I'm going to go back and check the details again.) So re-write as an article on the concurrence theorem and move to concurrence theorem. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lobello Jr

This speed skater has very limited notability. Apparently (the article gives no sources) he competed in the 2006 Olympics but did not medal. The remainder of the article is useless, self-promotional prose. It could be streamlined to salvage a useful nugget, but I don't think it's worth the effort given notability being borderline anyway. Chutznik (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Participation in the olympics explicitly meets WP:ATH. Nom is correct that the article needs serious work and perhaps it should just be reduced to a stub, but deletion is not warranted. I42 (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All participants at the Olympics are notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets notability guidelines for atheletes. Edward321 (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE, although it made me think of something I'd never thought of about WP:ATHLETE. A guy who competes as the sole member of the Egyptian winter Olympic ski team (As I recall the instance....he didn't even live there anymore, and didn't finish, but because he held Egyptian citizenship and was willing to pay his own way, the country let him represent them) qualify for an article, despite not even having to qualify, but the #4 finisher at the US trials who is a much better skier, but had to qualify against medal contenders, won't qualify. That seems to be the shortcoming of the athlete criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Nja247, CSD G12 unambiguous copyright infringement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Gallagher

Unsourced article - does not assert notability —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry simply requires substantial work. I would prefer to see somebody improve the page. Estéban (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micaela Johnson

Unsourced article about a person that does not indicate notability. Lack of sources does not allow us to back up this information. The article is written out of NPOV. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources means tagging an article for such and looking for them before nominating for deletion to see if an article can be improved.[2], [3], [4]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's our problem here on Wikipedia. We ask for citations before introduction of articles, and then, we're not consistent, and say, "what the heck? It's our problem now. We'll fix it." ESpublic013 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Viewed MichaelQSchmidt sources and disagree that it's notable. The article sounds "self promotional" and has not done anything notable in her roles. Tree Karma (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If reliable sources do not bother to cover a topic, neither should we. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. The sources provided above look to be a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders fan page, a listing of three news articles with her name mentioned that don't appear to actually be about her, and a directory entry on a site which looks like a linkedin clone. - Whpq (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus to keep (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein al-Araj

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have have reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dss2mtm (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of a country's second largest city (and the largest -- I believe -- under full Palestinian control) is notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness - he is much more notable than I thought. This is the al-Araj who served as Deputy Minister of Local Government in the PA government -- see the programme for the Tel Aviv University conference "REGIONAL COOPERATION THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENT: LESSONS FROM EUROPE, PROSPECTS FOR THE MIDDLE EAST" (spirit.tau.ac.il/government/downloads/RigiCooperBooklet.pdf ) Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC

I actually just used that source in the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nom's assertation that WP:POLITICIAN is not met is demonstrably incorrect as mayors are notable according to that policy. I42 (talk)
Nope. See the footnote to that bit of policy "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". A one-line quote taken by a journalist so he can have something official to put in is not in depth, or even written about since the article is about another matter and he's just brought in for a quote. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this the same Hussein al-Araj who is governor of Hebron? [5] Fences&Windows 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're two different people with the same exact name, although this guy's middle name is apparently "Abdallah" according to one of the sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above. ~~As of right now the article is not sourced and is tiny even for a stub. I don't how much expansion I could offer, but I will try to find some sources to back what is already stated in the article.~~ --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added some sources, clarified the info, and added a little more info. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN as a former government minister. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 I have not yet been granted the "fire and storm" bit, deletion will have to suffice for now ... Shereth 20:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assiti Shards effect

non-notable sci-fi neologism, really. I see no mention of it as a plot device outside the work of Flint himself. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Some of the information may be useful for the Assiti Shards series article, but agree that it is not notable enough to stand on its own. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm a major fan, but concur that this is non-notable outside Flint's work (but please don't insult him by calling it "sci-fi", a pejorative). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt history, even. I meant the concept itself, if applied to fiction as a whole, could be described as science fiction in that it utilises fictional and futuristic technology. Ironholds (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire and storm: For pity's sake. Now I happen to be a huge fan of the 1632 books, but this isn't even a major element of the storyline; it's just the plot device to pop an otherwise ordinary 20th century West Virginian town into the Thirty Years' War. The actual effect is described only in two paragraphs of the prologue to the first book in the series and never thereafter. Now I'm sure this rambling fanboyish essay would find a good home on someone's personal webpage, but Wikipedia is not a web host. Beyond that, the article's claim that the term is used in science fiction generally to refer to transposition of communities and populations through time is wholly unsourced. Ravenswing 11:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin (descriptive word)

Fails WP:DICDEF. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced neologism - no verifiable sources, and appears to fail WP:MADEUP. --bonadea contributions talk 20:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. The only source cited is a Facebook group (not a reliable source) for people who use this word -- and the group has only 4 members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Florida. So Why 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at the University of Florida

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Article does not comply with the notability requirement in WP:UNIGUIDE. --Scpmarlins (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at first I thought this read Greek Love at the University of Florida. Thanks for getting my hopes up. NN org. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who was an active member of an undergraduate social fraternity at Florida, I don't have overwhelmingly strong feelings about it. However, given the historical strength of the UF Greek system (around 15% of all undergrads or 5,000 student at any given time), it would seem to be a topic on which many folks, especially incoming students, would want to have some information. Within the Wiki landscape, there appear to be few school-specific Greek system articles. Perhaps we should fold a well-written paragraph or two regarding the UF Greek system back into the main University of Florida article (Student Life section). IMHO, if we are going to do it, links to individual fraternity events of marginal general interest (Derby Days, Bed Race, etc.) need to be excluded, and lists of fraternities and sororities can be easily be relegated to footnotes. If we do this, it should be done right, and some real and meaningful information should be provided. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge in to main UF article. Subject lacks significant independent coverage. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Certainly does not meet WP:UNIGUIDE Student Life. Has no place in university article either. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I think it does have a place in an article on student life; just as a list of dormitories does--but a separate article just to hold the list is not justified. NOT LIST does not mean that Wikipedia cannot contain lists. At a school like UF, they're just significant enough to be listed somewhere in the encyclopedia . DGG (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge is my opinion as well. Greek life is an important part of any college's campus and cannot be ignored, so there should be mention within the main article. ElKevbo stated everything that needs to be said as far as Wiki policy is involved and I agree with Dirtlawyer1 in that it can be covered in a well-written paragraph that does not add significant length to an already lengthy page. On a side note, I think this could have been handled better by all parties involved. Especially during the initial notification of being up for delete: a note on the page's discussion page is always a nice gesture to avoid any miscommunication or ill-will. Just my $0.02 Fliry Vorru (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the article about the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic directory failing a variety of notability guidelines. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG - an important aspect of the topic of student life, but not really a good WP:SPINOUT candidate. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent article. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acefi

I can't find any evidence that supports the assertion that this novel is "acclaimed". A Google search for Acefi Pierrot results in about 180 pages: all press releases, forum posts, and bookshops.

I am including the article about the author A. Pierrot in this AfD, since the only claim to notability there is having written this book. ... discospinster _talk 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Acclaimed? Ich don't think so. Can't find anything of significance on it at all. Ditto for author. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I am unable to substantiate any acclaim through reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BostonDirtDogs.com

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources given, no establishment of notability. Seems like mostly original research and work drawn from primary sources. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and non-notable. Most of the content is OR.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already mentioned. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability. Sports web site cruft. Wknight94 ^talk 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston Globe, which owns this website. It is a rambling original essay, not an encyclopedia article. No assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Florida State University. Not notable enough for its own article, but no reason not to include it within a broader article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at Florida State University

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Article does not comply with the notability requirement in WP:UNIGUIDE. --Scpmarlins (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --Scpmarlins (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to main FSU article. Subject lacks significant third-party coverage. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the article about the school. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic directory failing a variety of notability guidelines. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Wilkes

Unreferenced BLP for which I can't find any reliable independent sources, fails WP:ARTIST. Contested prod. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, seemingly unnotable, article written in a completely unencyclopaedic style. More promotion than encyclopaedia article. That's before the conflict of interest comes in. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JNW (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk

KEEP-None of the information presented on the page is for promotional use-- it is merely factual. Mr. Wilkes' works are notable and have won several awards. Let more edits be done to the page before deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwilkesgallery (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while it may not have been your intention to be promotional, that is how it reads - see WP:SPAM. There also appear to COI and spamname problems too.

Strong delete Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, COI-ridden spamfest ukexpat (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Deadchildstar (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn, seems to be a named location in India, and long precedent establishes that such places are notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavaram

It seems that this article keeps turning towards political attacks, or something like that, no matter how many times people fix it. Hi! How are you? 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when is that a reason to delete a valid article? Can an admin protect/semiprotect the page and close this AfD please? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Oppose~~ - possibly it needs partial protection, and it needs work, but it has no fatal flaws I can see. Certainly the AfD doesn't say there are any.- sinneed (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Silly of me... I was opposing removal. I do know better, really. Fixed.- sinneed (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cleaned up the wording, grammar, structure a bit. I haven't fact-checked it or turned the many ELs into citations, and don't know if I will get to spend the time just now.- sinneed (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, now I see. This is the latest step in an edit war. There is a great deal of dispute over water. Lakes have been replaced with living areas, and there is ethnic, economic, and political strife. Editors have been attempting to put this conflict into the article (often rather badly), some at least with a strong PoV. I don't think I am going to get into that one.- sinneed (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anything related to water in Madras is likely to cause trouble! I did remove a lot of the POV stuff earlier this morning, I'll take a look at some of the earlier revs before this edit war started to see what can be added back, the structure of the article looked like it should have had some good content at one point in time. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason to delete this article. It doesn't violate any wikipedia policy.--144.160.130.16 (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I was using Twinkle, and I thought I pressed the cancel button. I did not mean to nominate this for deletion, I was going to request semi-protection. Sorry for the mistake. Hi! How are you? 03:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody Close this afd as per the above comment of the nominator. Salih (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. author blanked page Plastikspork (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatmaking

Short article referenced only to YouTube. What information there is already turns up in Hip hop production, where I tried to redirect this article. "Beatmaking" is not a commonly used term in hip hop (not as common as say "DJing" or "rapping"), and the article fails to distinguish between making beats and production as a whole; there is already a good production article that includes discussion of beats. (Although neither entry mentions the Amen break; maybe I'm too old.) The largely unnecessary section "Emergence of Female Beatmakers" also promotes the entry author's non-notable project, "Beatnik8" Hairhorn (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked, tagged for speedy delete. Hairhorn (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additional work and ref's have helped establish meeting WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Ackerman

From Notability/People and WP:ATH "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (emphasis added). So, I interpret this thusly: merely being an Olympic athlete, even the sole competitor for the UK in Wrestling is not sufficient grounds for notability. But, we'll let an AfD decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.35.97 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unable to complete AfD; hopefully another editor who agrees with the absurdity of this claim to 'notability' will complete the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.35.97 (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've copied the comments from the talk page to this AfD and posted it for 71.139.35.97. Cunard (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to passing WP:ATHLETE, Ackerman passes WP:BIO. See this article from The Guardian, this article from BBC, etc. Cunard (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely re-write to indicate that Ackerman is notable as an Olympian and not, as the article currently suggests, as a logician, or else delete. The article describes Ackerman as "a British-American logician and wrestler." He has, however, no significant publications in philosophy or logic that I can locate. Article was PRODed on 13 July by IP User 71.139.35.97 with the concern, "Subject is not notable,vanity article,not a single publication beyond your thesis?" I nominated the article for Speedy Deletion later on 13 July under criteria A7, article on a real person that does not assert notability. Article creator User:OldakQuill placed a Hangon tag later that day and commented at Talk:Nate Ackerman that Ackerman competed at the 2004 Olympics, a fact I missed, probably since it is mentioned only in the last paragraph of the article. Still later User:Cunard removed both Speedy and Prod with the comment, "all Olympians are notable". Thanks are due to Cunard for completing this AfD. Cnilep (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken my own advice and re-written the article. Cnilep (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article has a number of reliable source articles written about him for his role as an Olympian (see Cunard's comment). Rewrite with focus on his role as an Olympian, per Cnilep. --Oldak Quill 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - athletic competitor at the highest elevels of an International sport, documented by multiple reliable sources; passes WP:BLP and WP:N. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the relevant guidelines. Any problems can be corrected by normal editing (though I don't think the article is that bad as it is). Zagalejo^^^ 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:Prof on lack of cites. Not notable enough as an Olympic competitor. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Per Cnilep’s comments and work on improving the article. Certainly does not meet WP:PROF, but I am pretty sure he meets the more general WP:BIO. I cannot comment on whether he meets any of the criteria for inclusion in WP as an athlete.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ATHLETE, which is a much less stringent criterion than WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I'll change that to Keep if a source is found for his participation in World Championships. Get Dumb 08:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [6] Zagalejo^^^ 18:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rewritten article places the proper emphasis on his athletic achievements vis-a-vis his academic ones. He clearly passes WP:ATHLETE, and the fact that he doesn't pass WP:PROF is not especially relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with a redirect left behind to Panay Giant Fruit Bat. If someone digs up a better target, by all means change it. Shereth 20:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giant bat

Completely unreferenced and not notable. Unreferenced tag has been on page for over 2 years with no new references added. Possible fancruft as well. Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge/Redirect into Magical beast. BOZ (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment added rescue tag in the hope of scaring up some sources. Artw (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can at least probably pull up where they appeared in D&D... :) BOZ (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Magical beast per BOZ. A paragraph or two there won't hurt anything, but IMO this definitely doesn't need its own article. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable; if anything gets put in a list, the sentence or two should probably be written from scratch anyway. Create a redirect to some real-world giant bat. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, dab to Magical beast and Megabat (which includes the giant fruit bats). If kept, add hatnote leading to both articles. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Magical beast. Edward321 (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, redirect to the giant fruit bat article, whatever that one happens to be. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the now extinct Panay Giant Fruit Bat.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unreferenced, and full of original research. I can't support merging this information as none of it has been verified. Them From Space 07:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this creature is at all notabile. I also don't think a redirect to magical beast is appropriate. There are not only more notable real-life bats referred to as "giant", but also other Dungeons & Dragons giant-sized bats that aren't magical beasts in all versions of the game (e.g. the Dire Bat in D&D 3.5). Calathan (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. A redirect to a real-world "Giant bat" would be better. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Savidan 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Wow. Delete. There might be an appropriate redirect target, but I oppose any merge. Frankly, from what I've seen, potential redirect targets are already cruft-laden; best to begin in a list entry from scratch. --EEMIV (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge a brief description should be included along with other similar, into an article on bats in D&D. DGG (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't merge; complete original research. Savidan 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 blatant vandalism, which is evident from looking at the histories of this article and that of Theory of a Deadman. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall (Canadian band)

Not notable --Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage or anything to back up any of the claims in the article. What I did find suggests that they didn't win the Juno award that is claimed. The original author's other edits appear to all be vandalism, so this may well be a hoax.--Michig (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In fact it appears to have been based on the Theory of a Deadman article. Clearly a hoax article created by vandal.--Michig (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC) The nominator might wish to consider tagging the article as a G3 speedy deletion.--Michig (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ateya El-Belqasy

~~non-notable footballer, can be restored if and when he makes an appearance, a PROD was removed for no valid reason~~ Spiderone (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing for El-Olympi in the Egyptian Premier League.[7] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays for Egyptian Premier League, an Egyptian professional league for football clubs and represents the top flight of Egyptian football. This is the valid reason why PROD was removed. Notable per Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Athletes. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have a source that proves the Egyptian Premier League is fully-pro? If it isn't - as I suspect - then he will fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 08:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have a source that proves that the content of Egyptian Premier League is wrong? --Ilion2 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he's not on this [8] Spiderone (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You want to tell us that there are no more than six Egyptian Premier League professional players? And from this six players that are listed on this website, not even all of them are players in Egyptian Premier League. Mohamed Zidan e.g. plays in Germany, Essam El-Hadary plays in Swiss. As far as I know even today there are eleven people in one club, the league consists of 16 clubs, at least in league 2008-09. --Ilion2 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As he plays in the top league in a major footballing nation that's bigger than the UK. To claim that he isn't notable is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep athlete who has played in the Egyptian Premier League, which appears to be fully-pro. Jogurney (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Egyptian League is clearly a notable professional league Eldumpo (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G10/snow --B (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Nicholas Hall

Contested PROD (tag removed by article creator without reason) about a person that only seems notable per WP:ONEEVENT. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT and probably WP:SOAP as it seems that the author may have an involvement in the affairs at hand (given that the author's name is "Ramparent" and the Sylvania High School school team is named "the Rams" (see Sylvania, Alabama)). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Seems like a clear case of WP:1E to me, not to mention that the event itself is not particularly newsworthy (at least not enough to merit inclusion on WP).--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Borderline attack page, but given the sourcing in the article we should probably run a full AfD rather than speedily deleting per WP:CSD#G10. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E and a non-notable event in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:ATHLETE by multiple by being member of national team AND playing in pro league (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ihab El-Masry

~~Non-notable footballer, only claim to fame is being in the Egypt squad but not playing~~ Spiderone (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing in the Egyptian Premier League where he is his club's top scorer.[9] Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have a source that proves the Egyptian Premier League is fully-pro? If it isn't - as I suspect - then he will fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he's not on this [10] Spiderone (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are far more than 6 Egyptian professional footballer players. That is clearly not a comprehensive list. Jogurney (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he was called up for, but didn't make the line-up, of a recent Egyptian World Cup qualifer - [11], so clearly he is a top Egyptian player. As he plays in the top league in a major footballing nation that's bigger than the UK. To claim that he isn't notable is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable athlete who has been successful in Egyptian Premier League - which is likely a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Egyptian League is clearly a notable professional league Eldumpo (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for Al-Mokawloon al-Arab in the Egyptian Premier League, the top flight of Egyptian football. In the current squad of the Egypt national football team. --Ilion2 (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 10:40, 19 July 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) deleted "Kiere Khoh Benjamin" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiere Khoh Benjamin

An attempt to create publicity for a not very notable person. A previous attempt, "Kier Khoh, Benjamin", was speedily deleted on July 13, 2009. Favonian (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. G4. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is for articles that have been through a previous AfD. Anyway, delete, barring better claims of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable. 200 followers for a blogger is NOT notable for blogging. NO ref. Tree Karma (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Nothing to see here. Ho-hum. No notability asserted. A blogger. My own blog gets at plenty of readers, so what? -- Alexf^(talk) 11:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Prototype self-promotion of a person lacking notability. Favonian (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, though if anyone has evidence that he has played in the Premier League, I'll restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niwet Petchchamrat

Hasn't made any appearances and fails WP:ATHLETE amongst others Spiderone (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in the Thai Premier League, the top professional football league in Thailand. --Ilion2 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have proof that he's played for them? Spiderone (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry, did not noticed that this is not a given information in the article. I found no source that he really contests a football game. --Ilion2 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he hasn't appeared for them, he does not play for them, here is merely on the roster. matt91486 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:ATHLETE as player in Premier league (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Reda Bobo

~~Non-notable footballer, lacks text~~ Spiderone (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no indication that Bobo has ever played in the Egyptian Premier League. Being on the books of a club is not enough to establish notability. Jogurney (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, he clearly did play in the Premier League. Appears to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played twelve matches in the Egyptian Premier League for Itesalat.[12] Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have a source that proves the Egyptian Premier League is fully-pro? If it isn't - as I suspect - then he will fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in the top league in a major footballing nation that's bigger than the UK. To claim that he isn't notable is WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Egyptian League is clearly a notable professional league Eldumpo (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for two different clubs in the Egyptian Premier League on loan from a club which played in this league too. --Ilion2 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wils

non-notable youth player Spiderone (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:ATHLETE as player in Premier league, and meets WP:N as shown (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Mensah

~~Non-notable player. Should be recreated when he makes an appearance, also Akwety Mensah may fail~~ Spiderone (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's played in the Egyptian Premier League and passes WP:ATHLETE. It's probably easy to get this to pass WP:N as well. Jogurney (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Egyptian Premier League isn't professional Spiderone (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to WP:Footy that is still under discussion. Suggest AfD's on Egyptian Premier League players suspended until a consensus first reached on whether the league is professional. By putting them up for AfD to 'test the waters' all you're going to get are the deletion addicts in their usual deletion frenzy mode. 8lgm (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair point, however since the Algerian and Libyan leagues definitely aren't professional then many of their players fail WP:ATHLETE Spiderone (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that the Mensah article could pass WP:N if someone looks for sources. He's been called into the Ghana national football team camp before (although I'm not sure he has played), and will have significant coverage from his playing days at Haras El Hodood. Jogurney (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's use a bit of common sense with these arguments about whether a league is fully professional. Egypt is a country of 76 million where football is the most popular sport. That means, on any reasonable, non-lawyering, interpretation of notability guidelines, that the players in its top league are at least as notable as those in, say, Denmark (pop. 5.5 million). Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why a source can't be found to prove it's a professional league though. I admit it would be a shame to see an article like this go though if that was the case. Spiderone (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my whole point. If it's a shame to see an article go then we don't have to delete it just because it doesn't meet the strict wording of a guideline. Guidelines are there to guide us in our decisions about what's best for the encyclopedia. They are not binding laws. It's perfectly normal for there not to be sources readily available in English to say for certain whether a league is fully professional - even for a country where English is by far the majority language we find it hard establish this for certain, so why do you expect such sources to be readily available in English for a country that doesn't use the Latin script? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - let's assume the article fails WP:ATHLETE, does it pass WP:N? I would argue that almost all of the sources meet WP:RS, but perhaps most of the coverage is trivial. At least one source has significant coverage, and a few of the others are close. Does anyone else agree that this article would pass the general guideline? Jogurney (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable enough to be getting articles in foreign media [13], [14]. Meets WP:N as well as WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in Egyptian Premier League, an Egyptian professional league for football clubs and represents the top flight of Egyptian football. Played 2008 in CAF Confederation Cup, an international club association football competition. --Ilion2 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Egyptian league is a notable professional league Eldumpo (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Fawaz

Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played a game of professional football Spiderone (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The nomination makes no sense. Surely any footballer, has by definition played football. No prejudice against finding a more plausible reason to delete. Nfitz (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to mean never played a match of professional (or even semi-pro) football. Since there is no evidence the player has, he doesn't appear notable. Jogurney (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If and when it's nominated on those grounds, we should discuss it. Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the reasoning but I don't know if I'll have to renominate now Spiderone (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of citation/evidence to show he has play a pro game. Govvy (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Participationism

There is no evidence that this is notable. None of the pages linked to by the article mentions "Participationism", and no other citations or references are given. Also searching has failed to produce evidence that there is a notable art movement of this name. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero news hits on Google, and few on Google scholar, but I am willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Seems to be a Neologism, all references point to non-independent sources for one particular artist who is claimed to have invented the term/approach: no secondary sources to show notability. TrulyBlue (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it is as TrulyBlue says. Each of the sites linked is a promotional site for the same artist: in fact it now seems that the article is close to being spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely not a term in use for visual arts or graphic design/advertising related history/theory with zero sources found to boot.Deadchildstar (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Charlotte

Does not seem very notable. The promotion lasted less than a year and didn't do much during that time. I didn't find any reliable third party sites during my search, just mostly primary and a few non-proven ones. I am also nominating the following related pages:

If this is found not notable, then the template (Template:NWA Charlotte) should be deleted along with it.--WillC 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —WillC 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —WillC 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Small, non-notable promotion. Also precedent for deleting articles on individual title histories. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, didn't even last a year. No reliable third party sources that I could find. Nikki♥311 20:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, we're not talking about a promo from 50 years ago that lasted a couple of decades, we're talking about something which started last year and couldn't last 12 months. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darrenhusted. Get Dumb 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ahmed Abdullah

non notable dermatologist, article created as part of an apparent promotional campaign WuhWuzDat 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - obvious biospam. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - spam placed by his PR firm - author now blocked as role account for PR firm. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Speedy delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Seems to read as spam Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Blatant attempt to put CV on WP. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamtastic. -Falcon8765 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advertisement. JFW | T@lk 14:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hypnotherapy#Cognitive.2Fbehavioral_hypnotherapy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Behavioural Hypnotherapy (CBH)

Subject already covered in Hypnotherapy#Cognitive.2Fbehavioral_hypnotherapy, also written like a research paper. [mad pierrot][t c] 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like a pamphlet on the topic; ridiculous amount of sources for something so short leads me to suspect copy pasta. JuJube (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. AND suggest the original Creator of this Article work on the subject as a subsection within the Hypnotherapy Article ... Its a nice first go at a Article, but as of right now, does not warrant a stand alone Article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recent additions gave it enough to make it barely pass enough that I'll withdraw the nomination. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Mongolia relations

AfDs for this article:

Nothing actually notable about this random pairing. It survived AfD ~~a year and a half~~ four months ago with the implication that there was more notability. Mongolia has an embassy in Canada, but Canada hasn't bothered to put one in Mongolia. The article cites support and donations from non-governmental organizations as evidence of a significant relationship between the nations governments. Canadian companies are investing in Mongolia, and the govts. entered into one trade agreement that facilitates that, but that seems to be about it. One pretty mundane agreement isn't saying WP:N to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, not notable embassies, Mongolia is close to People's Republic of China and Russia. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relations between countries are not exclusively the relations between those countries' governments. They also include the relations between the countries' peoples. The nominator's personal opinion about whether these relations are "mundane" is irrelevant to the Afd process.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the mundane is relevant, since that is part of what I find to be non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called WP:OR. It's your opinion something you subjectively call "mundane" is unnotable. That has nothing to do with out policy on notability. (See WP:N). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not WP:OR. It's called an opinion and believe it or not, not only am I allowed to have one, but they are acceptable in AfD's. Notability is not always a cut and dried matter. It is often a matter of opinion. We talk about "consensus" all the time, which is defined as the opinion of a group. That is the purpose of these discussion. Next time you want to make a bad faith accusation, please at least have it right. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could clarify where I accused you of bad faith. I honestly am not sure of where I did such a thing. (Take it to my talk page).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right where you started accusing me of WP:OR. Having an opinion in an AfD is not OR. That's what these discussions are for. There is no brightline rule that seperates what is or is not notable in this situation. There will always be debate over whether or not coverage is significant or not etc. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to accept. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that your comment consists of original research is not an accusation of bad faith. Please assume good faith in the future yourself.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR! WP:OR refers to content in the articles, not opinions expressed in an AfD. OR is not allowed, so if it applied to everything posted in an AfD discussion, every comment you've made requires a verifiable, reliable source. Do you have those? Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

I took what you were saying to mean that you equated your personal opinion that the agreement was mundane with its non-notability per wikipedia's WP:N policy. That to me still fits the description of OR (because to say the agreement is unnotable implies either that the agreement is improperly unsourced, or that you know personally that the agreement is unnotable for some other reason and you are using yourself as a source). I understand that you think OR only applies to the article mainspace but I disagree. If you used your own personal knowledge to influence debate on a talk page about the inclusion of material in an article, I would call that original research. That is essentially what you are doing here too. You are using your own unsourced opinion (that the agreement is unnotable or mundane) as an argument against inclusion of sourced information (the deletion of this page with result in the removal of sourced information from the mainspace). Perhaps there are arguments on both sides here. I hope you beleive me however that my comments were not meant to accuse you of bad faith.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept your explaination that you weren't making a bad faith allegation. I do not, however, think you are interpreting OR correctly. We're not talking about article content or an article talk page. We are talking about an AfD discussion whic is, by it's very nature, going to be base largely on opinion. It is not OR, not in violation of any policy and is perfectly acceptable. Your repeated attempts to brush it under the heading of something that is in violation of policy is wrong-headed. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I accept the fact that Afd's are often determined by personal opinion, I think that there should also be an attempt to look at the article as objectively as possible in accordance with the policies in place. For example, we seem to be having constant disagreements about the notability policy. I for one would like a little bit more clarification about what constitutes "significant coverage". Since the interpretation of that policy seems to leads to consistent disagreement, I think the policy should be clarified. I see the logic of your argument but I also don't see where it says WP:OR does not apply to Afd discussions. The issue seems to me to be undetermined at this point. Many things to be clarified.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First I would like to add that this article was nominated a couple month ago for Afd not a YEAR AND A HALF as the nominator of the 2nd deletion said. Yes they isn't a lot of history between these two countries, but to delete an article about their relationship is wrong. Why??? It's important to explain the relationships of countries regardless of quantity because history is important to note and isn't that the point of and encyclopedia: to give important information. Yes it is important to give the info of Canada-Mongolia relations even if there is few.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I was looking at another AfD that had been a year and a half ago. But thank you for making a huge freakin deal out of that with capitals and all. It was 4 months ago instead of a year ago. Big deal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well here's a quote from you post "it survived AfD a year and a half ago with the implication that there was more notability. A year and a half later, there is none." Your whole point is on the fact that a year later it hasn't got any notability. So it's a big deal since it has only been 4 months. --Fire 55 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I applaud your error free life. The rest of us humans do make mistakes from time to time. I amended it. But guess what? 4 months later, it still isn't notable. Now are you going to address the actual issue or continue wasting space over an already acknowledged error? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I see no new arguments raised by this nomination for deletion that were not addressed in the first one. See Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Deletion_review. The subject matter's notability has been established by the proper sourcing of two independent 3rd party sources specifically detailing Canada-Mongolia relations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Thanks for your opinion. I didn't feel the need for a "new issue" because I don't believe the notability has been established.
    - Ok. So you disagree with the result of the last Afd. You acknowledge that that's the reason you nominated this for deletion for a second time in four months. You have also refused to notify the people who took place in the first Afd.[15]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here comes the smoke and mirrors again. I don't see the notability. Period. That is the perfectly legitimate rationale. I have never made it a practice to notify everyone involved in a previous AfD. I'm not required to. I notify the author of an article if I nominate one. In this case, the author is banned, so he was not notified. Notification is not required, it is suggested. I take part of the suggestion and leave another part. I think that is a silly suggestion and since that is only a suggestion, I am free to not implement it. You left me a message about it on my talk page. I responded to it. Now you bring it up here. Pick which place you are going to whine about the topic and stick to it so I don't have to respond to you twice over the same topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to tell the people who just spent a lot of time debating this that you are throwing out their result because you disagree with it that's your business. And you're right. It's not required. It's just ~~WP:CIVIL~~ courteous. Have a nice day.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does WP:CIVIL say or imply this.Yilloslime ^T_C 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. But of course, WP:CIVIL doesn't say anything about notifying editors who are substantial contributors to the page. However, it explains at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people that "it is generally considered courteous" to do so.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you citing WP:CIVIL when it doesn't say it? And why isn't User:Fire 55 over here screaming about the error in capital leters? Further, I don't consider people who just participated in an AfD to be susbstantial contributors to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Changes made.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Do review WP:CCC, an official policy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And please read the policy I mentioned above regarding renominating articles for deletion. This isn't a change in consensus. This topic was honestly discussed five months ago, Niteshift didn't like the result, so he's trying to get a do-over.You voted delete then and you're voting delete now. The fact is that this subject was found to be notable then and it should be found to be notable now. The article is properly sourced. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know if there is a change in consensus or not if you don't ask the question? I've seen articles re-nominated in much less time than 5 months, so I'm not sure why you are spending so much time complaining about this nomination.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't vote in the last one, you might want to re-think your statement about me "just not liking it". Smells a lot like an accusation of bad faith to me. I don't believe the notability is there. I nominated it. Get past it already. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Actually, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Bituitorol. He voted there and he voted here. You just didn't like the result. That is not an "accusation of bad faith". --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that an administrator would understand that point a little better. You were talking TO him, but you were talking ABOUT me.......making an accusation of bad faith that I "just didn't like it". It's not about liking it. I don't think notability is established. Period. Get over it an stop with your strawman. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just walk in to some rhetorical knife fight I was not aware of? When I said you didn't like the result of the last debate, that's what I meant. Am I wrong? Did you renominate this article for deletion on the exact same grounds as the last debate, the result of which was a keep, because you liked that result? I have assumed good faith that you didn't like it because you disagreed based on the notability policy. That's not bad faith, that's the truth. It looks like you misread what I said before and you accused me of bad faith. When I tried to clarify that my previous comment wasn't even about you (voting in the last one), you immediately accused me of bad faith for something else and of using strawman arguments. (P.S. Just in case you think I'm a Admin, I am not. I am not sure if you were referring above to me or Bituitorol). I hope we can put this entire issue behind us and move on.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making it sound like I voted in the last one and just didn't like that it was delete. I didn't even participate in the last one. I read the article and decided to nominate it before I ever even knew there was a previous AfD. I only found that out while I was in the nomination process. This isn't just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you would have people believe. This is a matter of my belief that there isn't sufficient notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify in case anyone besides Niteshift36 actually thought otherwise, Niteshift didn't vote in the first debate (Bituitorol did). I must assume (per WP:AGF) that Niteshift's reason for renominating this article did not result from WP:IDONTLIKEIT which refers to not liking the subject matter of the article, but that he nominated the article for deletion because he didn't like the result of the last debate. He disagreed with the consensus found there that notability had been established. I am pretty sure this is what I said before. Sorry if I was unclear.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone is actually wondering about the actual notability of this article, here are a few sources describing the relationship: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28].--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the two references, one hints that educational co-operation between Mongolia and Canada might be notable if there is significant non-trivial coverage of that topic. The other emphasizes the lack of bilateral relations and despite a polite tone apparently neither country could be bothered to pursue anything beyond an honorary consulate and an invisible-to-the-media embassy in Ottowa. Regardless, since there is no significant non-trivial coverage of relations between Canada and Mongolia, this article should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Just enough sources to demonstrate some notable relations. Canada is the 2nd largest investor in Mongolia, [29]. and 2 more (yes I know primary sources): military cooperation and the two countries are also in the process of negotiating a high level agreement [30], just my opinion but this is of major benefit to the Mongolian economy. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I may as well restate what I said in the last AfD: "there really isn't much there. Sure, there've been the usual under-the-radar exchanges like ceremonial visits that happen every week, and there's been some teaching done of Mongolia in Canadian universities (which isn't really relevant to the relationship between the two states, as these universities are either private or run on the provincial level), and there's also been some trade (again not relevant to the state relationship: both countries are free-market economies, so presumably most of the trade has involved private actors). Other than that, there isn't much left, and as bilateral ties are not inherently notable, we should delete." Let me also add that, yes, "Canada–Mongolia relations" as such have not been covered in independent sources; that fundamental problem should automatically prevent this article from existing further. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cdogsimmons. Alefbe (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When a medium-sized country such as Canada is the second largest investor in a country on the other side of the world that's pretty notable. And I wish the nominator would get the idea out of her/his head that encyclopedias don't cover the mundane. Just take your favourite print encyclopedia down from the bookshelf and open it at random: I bet you'll see plenty of articles about mundane topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what encyclopedias you have, but mine doesn't have an article devoted solely to the relationship between Canada and Mongolia. Please tell me which print one of yours does, then we can use it as a source. And that logic almost sounds like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't tell you the impact Mongolian relations with my home country have had on my life. Mostly because, there hasn't been any. A small handful of agreements hardly amount to much, save for the kind of aid we give a lot of countries. At least there's a source of some overview over time, but only of one area, not relations as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable relations other than what is common between almost any two countries on this planet, and for that, coverage in the respective "foreign relations of x" articles is absolutely sufficient. --Latebird (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relations between most two countries on the planet usually do turn out to be notable. The above argument, is essentially JUST ANOTHER, and it fails when the others are notable also. CCC, yes, but I think consensus has changed a little more towards keeping these. I am strongly opposed to over-rapid repetitive nominations, but a new AfD 5 months later seem perfectly reasonable to me--it's not abusive. As for the actual article, the material there originally was a little scanty, but considering the trouble and expense of maintaining embassies, countries tend to do it when there is some political or economic reason for it. Similarly with state visits. They;re not done for recreation. The material found by LibStar, above, is fully sufficient for notability . A no. 2 investment partner is a highly notable relation, along with the rest. DGG (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep. For once I think that some of the sources dug up by Cdogsimmons actually do (barely) meet the bar of direct, detailed coverage of the topic, in particular this one. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as a bilateral relationship article meets three core content policies, it should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a bilateral relationship here. The state visits, the embassies, and the investing are all notable. No reason to delete a good stub article that passes WP:N. - Epson291 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find the relationship between the countries some what notable and i think it passes WP:N.--Kyle1278 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nalini Sharma

Unremarkable TV meteorologist for local-market Canadian TV station. Single reference is a link to bio at station website. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability that meets our guidelines. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CP24, the news channel on which she currently appears. Notability is marginal at best, she has been in the Toronto TV market for several years, but almost solely presenting weather forecasts. PK T(alk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Skip the re-direct. She isn't notable. No significant awards or anything that seperates her from the thousands of other local reporters on the air. Simply being in a large market doesn't make you notable. Nor does being on TV. Notability and visibility aren't the same thing. I say skip the re-direct because reporters and weathermen/women tend to change stations on a not infrequent basis. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' then Redirect to CP24, non-notable meteorologist. Meteorologists don't change stations on a frequent basis, if she was to change, I'm sure it would be updated. - Epson291 (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meteorologists are no different than any other reporter. They'll change just as easily. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear keep, possibly confusion on part of nom, but will WP:AGF. Meets WP:MUSIC#C1 (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignitor

This article is clearly written by 1) The band about which it is written; 2) Fans and friends of the band In either case, the authors text lacks objectivity. It is promotional, not encyclopedic; more like advertising. Also, the content is not neutral in tone.

Ignitor lacks notability, per Wikipedia notability guidelines for music and recording acts. No nationally or generally recognized product releases No nationally or generally recognized awards No nationally or generally recognized media presence — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenEyedWarlock (talk • contribs) 2009/07/13 22:48:57

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 12:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Quickly glossing over the whole before nominating blah blah blah thing, and the fact the nominator has made no other edits on Wikipedia apart from this AfD, here are some sources for ya, [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 12:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per number of sources provided by Esradekan. WP:MUSIC is additional criteria to help determine notability if the subject does not obviously pass WP:N. This subject passes WP:N (essentially the same as WP:MUSIC#C1) so whether the subject meets the other WP:MUSIC criteria or not the article should be kept. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Esradekan. Iowateen (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is simply a local news story about a campaign to reduce a speed limit. Editors should not be persuaded by the fact that BBC local websites have covered it. For example, if I look at the BBC local news website for my area at this very moment, prominent stories include "Eviction threat for grandparents" and "Sharp rise in recycling figures". These are the equivalent of local news stories, and as such WP:NOT#NEWS comes into play - this story is simply has no historical notability outside its local area and timeframe. Black Kite 22:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin jenkins campaign440

This article has a total POV problem, and is not very clear. It doesn't have much context, though I think it has some, or at least enough to avoid speedy deletion, because I can tell that it's a political campaign to get something done. My problem is that it would be impossible to rewrite without the POV issues. Gosox5555 (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should be speedyable under A7 (there's no way that this claims any significance), but since you don't want that, let's delete slowly. Definitely a total lack of notability. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again it seems like it might be speedyable, since there's no references and it seems addressed to purely local concerns. Move to Campaign 440 if kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete rather clear A7. Also note that author made changes that red-linked this AfD for awhile. Willing to assume good faith for now since it also added a sentence and might have been an honest error. JuJube (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No evidence of notability. File it under WP:YOUREKIDDINGRIGHT. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. File it under WP:PROBABLYNOTTHERIGHTPLACE. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 16:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no news hits, some blogs, and few relevant articles on the Internet. Currently, no reliable sources can even be found to verify this campaign even is legitimate. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Change to weak keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are actually news hits, from the BBC, as well as numerous ghits, which could have been found easily. I've added these to the article, and encourage those misled by its previous state to reconsider. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: whatever else can be said about the matter, it no longer seems to be an unsourced and unreadable mess. I'd still wonder whether this is too local or ephemeral a matter to sustain an encyclopedia article, even if it has been noticed by the BBC. Then again, we do cover equally quixotic and misguided "movements" like 8664.org, and this may be as durable as that one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page's contents were removed and replaced with a comment:

BBC TV feature on Campaign440 BBC NEWS | England | Hampshire | Campaigners in 40mph limit call.webarchive

by User:Kevinfp1 - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 12:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walk with a doc

Fails WP:ORG, there are over 9.6 Google search hits and there are no searches about the organization. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there are some references to be found, they are mostly just event listings. The organization itself has not garnered any significant media coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was just about to pass over this discussion but then noticed the "over 9.6" in the nomination, and felt compelled to stop and ask how there can be a fraction of a search hit. After checking for myself I can't find anything to show notability - I don't think that these approximately 6.997 Google News hits are enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 12:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten Willer

Non-notable person, does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Though the article has 45,400 Google hits. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Definitely non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though certainly not speedy, and not at all per A7. Sources in the article are far from reliable, GHits (I count only 500) are mostly not his but other people with this name. For those that are we have the usual collection of YouTube, Facebook, own web site, Wikipedia. At his one documented solo performance entrance was free of charge... --Pgallert (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no claim approaches WP:BAND, CSD A7 applies. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Moved to User:Rafevl/Sackboy (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sackboy

Article does not yet meet guidelines on notablility or verifiability. Suggest userfying the article to User:Rafevl/Sackboy (as the main contributor) until it meets the criteria for inclusion in main Wiki. Then redirect Sackboy back to LittleBigPlanet. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. X201 (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy – I pretty much agree with the nom's assessment. Put it into the userspace, inform the user of reliable sources, verifiability, and no original research. MuZemike 16:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and it's generally poorly written.--Megaman en m (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User page - As per nom. As per previously mentioned reasons. Obviously a new user so suggest a personal note explaining reasons for removal and pointing them towards WP:VG as a place for help and advice. I think there is enough out of universe info out in the World to support a Sackboy article, he is starting to become a Sony mascot, especially for SCEE. - X201 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Like said above, inform the user that there is hope for the article. --Blake (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure; userfy if you wish but still press the delete button on this page (or the redirect that results after the move). Don't give the creator false hope that this article would have been acceptable with only minor changes; explain to them WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, and so on. Savidan 17:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 12:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Menno Baars

Contested prod. No evidence of notability - simply a couple of stunts. Far too few ghits to imply notability and no references in this article that show it. Being a publicity seeker doesn't make you a notable artist even if you have painted the nose of a small aircraft. Doesn't make you an expressionist either, but that's another story. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I removed the claim to being an expressionist: this was unsupported by any critical assessment. I also removed some POV language, again, supported. freshacconci talktalk 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In Wikipedia notability isn't subjective - all that is required is non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. We might think it is silly that this person has been covered for his "art stunts" but the fact remains that he been covered, in detail. See [43] and [44] - note most sourecs are not in English, but they are not required to be to be considered valid. (Also GHITS is not valid argument.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of these links to "detailed coverage" consists of press releases from Volvo, which IMHO is definitely not non-trivial coverage, the other is to Dutch sources that can't be evaluated by non-Dutch speakers so we don't know if it's non-trivial but I note that there are not very many stories anyway. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources" that's required by WP:N? GHITS is perfectly valid if there's nothing else to go on, which there isn't. In fact it may be valuable "as a negative test of popular culture topics", as in this case. andy (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually they're not press releases *from* Volvo. They're from this site: http://www.bymnews.com/ BYM Gallery - Photos of and news about Boats. (Not about art). I can find one article that is promotional about an art show from a local paper (in Dutch - use google translate to get the gist), and another about the single "stunt" listed here. Then, there are several articles that interview heer Baars about his medical practice (and nothing to do with his art). Perhaps the article should be relisted under medical? Deadchildstar (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if he meets notability requirements for doctors, which I believe are pretty rigorous. freshacconci talktalk 15:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Google searched pointed out by Thaddeus do not provide any reliable sources. I searched the archives for de Volkskrant and NRC Handelsblad (two of the biggest Dutch dailies) and found nothing there besides one article naming him as the founder for a website for heart surgery patients. There's no notability here, only a stunt which wasn't even reported on, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those google sources are utterly useless; they are not in English, are mainly press releases and are trivial. This fella doesn't appear to be all that special. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parsec Awards

Questionable notability and no sources Wade Hunter (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dragon Con. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as while the article was badly out of date, that was expediently remedied by stubifying the article and adding several references to reliable sources. Broad coverage based on a quick Google search and coverage by reliable third-party sources cover verifiability and notability. Does the stub now need to be expanded? Sure, but that's not a matter for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe it notable that the nominator's only edits have been in pursuit of this AfD and a previous one that just closed "no consensus". - Dravecky (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources are also to be found under "Parsec Award" Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I'm not sure if these are enough. Abductive (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and exapand. Artw (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly makes the Parsec Awards notable? Is anyone on the Parsec committee notable? Anyone famous, recognizable, or an authority on the subject they are judging? How about the contestants? Are the contestants just run-of-the-mill ? I didn't notice anyone of note who won awards. Let's look at it this way: Let's say my grandma started to give awards out for the best cookie recipe and the contestants for the award were my aunt Betty, the girl down the street, and some lady from grandma's church, and some other un-notable people. Is my grandma's award any less notable than a Parsec award? Let's say that contestants for my grandma's award were Rachael Ray, Bobby Flay, Wolfgang Punk, etc... then contestants of that calibre would than make this award notable. Or, for example the other way around, if Emeril Lagasse was the one holding the best cookie recipe contest then that would make the awards notable. I'm not exactly sure this explains my point, but I do feel like chocolate chip cookies right now. In my opinion, the Parsec Awards are not notable unless there some type of authority there. Wade Hunter (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a techincal term here. Read WP:N. Artw (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at the very least Tracy Hickman, a best-selling sf author, is a notable member of the award committee. But since notability is not inherited, it is better to look for independent sources. As is pointed out above, there are a smattering of sources. Debate should center on if these are enough. Abductive (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source from Steven H Silver and the SF Site lists the Parsec nominees on a page with other award nominees for the year, some of which have articles. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the notability of the originators of the award & the awardees, I think this is almost certainly notable, regardless of technicalities about sources. DGG (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A rename could be considered, but that should be discussed elsewhere at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009

This page has been created by one editor to represent the causes of the Subprime mortgage crisis and the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009. The article is loaded with ambiguity, selected speech excerpts, original research and bias. My personal opinion is that the article serves no purpose other than to promote user:Farcaster's opinions. Scribner (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article on Financial crisis of 2007–2010 shows, this is a complicated phenomenon that is best covered by a large series of articles, and this article is a part of that series. While the prose could be tightened up, this article seems reasonably informative and referenced. The nomination would appear to involve a content dispute and makes no case for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not part of a series. What gave you that impression? It's obvious you've voted on a topic with which you're unfamiliar. There's been talk about merging to clean this mess up. About 80% of this article has been cherry picked from the Subprime mortgage crisis article. Scribner (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment1 Might be an attempt to split the WP articles mentioned (plus Late_2000s_recession plus certainly some more); the see-also templates included in the articles make me think that way. However, the resulting article duplicates the existing ones in more than one place and repeats the same graphs, quotes and phrases. The whole set of contributions around the financial crisis requires cleanup and some different viewpoints but I wouldn't go as far as calling it OR, or even POV. --Pgallert (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2 Sorry to say that but looking at the recent edit history of User:Scribner I smell some WP:IDONTLIKEIT in this submission. He is heavily involved in the topic and might for this reason not be the most impartial of editors for this particular topic. No offense intended, of course. --Pgallert (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see my comments on Angelo page. This whole area is littered with biased sources and "cause and effect" determined by self-interest, and NOT appeal to reality. OK, so I have had more than normal alcohol to drink with lunch( no joke) , but this is the only way I can address this joke topic-anyone who had more respect for reality than "Experts" saw this coming years ago. Anything that cites any reasonable sources, other htan NAR, or says that the issue is complex or confusing, as the first paragraph DOES, needs to be DISCUSSED, not deleted. The national association of realtors and related groups have a lot of money and interest and simple "obvious to non-expert" commentary would deflate normally "reliable" sources as being driven by ad dollars, not real cause-and-effect attribution. If you have ANY respect for intellectual freedom, edit this page do not delete it. On a larger issue, modern attitudes are shaped by "positive thinking" and simply put IMO, it was self-deception that lead to this mess and it is antithetical to reality testing or science. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm with Smerdis/Ihcoyc.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since we have several very long articles which are largely duplicates of one another on the financial crisis, it would be advantageous to separate out the sections on the causes of the crisis and consolidate (merge) them into one subordinate article. This is that article. We should beef this one up and replace the sections on causation in the major articles by short summaries with a link to this article. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is the causes of... written by one individual, with a POV slant towards conservatism that's extreme. Wiki makes history for itself in claiming the cause of the subprime crisis is low American savings rates and a trade imbalance. Laughable. Scribner (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That "one individual" is Farcaster (talk · contribs) who has been (recently) the most energetic editor improving the articles on the current recession. I do not consider him conservative. In fact, before the far-left Scribner appeared, I considered Farcaster to be liberal. However, I believe that Farcaster is trying to be even-handed and ensure that all view points are fairly represented. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Examples of bias "Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac...They only exist because Congress made them to further its desire to distort the economy by getting mortgages for people who do not deserve them. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)" This comment by JRSpriggs is typical of the mindset of the the article. Farcaster refers to homes in foreclosure as "McMansions". Bias aside, the article is incomplete, omits key events and places emphasis on events that whitewash mainstream consensus, and omits altogether worldview opinions. Scribner (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - A Thought : To which I would suggest, " FNM and FRE were created by congress to give loans to people who wouldn't have any other source[]. Some view this as a good way to help poor people[], others have labelled it as an economic distortion to give money to people who ( choose how loaded a term the sources will support)[]. " Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. The quotation from me given by Scribner is from my edit [45] which was on the talk page of a different (but related) article. I have not denied that my views would be considered very far right by most people. But I did not put this into the article. Nor are Farcaster's views identical to mine as Scribner seems to be implying. If I had written the whole article, it would be quite different than it is. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cause and effect doesn't apply here LOL - Yes, "causes of" sounds like inherently an original analytical work. But, the fact is there are many causes discussed in secondary sources and so a topic of this type, while maybe more appropriately thought of as a list, is quite reasonable. Scribner's comment would only be a cause for action if you thought that "causes" or the crisis didn't exist or were beyond human ability to know. A list of hypothesized causes from reliable sources, and all lists start with one entry, is no different here than with other controversial topics. I personally don't think any of these secondary sources are other than laughable, but I won't bother putting primary sources here since everyone just wants to argue over which biased version should get the most weight. Ask yourself about the kinds of things that determine a sustainable price for a home and see if this is really not self-evident and would admit "obvious" comments from primary sources ( if the US census says "X" and the IRS say "Y" but real estate pro's say "real estate only goes up", which primary sources do you need to cite to avoid doing "OR" to say something isn't right here? This whole topic is a joke). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Causes of the U.S. Financial Crisis of 2007-2009. Article and its sources are irretrievably US-centric. Causes and effects of financial crisis outside of USA are hardly mentioned. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same opinion: Keep but rename to Causes of the U.S. Financial Crisis of 2007-2009.
Keep--as aside, I don't think it should be renamed to specify U.S., since the economic crisis is a global phenomenon, though largely concentrated/started in the U.s. I would rename it to a more neutral Background of the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on renaming to Background and U.S. are both good ideas. The Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 is a world-wide recession, the Subprime mortgage crisis is specific to the U.S. in name. This article does not represent the causes of either article. Thanks to all who have taken the time to comment Scribner (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Some causations inferred from the temporally proximal antecedents are documented conjectures from reliable sources and others are logical ( much as a power grid tripping in response to a small problem or Chernobyl, you can point to some isolated items as logical consquences. In this, maybe as with WW-I, written agreements may be factors, for example, " if default rate on X goes up, we can collect Y from Z immediately" in some binding agreement would suggest that if Z ceded Y to author after X default rate goes up, then the X default rate could have helped to cause Z to become insolvent. QED. LOL. The reality of course is that "default rates on X go up" because there is no underlying economic basis on which to believe in the "optimistic" attitudes that would presumably accompany prudent lending. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nerdseeksblonde, this isn't a forum. The causes of the subprime crisis are pretty well established and the U.S. trade imbalance and low savings among Americans are a whitewash. You should ask yourself why our article doesn't resemble a similar source's. Scribner (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename To a title to be decided by talk page discussion or RFC. Suggest "Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 (Economic theories of causes)" Reasons for keep, per nomination. WP:DELETION makes no mention of WP:OR or WP:POV, only WP:N; these are problems to be fixed internally (by editing the main article or discussing on the talk page. The fact that these are continually cited in AfDs as reason for deletion is the opposite of an excuse, it just shows the extent of the problem. If one wants articles on WP to be good articles, mainspace, talk page, and RFC are great places to start. AfD as critique is not acceptable. Anarchangel (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding Ideas : Well, we need to get some idea on the different perspectives if you don't want one to dominate inappropriately compared to secondary source coverage. So, if you have alt views then I guess we can do a source count to determine mainstream. In fact, however, a home is fairly valued based largely on the economic benefit related to the area ( and supply demand etc). Home price appreciation would have been justified in areas with new industries ( this is "obvious" on case studies ) where there is economic benefit associated with being nearby. So, to the extent that foreign factories replaced domestic production ( trade balance), then maybe you ( or someone ) could make this a link in a causal chain. You can call it whitewash I guess and I agree the mainstream is probably no too candid, which is why I'm not offering to contribute, but you don't need to import if you have a domestic factory in your neighborhood and if you don't make enough to save that is less to put towards a home. A home is a consumable item that normally just happens to last a while. With a growing population you can generally expect more demand later and may see appreciation. In the absence of growth, there is only so much economic value it has- the dollar value can be changed somewhat by value of the currency etc etc etc... You can call this helping people, but it just let more middle Americans who missed the tech bubble get involved in an asset bubble ( had those tech stocks made high value product, it would not have been a bubble). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Selene

Notability unclear. Was tagged for speedy deletion. Lunus (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a dream right now, not so much much a dream-team. Fails WP:N, dearth of independent party sources Ohconfucius (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are a few news reports, though most about the Lunar X Prize and few centered around Team Selene itself. Lunus (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:Company. The Speedy Delete|speedy was removed by a Sockpuppet (or a blocked indefinitely user). TheAsianGURU (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable yet, no strong media coverage beyond naming them as one of the teams. Shell ^babelfish 12:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Alderson

article lacks notability, lacks cited 3rd party references and reads more like a resume then a biographical article. Bidgee (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep latest BBC documentary was in external links, Google books shows 3 pages relating to Alderson in Franklin's biography. Paul foord (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Alderson, IS a celebrity in Ireland with three BBC documentaries charting his life as well as the movie and independent film. They are worthy enough to grant him a wikipedia page due to a lot of irish backing and interest in his story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The 2007 BBC documentary sought "to follow Leigh as he pursues his dream to become a professional dancer." If Alderson had gone on from there to bigger and better things, citing the documentary would be a useful support reference describing his early career. This is not a criticism, but two years on we still cannot say he meets any of the criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE. NECB appears to be a minor dance company, of which Alderson is one of a number of contracted dancers. –Moondyne 09:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refocus article to his appearance in the BBC documentaries. He appears to be notable as the subject of TV programmes first and a dancer/actor/model second. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send article to cleanup to address format, style, and focus. Subject meets WP:GNG [46], [47], [48], [49]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep im sorry can i ask what is moondynes problem? he knows nothing of the company nor the work they do, he seems bitter and intent on ridding articles of people with talent and good accomplishment, it just comes across malicious. i think moondyne needs to stop tampering!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And I think you need to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Atrocity Exhibition... Exhibit B

AfDs for this article:

The ritual for the creation of this crystal ball was made in 2007 [obviously a violation of WP:DEADLINE]; it survived an AFD [pathetic], and this album is only expected to be released in 2010 [huh?]. (wonderful quote to prove my blah-blah-blah: "The band will enter [really?] the studio in November 2009, anticipating an [possible] April 2010 release.") Canniba loki 04:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loki is right: violation of Crystal Ball, and I can't find any reliable sources to confirm this in any significant way, except for the usual chatter and publicity notes (on Metal Storm, Blabbermouth). If the album comes out there is plenty of time to rewrite an article--but it should be noted that the only thing the article says right now is that there is a non-event, and it's this hypothetical album. The arguments from the first AfD are not convincing in the least, and cite only the "official website." Official that site may be, but a reliable source in the sense of WP:RS it really isn't--and I don't see it listed there, as a matter of fact. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article can be re-created if and when a release date in the near future can be confirmed by a reliable source. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. I can't believe the first one passed based on info from their own website. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree. At this stage there's really nothing more than "They're working on an album that will be titled this, and is expected in 2010.". Doesn't need an article right now. 86.146.158.22 (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NALBUMS; needs the title, release date and track list. Cliff smith ^talk 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 12:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlies (New Zealand)

Article has been marked as unnotable for over a year. There is no substantial content and have been no non-vandalism edits in attempt to revitalize the article. The content of the article seems to be more of a menu or catalog than an article. Mpdelbuono (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created the page by splitting it from another. It is a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CORP. Multiple nontrivial coverage by secondary sources. [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. 66.57.1.249 (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Certainly has a high profile in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 08:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable per WP:CORP if you look on Google and Google News but article requires significant work to be a meaningful article.

Rcurtis5 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I think I'm well on the way to fixing the article. While its probably not well known outside of NZ and Australia, the company does appear to be notable. I'm working my way through the NZ Herald archives at the moment, but they've also been written about (non-trivial) in the Dominion Post, National Business Review, Australasian Business Intelligence,Food Industry Week (NZ) and are large enough to be included prominently in Reuter's market standings/industry research for the area. Shell ^babelfish 12:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has had quite a bit of news coverage over the years. --Helenalex (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sufficent time has passed and positive arguments made on both sides of the debate have come forward. With no-one advocating that the content could live within another article there is no consensus to delete - no consensus leads us to a default keep accordingly. Pedro : Chat 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living With Fibromyalgia

WP:NF no RS for this film, only reference is dead link and i can not find any independent sources. I think it is advertisement for a film selling on Amazon but it is not reviewed in any RS. RetroS1mone talk 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are some reviews available, but mostly of the blog sort. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although there are lots of reviews and referrals to this video none are major sources. On the other hand this video is unique in the world of FM and is highly thought of as a documentary in its own right. A video like this will always have a minority interest but within it's small world it does seem to be notable if only for the fact that no-one else has done anything like it. --Web Hamster 20:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NF. Blogs aren't reliable sources and you can find mention of anything somewhere in a blog. BigDunc 20:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep Award-winning docmentary film, and first feature-length of its kind, with sourcing available that are not blogs. And of all the minutae (sorry) that quite often finds its way into these pages through the "notability" of headline and hype, this article truly serves to improve the project and inform readers about a notable subject that impinges on many lives. Not to spout WP:WAX, but an encyclopedia that has articles on consumer fast foods should gladly encourage inclusion of such encyclopedic articles that serve the world community as a whole. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It as an award winner. Passes WP:NF. Iowateen (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checked out the award it has won it appears very few of the films that win at this awards have articles nevertheless change my vote. BigDunc 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment, that is probaly BC the Houston International Film Festival has ~ 200 award categories, it gave 872 awards in 2008, top to bottom Grand Award, Special Jury Award, Platinum Remi, Gold Remi, Silver Remi, Bronze Remi. 2008, it was 9 Grand Awards, top prize, 67 Special Jury Awards, and 199 Platinum Remis. There are 3 Documentary categories and 7 documentaries got Special Jury award and 7 got platinum Remis. This film was one from 3 films that got a platinum Remi in it's documentary catagory, after two that got Special Jury Award. So this film, at one independent film festival was in the top 14 documentaries and top 275 awards. RetroS1mone talk 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "as one of 23 documentaries to receive awards at the festival." & a minor festival at that. Retrosimone is rightthat this is not a significant award, and there are no other indicationjs of notability.DGG (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With over 4500 entries in multiple catagories. Award-winning documentaries accounted for only .05% of the total and Plantinum Remi (1st place) winning documentaries accounted for only .01% of the total. Must have been something special about them. the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival is a notable festival that has been around since 1961 and now gearing up for its 43rd such event. Wikipedia does not mandate that a film festival be popularity-driven like the Grammy's or Oscars in order to be notable. This festival's notability is found by multiple in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources for over 3 decades. With respects, since WP:NF specifically states "standards have not yet been established to define a major award", I am happy to not infer something guideline does not mandate and so can accept that this honor by that festival is indicative of the film's notability and the value of the article in improving Wikipedia and informing readers. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was ~ 125 feature films and shorts screening at 2008 festival, 4500 was total all applications, films, TV shows, commercials, music videos, how to videos, student videos, some got selecting for screening at festival. Platinum Remi is top award in catagory, festival has higher awards Grand Prize and Special Jury Award, there was 76 from them in 2008. It was 200 catagories at festival, some get more then one Platinum. Also when every 125 film or short was documentary, 14 documentaries got Platinum or higher, above 10% of films, but many film or short kinds at festival. When 23 documentaries get awards from 125 films, is there a documentary did NOT get an award, i am wondering?? Awards dilute so much, it does not mean any thing, my opinion, for "secondary" award criteria, wp:nf, when there is not rs for film. RetroS1mone talk 12:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, though only 125 were screened, far, far more won awards... over 800 on the official list for all awards and categories. It certainly would have been impossible to screen all the several thousands that were up for consideration. That the sheer number of submissions under consideration was so huge actually underscores both the peer notability of the festival and the individual notability of those who won out over such a tremendous competition, as only 1% of the many submissions under consideration actually won an award of any sort. The tremendous number of submissions certainly explains the number of awards... which again, only represent 1% of total submissions. It is laudable that the filmmakers are more concerned with spreading the word of the condition and helping others cope, rather than seeking headlines and press. Encyclopdedic content is not supposed to be based entirely on popularity and press hype. Would the film had gotten more popular media press had it been produced by Sony Pictures, rather than by an independent filmmaker? Certainly... but then it would not have been in a competition notable to thousands of independent filmmakers. Should its having been created by an independent count as an automatic stike against it? Ideally, no. But not having a media agent acts to its perceived disadvantage.
  - The article is encyclopedic, sourced, informative, and aids the reader in an understanding of the subject. As WP:N itself begins with "Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute", this discussion underscores a certain weakness in WP:NF, as similar discussions inevitably pare down to addressing the media coverage given by fame, importance, or popularity. It also underscores the importance of all guidelines being "best used with common sense and the occasional exception". Though the WP:Verified subject might be weak in meeting the WP:GNG, the topic itself is notable to the millions suffering from this ailment and to their families. This is a case where allowing the article to remain and be improved over time serves to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced. It is clearly a notable documentary. Its the first feature-length film that explores the chronic pain condition known as fibromyalgia. Dream Focus 23:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We need signs that independent reliable sources have noticed this film more than the many thousands made each year. I don't agree that the prizes/awards reported are sufficient indication of this. I actually find it striking that given the "popularity" of the subject matter and that it was released 2 years ago, that the film apparently hasn't received any coverage in books, news media and scholarly journals on the subject (based on googlesearches etc) . I don't doubt that it is a helpful film to many. That doesn't mean we need or want an article on the subject.--Slp1 (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We" may not, but that doesn't mean to say Joe Public doesn't. Also take into account that a film like this won't have the marketing budget of even low budget Hollywood films. Also the fact that it is the first and only film of its type means that it is notable in its own right. There's a good argument for applying WP:IAR and WP:PAPER in this instance because it falls between the gaps with regard to WP:NF and various other usual conventions. Also please don't forget that just isn't a 'film' per se, it's a documentary. --Web Hamster 13:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Slp1's comments... This film (or documentary if you prefer) just does not rise to the level of being notable. We need to have some indication that it is concidered notable by the general public... people beyond the narrow confines of those who care about Fibromyalgia. I could see mentioning the film in the main Fibromyalgia article (or at least mention it as a reference in that article), but I don't think it rates an article on its own. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam for nonnotable film, with completely nonnotable award (these days any independent film is virtually guaranteed of getting some award from some awardfarming service -- think it's contractual for some of these festivals) and no independent sources showing anything like notability for a Wikipedia article. Ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The award confers enough notability, and the article contains enough RSs for WP:V. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on verifiable sources and award. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets film notability criteria: received Platinum Remi award and was screened at Houston International Film Festival. Brandt 19:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you guys realize that in 2008 for example, the festival awarded out nearly 200 Platinum Remis? [56]--Slp1 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was spoken of above at length. Of the 4500 entries in various categories, and the numrous awards in various categories, only 7 Plantinum Remies went to documentaries. Kinda puts it in the top of its class, as competition must have been fierce. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every year, all over the world, there are many, many international film festivals. At each one, year after year, many, many awards are given out. Does that mean that every single one can be considered to have won "major award for excellence" ([per NF)? Does WP need or want articles on every single one? I don't think so. Most especially, as, apart from this award, precisely zero independent reliable sources outside a very small number of (not the greatest) sources from the Fibromyalgia world/employers of the filmmakers/calendar announcement, have noticed the film in any way. --Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about a specific film and a specific festival, not every single film that ever won an award anywhere. WP:NF lists some major awards, but specifically states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". In this specific instance, we consider this specific film. The criteria at WP:NF IS "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... so if the festival is notable per WP:GNG (and it well is), a first place award at that notable festival would apply, and be in context with the film type and festival type. This is not a publicist-hyped multi-starred boxoffice blockbuster created and promoted by a major studio. It will never play at your local cinemaplex... but guideline accepts that. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not paper provided that notability is ok. This is the case I think, but the topic is quite unpleasant. Brandt 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm always a bit cautious when WP:IAR (above) and WP:PAPER are cited; Irrelevantly, I wonder why would you say the topic is "unpleasant"? I can think of way more unpleasant medical topics than this!!!--Slp1 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Competition was not "fierce" i think, there was 125 films screened at festival, not all was documenteries, and 23 documentaries got awards. 7 documenteries got Platinum Remi, 3 in the same catagory with this film, and 7 docu got a higher award then Platinum, the Special Jury Award. Platinum is a catagory award, Special Jury is a festival award. How many docu was there in the 125 films, i am wondering, does any body want a bet, all documentaries got awards? RetroS1mone talk 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, you're repeating what was discussed above. The festival received over 4,500 entries in multiple categories. The Platinum Remi Award is a jury award given to the 1st place winner in each category. That the documentary won 1st place in its category is no less notable simply because there were other winners in other categories. It was a huge field after all, and not all the 4500 entires won awards or were screened. Please, and since this has been discussed in depth above, is it really neccessary to repeat ourselves? On a side notem thank you for the assist on my new aricle on the National Fibromyalgia Association. I appreciate your help. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how can it necessarily be the first place if it was one of 7? I suppose you mean as a subclass of documentaries? Divide anything into enough classes and quite a lot will be first in its class. That's the normal way festivals are able to give multiple impressive sounding awards--its a publicity trick. DGG (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were 7 winners in this film's categories. As I do not know any festival that lists the losers, I cannot find out how many were in total competition for this category. Receiving one of 3 Platinum Remi winners might lose persective, but the win surpasses the Gold, Silver, and Bronze Remis awarded in this category. Does a 3-way tie for the Platinum diminish its worth? Does sharing an Oscar diminish it's worth?

Worldfest's entry fees range from $45 to $90+ and more (dependent on film length and time of entry), so I'm sure it was profit that had them accept submissions from 4500 films... knowing that only 2% would be winning prizes and that they could only screen 125 of the 800 winners. But heck, even the Academy Awards are done-for-profit, so making money is not a strike. Personally, I think they are getting too big for themselves. Despite this, Worldfest is one of the grails for independent fimmakers... and every one of that 4500 entered into competition hoping they would win. On their website, they explain that "WorldFest is 12 Major film & video competitions in one event, unlike Cannes, Sundance and Toronto, which are just 2 competitions for shorts and features only. Because of our 12 major competitions and the 200+ sub-categories, WorldFest does give a lot of awards, but they are both earned and deserved. No awards are given in any category unless the scores from the juries are high enough to place for honors."

True or not, trick or not, that credo has garnered the festival the notability required by guideline... as The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We may be volunteers here, but festivals exist in the real world... one where Bigger, Better, Faster, Newer, Tastier, Smarter, Prettier are all used as hyperbole to sell a product. It is that hype and that press that guarantees article notability for any low-quality fast food with a clown or king mascot.

However, I will be glad to take part in those future and inevitable Wikipedia discussions that attempt to finally determine what constitutes a major award. Until that is decided, all I can go on is common sense and guideline. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is 8 days old now, isn't it time it was closed as an obvious keep? --Web Hamster 08:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the time for this to get closed but IMO it would be no consensus so default to keep. BigDunc 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Davey

article lacks notability, lacks 3rd party references and reads more like a resume then a biographical article. Bidgee (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is blatantly ~~self-~~promotional and needs a drastic overhaul, however looking through all that I think the subject may actually be notable as a dancer. If independent, reliable sources can be found I would be willing to keep this, but not as it is at present. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a good look at this and the NECB which seems to be a minor dance company that lost its funding last year. Subject is apparently a member of the dance team there, but not especially notable at this time. 2 films, 1 independent and not yet released, 1 not yet in production. Perhaps this will be a little more notable in 12 months time once reviews and reliable sources can be provided. –Moondyne 04:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moondyne's analysis without prejudice to a later inclusion if and when reliable sources are available. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save the article has good cause to stay, its relevant to dancers and to people who understand art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firesigns (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)— Firesigns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Future notability doesn't pass. And having roles in a movie doesn't make you notable. Having significant roles in significant movies does Note that another actor in the upcoming film is also in AfD WP:Articles for deletion/Leigh Alderson. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save im sorry , but these all sound like , especially the last comment, all quite bitter...! i do believe the roles are significant and i have on good authority to let you know that the other independent film has been premiered in the uk for which the said person is the star of. And second of all the second person Alderson, IS a celebrity in Ireland with three BBC documentaries charting his life as well as the movie and independent film. They are worthy enough to grant him a wikipedia page due to a lot of irish backing and interest in his story! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps you should look again. This discussion is about Kyle Davey, not Leigh Alderson. I did NOT register a delete !vote in that AfD discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why on earth would you rid more articles about artists and the arts, especially ballet! are you kidding, in response to mattibgn, why dont you help the article instead of just getting rid of it?! and moondyne, New English Contemporary Ballet got extremely rave reviews from all the major spreads and major mags The Dancing Times and Dance Europe included, although im not sure how much they put up on their web pages, otherwise it would be pointless them releasing a mag, but i will try and get a hold of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: The above IP has already !voted in this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note but you did bring his name up in this conversation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, I did. It is common practice to link closely related AfD's. But keep avoiding the fact that you are talking about the wrong person and have tried to vote twice. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note actually i havent. i live with three other people and they were around when i did this, i spoke to them and they took it apon themselves to write what they thought.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the old "someone else used my computer" excuse......then you can see why creating an account would make sense....or remove your excuse. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how old exactly are you? im guessing under 21? we have a comunal computer in our house, as its easier as we are all doctors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Invoking WP:IAR to close early. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipert

Contested PROD. Completely unsourced neologism. Already listed at Wikipedia:WikiSpeak, would've suggested redirect but that would be cross-namespace, so delete. -- œ ^™ 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - term not in common circulation. Marasmusine (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia mainspace articles shouldn't be about Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not Wiktionary; neologism. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echuca College

Unsourced article about a non-notable school. No evidence to suggest that the school is in any way notable even if judges at the Rock Eisteddford are moved to tears! Mattinbgn\^talk 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 02:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are fairly easily found to establish existence- certainly it needs major cleanup, but not deletion. tedder (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. No-one is questioning its existence. Fails WP:SCHOOL, even if that is one of the most ignored inclusion criteria in WP. Nothing special about this school. –Moondyne 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt WP:SCHOOLS is one of the "most ignored inclusion criteria" because it failed to attain consensus! WWGB (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Did you actually read Tedder's sources? The second one is an in-depth profile of the state of the school, with a lot of really useful information, and details quite a bit about the school that's unique - one thing that stood out is that it was one of the oldest technical schools in the state, but there was quite a bit more there. And that was just a two-minute search. Rebecca (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must admit I only read the 1st one which was a not-very exciting 1994 photograph directory entry, hence my statement. My bad. Change to keep. Fanstastic? Sources? Gimme a break. –Moondyne 05:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) –Moondyne 04:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Moondyne. The point is that they weren't too hard to find- it only took me half a minute to find those. tedder (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do know what the point was and was responding to that. –Moondyne 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tedder has found some fantastic sources that a) back up a clear claim to notability, and b) could make for a really interesting expansion of this article. Rebecca (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a clearly notable secondary school with sources available that meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is one of the articles that justifies our practice of keeping all articles on secondary schools.DGG (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I goto this school and will be able to keep it up to date.Techgeek2007 (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2009 (AEST)

Techgeek2007, please read Wikipedia's notes on original research. However, being connected isn't a bad thing- can you help find reliable sources on it? tedder (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, sorry, I have added a reference to do with the buildings and will try and use references in the future. techgeek2007 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (AEST)

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient good references for notability DGG (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lightfoot

Delete. Non-notable nutter, fails WP:AUTHOR. Also fails WP:BIO as there is no substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'll elaborate more if needed but this should hopefully be an open-and-shut case.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article, but I think it's important to say why I think it should be kept in Wikipedia. Firstly, Steve Lightfoot has been around for a long time - his original pamphlet about King being behind Lennon's murder was published in 1990, and still remains read today. His numberous publicity stunts to raise awareness of his beliefs have been published in both local and national newspapers (see references in the article), and Stephen King has mentioned Lightfoot in more than one interview. I am aware that there are issues behind the fact that Lightfoot's views are unlikely to be true, and do not seem to be based in any reliable evidence, but surely the same applies for similar people such as David Icke, etc... I think there is certainly enough press coverage to support this article, even if everything on lennonmurdertruth.com is removed (which is mostly used for early biographical details, such as his golf career.) Also, his comments in the press regarding River Phoenix suggest that he is not simply notable for one event, but several. A caveat on the article confirming that it is likely that Lightfoot's views are ... unconventional, at least, would be appropriate, as it would be problematic to state as fact that King killed Lennon (although Lightfoot does), and it's important to point out that these are Lightfoot's views, rather than consensus. I don't think, however, this makes him non-notable - simply because of his unconventional views. Well, that's my view, anyway. I hope this discussion goes well. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, his comments in the press regarding River Phoenix suggest that he is not simply notable for one event, but several.

A Google search for "Steve Lightfoot" and "River Phoenix" only gets six hits. One of them is this AFD. The rest mention the two but not in the same sentence.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about this? Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, one fleeting reference in an article that just mentions Lightfoot. That doesn't back up your theory that he is notable for several events.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on, captain! At least I looked at the "six hits". And I think it's quite clear in the article that Lightfoot, in his van, shows up to assert his theories about River Phoenix's death. I don't think I was ever suggesting that it should form a major part of his biography, but it's certainly another example of Lightfoot making the press. If he is notable, and I believe he is, then it is first and foremost as an activist and theorist about the causes of John Lennon's death and Stephen King's role therein. I'd like to think that I've made that clear above - to to re-iterate: most of the time Lightfoot makes the press is during various of his publicity stunts to raise the awareness of his cause. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at all the links--I missed yours because he's simply referred to as "Phoenix" instead of "River Phoenix". Its such a brief reference, and I was looking for something bigger since you claimed that Lightfoot was notable for it.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. The fact that his name has been mentioned a few times in media in passing does not make him notable - for that he and his theories would have to have been discussed by mainstream news, not just mentioned. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable! Nothing more than one of societies "special people" spouting WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 18:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have looked at every one of the references given in the article. The first begins with the words "Hi. My name is Steve Lightfoot": scarcely independent. Most of the others give single sentence mention: typical is Santa Rosa City Council minutes, which says "Steve Lightfoot spoke of his website on the John Lennon murder", and that is all. Again, Stephen King in an interview says: "Though there's a guy out in California, Steven lightfoot, who believes that me and Ronald Reagan conspired to kill John lennon", and again that is all. The longest mention is in a report relating to a Sarasota City Commission meeting, which says "During public comment, a man with signs who identified himself as Steve Lightfoot, took a seat in front of commissioners saying he wanted to expose the truth. He then went on to allege that part-time Casey Key resident and author Stephen King was the person that killed John Lennon." To claim that there is "substantial" coverage, as required by Wikipedia:Notability would be absurd.

The arguments put forward above by the author of the article do not relate much or at all to Wikipedia policy. For example "Steve Lightfoot has been around for a long time": so has my grandfather. And then "His numberous [sic] publicity stunts to raise awareness of his beliefs have been published in both local and national newspapers": yes, but, even if the coverage were substantial (which it isn't), saying that making publicity stunts give someone a right to a WP article makes no sense: that would be tantamount to allowing WP to publish self-promotion. In short, none of this is about notability in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I found 25 Google News hits from all across the US. I also found mentions of him in four books, such as here and here. He's a wack job, but a fairly well-documented one. Side note: I live in Lightfoot's hometown, so I've seen his van a few times. However, I've never met him, and to the best of my knowledge, we have no mutual acquaintances. - Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did you see that many of those Google News hits are repeats of the same source article, beginning with either "A man who claims ..." or "Now, a California man is parked downtown ..."? When you omit copies, there are many less unique hits. As for the books and journals, the reference to Lightfoot is rarely more than a one-liner. WWGB (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: If I count all the duplicate news stories individually, I get 73 total. Without dupes, Google counts it as 25. If I'm more persnickity, we're left with about 15 or so—which is still more than anyone else had previously found (because I included relevant hits for "Steven Lightfoot"). I've seen people with considerably fewer news hits be kept. And that's not even counting the brief blurbs on blogs like National Review's Corner (here) to Boing Boing (here). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Noted that both of those refs come from the same source ("Swallowing the Camel") and contain 7 relevant words. WP:NOTABILITY states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." WWGB (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So what if there are quite a few news hits? If they are only trivial mentions they do not constitute substantial coverage. Also an editor wanting to keep (sic) has pointed out that much of what news mention there is comes as a result of "publicity stunts". (In fact for someone who has put so much effort into publicity stunts to finish up with about 15 or 25 independent hits is not very impressive.) We also have "I've seen people with considerably fewer news hits be kept." Yes, but that is irrelevant: there may have been many other factors, such as more substantial news items, or other sources apart from news coverage. Then we have "And that's not even counting the brief blurbs on blogs... ". A blog is not a reliable source: anyone can write anything in a blog. In short, Dori's claims do not relate to Wikipedia's notability standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've participated in two AFD discussions whose result were just barely a keep. Those people had several published books that were in the top 10 of their amazon category and whose names turned up tens of thousands of Google hits. This doesn't even come close. Sorry. --Mbilitatu (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and the WP:GNG. Verbal chat 19:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - This is a relevant article providing valuable added information to Wikipedia. Please stop the overzealous policing and deletion of Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, this meets each of Wikipedia's Five Pillars which explicitly states they are the only five rules, rendering all other arguments irrelevant.Aliveatoms (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aliveatoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made the identical recommendation on six AfDs in quick succession. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above, he has not gotten significant coverage in any of the reliable sources cited in the article. Fails both specific and general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing to merge, fails NSONGS, redirect pointless as anyone searching for the song is going to find the main article Black Kite 12:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Make You a Man (Reprise)

Fails WP:NSONG and does not cite sources. Any reason why this song is important enough to have it's own article? Gosox5555 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what does it need to cite for it to be appropriate enough not to delete it?
The song is 1:45 minutes long. The length of some very popular songs known to man. Why cannot it have its own page along with every other rocky horror song?--McCuddenn (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do suppose you're right. You know I never actually thought of that before? He does interrupt the song! When he comes out of the freezer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by McCuddenn (talk • contribs) 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to I Can Make You a Man. Why, because it's a reprise of that song, not really a separate song, finishing what was started before Meat Loaf interrupted the party. Yes, all the songs in Rocky Horror are notable because the books and videos, etc. provide significant non-trivial coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Nothing to merge due to the lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Redirect pointless due to the non-plausible nature of the article name as a search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 12:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's not about guideline vs. essay; if it passes either, it's notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Isom

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:Athelete (assuming that applies to managers and coaches as well). Also, no sources cited. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure whether he would fail WP:ATHLETE - according to its article, the Frontier League is professional, and if so he would pass that guideline. That's ultimately irrelevant however as he definitely fails the more specific WP:BASEBALL/N (as noted in the previous AfD) - minor league coaches and players are generally not notable unless the article provides multiple third-party non-trivial sources, which this one doesn't. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is a guideline, WP:BASEBALL/N is an essay. If he passes WP:ATHLETE, then we should keep the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that WP:ATHLETE has a higher status since it reflects Wikipedia-wide consensus, while WP:BASEBALL/N reflects the consensus of WikiProject Baseball. The problem, however, is that WP:ATHLETE can be difficult to interpret; for example, it doesn't explicitly talk about managers or coaches, and there is long-standing controversy whether the low minor leagues should be considered "fully professional." That's why the WikiProject drafted its essay to help clarify our interpretation of the broader notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has only accomplished minor league coaching so far, not the major league level. Royal broil 04:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent sources plus his professional/college playing career have been added. I see no problems any more. Royal broil 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accomplished minor league baseball manager. I have fixed up the article and added multiple sources. Spanneraol (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and re-direct to Wisconsin Timber Rattlers. His "pro career" was playing minor league ball. In general, minor leaguers aren't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But managers are. Spanneraol (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me and not to WP:BASEBALL/N. Local coverage about the home team don't really sway me. Local papers are supposed to cover local events. That's what they have to do to sell papers. If I took over the team tomorrow, they'd talk about me too. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's marginal, but a couple of sources do provide significant coverage of subject, thereby satisfying WP:N. BRMo (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE – B.hotep •talk• 08:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the bloodthrusty

No hits on Google. Fails WP:NF AND WP:N. MS (Talk|Contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had prodded this article only seconds before this nomination. No assertion of notability, sounds like a "garage movie" -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy?) as a future film with no sources, nor any indication or even claim of notability. JJL (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No indication of notability. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:MOVIE. Not even a hint of notability asserted. Javért |^Talk 11:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Unfortunately, there is no CSD criteria for films (although it would be easier if there was one similar to A9 for musical works). However, I would gladly make a happy faced snowman with this given a few more hours. – B.hotep •talk• 13:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice until such time as notability can be shown. Currently fails WP:NFF on all sides. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 main argument of the nominator is that this zoo doesn't exist. It has been demonstrated that it does. However, there hasn't been a lot of discussion about its notability. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wishes to discuss its notability. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bestzoo

Possible hoax. I can find no sources to prove existence. I am saying hoax because of the title. Best Zoo is probably just implying that some zoo is the best. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't appear to be a hoax. This is the first hit in a Google search. However, I don't understand Dutch, so I can't really say much more. Zagalejo^^^ 06:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article from the Dutch Wikipedia. The zoo seems to be mentioned in this travel guide. And some of these news results might be relevant. (But again, I don't understand Dutch.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bestzoo.nl/ is the website of this zoo. It does exist, is really called Best Zoo (since the city is called Best). I don't see any reason for deleting the page. Michaelfan—Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy Keep. Very notable zoo, seems like the nominator only thought it was a hoax because of the word "Best" but "Best" is the name of the town. Please remove this nomination. 174.153.175.72 (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there anyway to get a translation of those pages? They would be helpful.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the nomination. BestZoo seems to be a small zoo in the village Best in the Netherlands as part of a group named Zodiac Zoos, a group which includes other small zoos. Rubenescio (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G11 by User:Nyttend. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6030 features

This is a personal product review of the Nokia 6030 mobile phone. The article has been deprodded by the article creator. There is no appropriate content here at all. Fences&Windows 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra (x 10 to the power of 600) Strong Delete: Well this only violates: Wikipedia:WhatWikipediaIsNot#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, Wikipedia:WhatWikipediaIsNot#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia:NPOV, is that enough for deletion? KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 02:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD G11, blatant ad. I tagged into the article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 09:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the version before this editor started to edit (and that article needs help ... I've put a copy of the text on this talk page of this AfD), but AfD isn't appropriate after the original is restored. Here is this editor's contributions; note that they edited an existing article, then that article was deleted (bad call), then they re-created the article. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant OR-POV fork of Nokia 6030. Dank, I can find no evidence that Nokia 6030 was deleted; where are you seeing that? It appears to me that when Ccircle's material was (rightly) removed from that article, he created this as a fork. Deor (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as advertising. If the Nokia 6030 information were not present elsewhere, or if the article had been moved from one place to another, it would be different; but as the less problematic information is yet present elsewhere, there is no good reason to have such a pile of advertising remaining at all. One could redirect the page, I suppose, but "Nokia 6030 features" sounds like a rather unlikely redirect in my mind. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I was going to close this as no consensus, but upon further evaluation, I've determined that the keep "votes" don't really address the core of the nominator's concerns (as well as those raised by the editors in favor of deletion). "It's notable" or "There is coverage" are generally weak arguments without much evidence . Again, a very borderline case, but this decision is within admin discretion I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay – South Africa relations

another random combination, noting that South Africa decided to close its embassy in Paraguay over a decade ago. Lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly multilateral and football. [57]. the two countries played a football match in the 2002 World Cup. this result is adequately covered in 2002 World Cup but I know of at least 1 editor who would think this is worthy of inclusion for advancing relations between nation states. clearly not. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and handle via the Foreign Relations of X convention. JJL (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of actually notable facets of a relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for now. There might actually be something here, as it appears that Paraguay flouted embargoes against apartheid era South Africa. This thesis actually does cover the topic these countries relations directly and in depth, though--as I recall--there is no consensus on whether theses constitute reliable sources, since they are not published in the same sense that a book or newspaper or magazine article is published. (Perhaps someone can update me on how or whether this debate was resolved.) A targeted google books search also brings up a few direct hits, though these appear to be passing mentions, and not detailed coverage. So at this point, I gotta say 'weak delete', but if someone can demonstrate that these sources (or others that may have eluded my) constitute direct, detailed coverage, I'll change to keep. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't pretty much 3/4 of the civilized world have embargoes against SA over apartheid? That seems more like "one of the crowd" than notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was the opposite--Paraguay was apparently one the few countries that didn't respect those embargoes. So their relationship w/ SA may be somewhat atypical, vis-a-vis SA's relations with other countries. But at present, I'm still not convinced that this constitutes a notable relationship. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy for a country to disregard a sort of general embargo against another country if they don't really have any relations anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was on the fence about this one. It would seem to be significant that South Africa abandoned its diplomatic mission to Paraguay until I realized that it was abandoned because there was nothing of substance to worry with. The topic of relations between Paraguay & South Africa seems to be non-notable per WP:NOTE. If anyone has sources dealing with that topic please share. Drawn Some (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article notes, Paraguay's fascist dictator, Alfredo Stroessner, was one of the few world leaders who would make a state visit to apartheid-era South Africa, and Paraguay received financial aid as a result in the form of a $20 million loan. Notable back in the 1970s, and notability doesn't expire. Mandsford (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage of the topic as a whole through secondary sources. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does not need to be coverage of the topic "as a whole" there just needs to be coverage of the topic--and there is. The political implication of the relationship need some development, as Mandsford suggested--there will probably be a good deal of additional material Meetings between chiefs of state or government can sometime be major political matters, as here. DGG (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The link between a former dictator of Paraguay and the apartheid-era South Africa is potentially interesting, but that is not related to relations between the two countries, and would be more properly covered in Alfredo Stroessner since I don't see any statement that either Paraguay or South Africa got much out the visits. The links listed above by Yilloslime are interesting, but to me they are more about the observation that the apartheid-era South Africa sought allies among the dictatorships in the South American countries; that point belongs in the history of South Africa. The article refs are extremely mundane, and do not come close to even asserting notability. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Alefbe (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno D4 obviously. K2 but not very strong. If there was a K4 that would decide it. Marginal. I think Foreign relations of Paraguay has most of the content. If not, someone should copy it across, just in case. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active Release Techniques

Declining G11 speedy deletion. The news archive hits make me doubtful that we can get an article out of this, the topic and the language are considered promotional by most Wikipedians, and I'd be very surprised if there's no WP:COI here. On the other hand, there's room in Wikipedia for neutral articles for massage techniques, so maybe some of this material could be merged, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional material. This is massage by another name, with a claim by a chiropracter that he invented it and people should only go to him. I don't think its even notable enough to be merged into the existing material on massage/sports massage/etc.Fuzbaby (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please keep - Whether it is credited to any inventor or not is irrelevant to keeping this article. The ART is commonly used in North America (USA and Canada). It is a common certification that many chiropractors and other health parctictionars have. As many patients receive this type of massage, the article should objectively explain what this therapy is. -- User:ycherk04(talk)
Delete fails WP:GNG, just advertising for a fringe alt med "therapy". Verbal chat 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotes a particular company clear spam.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a few refs found in a news archive search, but whether or not it's enough to make this notable is kind of iffy. It does read as kind of promotional, so weak delete unless someone shows some stronger refs and how to use them. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, purge, rewrite - This is a notable subject. However, there are no sources currently in play here. A Google Scholar search reveals a plethora of reliable sources discussing the subject including Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Elsevier, Decision Making in Medicine and Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine. The tone of the current article is overly-promotional but it can easily be rectified using any number of sources from Scholar and even from Google News searches and just plain Google searches.. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it considered "Full Release Massage?" Edison (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LMAO! :-) -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 07:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait a week~~ ~~and delete if it doesn't get cleaned up. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I skipped commenting on this on last time as I thought the debate was settled. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No improvement has been made. Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Syracuse, New York#Performing arts. Seems like merging is a good option, as there's wide agreement that the topic is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red House Arts Center

Non-notable arts centre. No assertion of notability, nothing in a Google search or in a Gnews search that amounts to significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With an American arts centre, it's probably better to use a google.com search rather than a google.ca one. Having said that, I've done the relevant search and I can confirm that doesn't turn up anything much either.
It's clearly insufficiently notable for its own article, but per WP:PRESERVE, it remains to consider whether there's a reasonable merge target, and I think some mention of this could belong in various lists, such as the List of concert halls. So overall, I'm going with merge to List of concert halls and possibly others.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Syracuse, New York -- actually, the Red House is already cited in that article. Strangely, I know the venue and I am surprised at the lack of verifiable references. It doesn't meet notability standards to deserve a standalone article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice. It's NN right now, and the shows/performances aren't notable enough to justify the entry either. Perhaps merge with Syracuse, New York, but perhaps the mention in that article is enough already... --Junius49 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relist notified some relevant projects, would like it to be listed for sufficient time for them to weigh in so I've relisted. StarM 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Syracuse, New York#Performing arts as mentioned above. I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this company, so a merge appears to be the best option here. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vijaya T. Rajendar. Systemic bias is a very real problem on Wikipedia, but the editors in the discussion appeared to give due weight to the problems involved in evaluated foreign language topics. I have redirecting without deleting the prior contents to allow for expansion should improved sourcing become available. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Thangai Paasam

A series of non-notable films - same director/actor and also page creator. The articles themselves are one liners that could possibly be A1/A3ed, but there's a basic assertion of notability and PROD was contested. I'm currently nominating four (a limit I'm setting per AfD). All films have extremely trivial coverage in the context of an actor saying "I acted in that movie" during an interview, or in the case of (Monisha En Monalisa), it's someone making her debut in this film, with a couple of RS sources adding that the movie was a flop. Also, since it comes up at these AfDs often, there isn't any systemic bias in this nomination, I have watched parts of a couple of these movies, and watch and follow Tamil movies regularly. Delete -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following, for the above reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some possible sources for expansion: Thai Thangai Paasam [58][59], Monisha En Monalisa [60], En Thangai Kalyani [61][62], Samsara Sangeetham [63][64]. Might take some work though. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thai Thangai Paasam is featured in the list of videos book (which I didn't consider as anything more than a passing mention of an available video/DVD), the Encyclopaedia entry is actually for two different films (Thai - mother and Thangai - sister are common title words for Tamil films). For Monisha en Monalisa, I went through a lot of listings and all 17 Gnews listings, 15 of the Gnews just had it as Mumtaz's debut movie and two others called it a flop (but given that there wasn't any critical review of either the movie or the actress in the movie, I don't think it's a notable flop), En Thangai Kalyani (which I have seen), the mention is again part of a filmography, and not an article for the movie (which is the case for notable movies), but it does mention that the movie was a hit, so my nom for that might be misplaced; Samsara Sangeetham (parts of which I've seen), the entry is again a filmography listing (the director is clearly notable), so I don't believe the movie is indeed notable. All gnews entries in either English or Tamil, are in the context of so-and-so acted in this or in interviews of actors. --SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... you'll never see a film from India reviewed in the New York Times. Such are rarely notable to the west. Sure wish I had access to archives of newspapers in those languages... and then of course wish I could actually read those languages. These are likely films that only have notability to that part of the world and can only be proven so by those who have access to those sources. I only offered what few English language sources I could find. Like I said... even if possible, it'd take a lot of work to be brought into line with en.Wikipedia notability requirements. I accept that there is no bias in your nominations, and that they are made in the best of good faith. Sadly, films such as these underscore the systemic bias that is unfortunately built into the English Wikipedia guidelines... a bias that en.Wikipedia even recognizes in such places as WP:UNKNOWNHERE which notes "Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population", and WP:CSB which urges a wider view and acceptance even if something is dificult to source in English. Sometimes it is simply impossible to meet en.Wikipedia guideline, but we do what we can. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what can be and then set redirects of these 4 one-sentence stubs to either articles on lead actors or article on director Vijaya T. Rajendar where readers might expect to find them.[65] If at such time in the future that they might show independent notability, allow them back. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd normally be ok with a Merge/Redirect, one reason I didn't do the redirect myself, is the no of one line pages - xxx is an old T. Rajendar movie. T.R. Silambarasan was starring in this movie. all created by the same editor; all PRODded and dePRODded with no explanation/improvement. There are 10 such pages that I counted, and two more for future films (one of which I see on AfD currently). I haven't gotten to checking the remaining six yet, but given that except the xxx there's nothing different in all these pages, I found a blanket redirect to be a bit problematic. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the articles have nothing worth merging, then a simple redirect of the film name to the filmmaker's article suffices quite well to direct readers to the only place where the film would then have encyclopedic context. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the others, but I'll let this AfD run its full course for these four, at least for the finality of the process. I'm still not convinced that a redirect is the best option here for these numerous titles, but I'll live. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've gone around sourcing and formatting them. Should be good enough to be an article. =) Universal Hero (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles look better for sure, but still, the reference is Cinesouth which is an IMDB equivalent for south Indian movies that shows that the movie was made, not notability. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cinesouth may look rusty but do believe me, it's not the equivalent of IMDB. Films recorded are written down by that website, who are an official website for tamil film - (user's can' edit as per IMdbB) Universal Hero (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vijaya T. Rajendar, could be likely search term. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard as Hell (album)

NN album, no charting. →ROUX ₪ 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability. Brian Reading (talk) 00:55, 1 July 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) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination basis seems flawed. First of all, under WP:NSONGS charting is an issue for songs, not albums. For albums, "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." Second, according to allmusic, this album did chart.[66]. So I am not sure what the basis is for claiming the album is non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has been reviewed, it has charted, and the article is referenced. Passes WP:MUSIC#Albums. I think the Nom's basis in the claim the album is non-notable lays in the fact no searching was done before the article was tagged for AfD. Oh, and nice one for AfDing it 45 min after it was just tagged for notability too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, and here's a really alien thought to you apparently, you could assume that I nominated this in good faith having seen no evidence of charting or any substantial media mentions after a quick search. You could also--y'know, maybe--not say things like 'oh and nice one for AfDing it' etc, as that is fantastically rude and suggests some sort of motive other than what was stated. I found the page during NPP. So.. yeah. Why don't you redact your statements above and try again without being incredibly rude? Just a suggestion, and might make the cesspit that is AfD just a wee bit less unpleasant for those of us who don't hang out here all day. → ROUX ₪ 02:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live At The Cardiff Capital Theater

Non-notable bootleg album. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The album has been officially released this article is not about an illegal bootleg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakecrane (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we keep this, its spelled wrong, should be Capitol, not Capital.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:Music because it has never been reviewed or indeed covered in any way by a reliable source: "All albums must meet the basic criteria...with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I can certainly verify its existance with reliable sources Rolling Stone Billboard Vh1, but I can not find 1 review that is not a customer review on Amazon. Not a single one. It is literally a bootleg that Geffen apparently decided to buy the rights to and release, although due to a lack of reliable sources, I can't verify that.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album has been reviewed in reliable sources. Here is a review at allmusic. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And contrary to the nom, the album is an official release on a major label. Of course, the spelling of the title should be corrected. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 10 July 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 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a major-label release by a notable artist; it's not just a compilation of previously released material; there's enough information for an article. ReverendWayne (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the article has been moved, but that only fixed one of the two spelling mistakes in the title. I don't want to confuse things by creating a double redirect during an AfD discussion but that should be sorted out if the article is kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Wheeler, Inc.

This article is about an owner of a few radio stations in Virginia. I know from my own knowledge that this company used to own a television station in my area. However, my own knowledge doesn't suffice for actual research. It is very poorly written, with little to no research done on it. I tried to find further information to help the article on Google, to no avail. Their website says it's under construction. I can find no record of their headquarters in Texas. Seems like somebody from the company wrote this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlh56880 (talk • contribs) 2009/07/07 11:08:17

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A wholesale rewrite is needed, but a deletion is not. This is a company that owns radio stations in Southwest Virginia. See West Virginia Radio Corporation or Red Zebra Broadcasting for like companies. A deletion is not required in this situation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources for this article, so the company is not notable and based on Mlh's research, no sources are likely to be found. This makes this article very different from that on Red Zebra Broadcasting, which has 11 references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UMMM... just because there are no listed sources does not make it non-notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, how do we rewrite the article if there aren't any sources? Clearly nonnotable. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the only argument to keep is a WP:WAX argument, that's nowhere close to good enough. The fundamental question is this: does this company meet the requirements of WP:V? It does not, and therefore an article can't be supported. RGTraynor 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This isnt your mom&pop type operation... its bigger than that. A Gsearch found plenty ... just a matter of sifting through to find the relevent stuff. Although this one might be on the edge of RS, I would tend to consider it a RS. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally doubt anyone from within the company would list the HQ as Texas. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the limitations of Google searches is the tendency of people to use (for example) "mel" + "wheeler" + "inc", which naturally would return a whopping lot of hits, instead of the considerably more accurate "Mel Wheeler, Inc." in advanced search. Unsurprisingly, that reduces the number of raw hits by a hundredfold. What remains is the aforementioned non-working website, the Wikipedia article, the websites of the radio stations in question and a bunch of business directory listings. Reliable, independent sources describing anything at all about this company other than its mere existence and address are unforthcoming (this having just burned ten minutes of my life). RGTraynor 09:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done my sifting ... not enough out there to support the RS element. Delete although I have a feeling that a much better Article will eventually be made. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, you guys couldn't find a reliable source for the fact that this company is based in Texas? A simple Google News Archive search brought me this article, noting the purchase of KRCG TV from "Mel Wheeler, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas," and this article, noting the same purchase of the station owned by "Texas-based Mel Wheeler Inc." There is plenty of media coverage showing that this company is or was the owner of several notable broadcast stations. Also, this FCC document shows that at least in 2000, Mel Wheeler, Inc. was the second largest radio station owner in the Roanoke-Lynchburg market, right after Clear Channel; the two companies owning 91% of the radio market. That's pretty notable, in my eyes. DHowell (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Splendid; of course, no one was suggesting that this company did not exist. That still falls short of WP:CORP's primary criterion: "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." Mere "This station was bought by this company" articles do not establish notability, nor does being the second biggest fish in the pond in the 154th largest radio market in the US. RGTraynor 20:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you brought up the straw man that "no one was suggesting that the company didn't exist", because I was responding to the suggestion that sources didn't exist, and I completely disproved that. Now you are claiming that the sources don't have significant coverage, and that being in the "154th largest radio market" somehow makes the company non-notable; but WP:CORP says "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," and articles such as this one in Mediaweek do seem to have significant coverage of the subject. The 35 articles in the Google News search, even if each one by itself weren't enough to constitute "significant coverage", together are enough to write a substantial article about this company and its history. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That's exactly what we have here. DHowell (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the suggestion that sources didn't exist" was not implied... I looked at the same sources you did during my look. I didnt feel that I could craft them togeather to a Article that would imply any WP:N of its own. If you feel that you can bring togeather some of the more reliable of the sources to do that job convincingly, by all means, please do so. I know, I could not do so. I cannot even make sense of the FCC Document you put forth. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator (and only delete voter) withdrew nomination in light of new sources. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Cows

Band with no apparent notability. Difficult to search Google News for, but a "The Mad Cows" - disease search produces little more than passing references (e.g. [67]). Gonzonoir (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few citations to reliable sources just now. The sources are local, but one confirms that the band was the subject of a broadcast nationally on a BBC Radio 2 show. As that is one of the WP:BAND criteria, I am leaning towards keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': per Paul Erik. Iowateen (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C12. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - Paul Erik's sources seem now to establish notability. Thanks for your work on that, Paul Erik. Withdrawing my nomination that the article be deleted.

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments for retention seem at least partly based on the previous AfD, and don't sufficiently address the issue of notability. Though three months between nominations is a bit too speedy, the article should be judged on its own current merits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Singapore relations

AfDs for this article:

I looked at the previous nomination and was far from convinced. a number of people were swayed by WilyD's references which refer to one state visit in 2002 (in a tour of 5 countries), this visit didn't last more than 2 days. so to say this means ongoing and notable relations is a bit of synthesis. there is still a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral. [68]. there's this more recent article but $US100M trade is a small fraction of Singapore's economy, 300 Romanians in Singapore is not notable, and exporting microchips...well Singapore exports computer technology everywhere. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the actual topic of the article does not appear to be notable. As has been pointed out in prior AfDs, it's not enough to sew together bits and pieces to make a Frankenstein topic, it has to be natural-born. Fails WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and handle through the two pages listed under See Also. JJL (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A president stopping by for a day or two doesn't equate to a notable relationship. I don't see any actual relationship that appears notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per everyone above. Also, last time around, several editors felt that the four news blurbs unearthed by WilyD were enough to demonstrate notability, but I remain unconvinced. (I also note that none of them have been incorporated into the article.) Each of these tiny articles deals with the President of Romania's 2002 visit to Asia which included Singapore, but this coverage does not meet the bar of direct, detailed coverage. And even if it did, the event itself is non-notable per WP:NOTNEWS. It simply doesn't make sense that the notability of the more general topic of Romania–Singapore relations could be inherited from a non-notable event. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm glad to see discussions have grown more mature since the last round. No, a one-day presidential visit does not make for a notable relationship as covered in multiple independent sources. This should've been obvious in March, but July is good enough. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 19:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not wanting to echo everyone else, but one visit does not make things notable. Tavix | Talk 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I see no new issue being raised by the nominator that was not raised in the first discussion. See Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Deletion_review. It appears the nominator simply does not agree with the consensus that was reached at the first discussion that the subject matter's notability was established and is trying to take a second bite at the apple. The multiple sources located during the first debate [69][70][71][72], upon which many people based their decisions to vote "keep" were just never incorporated in the article. This left the impression that the subject matter's notability was unresearched and unclear. However, the question of the subject matter's notability has been conclusively resolved through consensus in the first debate. The result was keep and it should be a keep now. The sources should also be added to the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cdogsimmons, you seem to be confusing WP:VERIFY with WP:NOTE. Yes, some of the factoids in the article are verifiable with WP:RS but that doesn't make the topic itself notable. Think of it like this, you might have a congenital chromosome disorder that is verifiable and has an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make you yourself notable for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Review the guidelines I linked to carefully and you'll see what the rest of us are talking about in this discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter's existence is verifiable, and the 3rd party independent sources show the subject matter is notable. Those issues have been addressed. I am well aware of what our policies say. Please read my previous post again. You might try checking out the previous time this article was nominated for deletion, and kept.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that 1) consensus can change and 2) with 8 delete !votes, 12 keep !votes, and 1 merge, the last AfD should probably have been closed as "no consensus" rather than as "keep." (And yes, I know determining consensus is not as simple as just counting !votes). Your implication that this re-nomination is inappropriate or an abuse of AfD doesn't hold water: there was certainly not a strong consensus to keep the article, and 3 months have passed since that result. If it had only been 3 weeks, or the article had been overwhelmingly !kept, or if the nominator was on spree of re-AfDing articles that had been previously kept, then I'd be more sympathetic to you point of view. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to raise issues with the previous Afd is in a deletion review. It is inappropriate to restart an Afd so soon after a determination has been made (three months doesn't sound like a lot of time to me). It looks like you're just trying to redo the Afd because you didn't like the first result.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where is the rule that says is inappropriate to restart an Afd so soon after a determination has been made . If you had it your way, no article in Wikipedia could ever be renominated. Deletion reviews relate more to improper closure and are not really meant to judge on whether WP:N is met. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, the first AfD is no consensus in my opinion, I don't question that. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe if you concentrated your efforts on finding say 15 additional reliable and independent sources instead of arguing and pleading to save this, I would reconsider this. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I bet there would still be certain parties that would argue that the subject matter was still notable, that the sources were "trivial". Even if I found 100 sources. There's no specific time that says renominations are inappropriate, but the policy cited above says "Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." So what's "a certain amount of time"? A day? A week? A month? A year? On the other side there is the policy that consensus can change. Here's what I think should happen. First, I think Libstar should notify all the people who took place in the first debate that we are rearguing what they thought had been decided (that's only polite). Second, maybe we can decide (in some other discussion forum) with a consensus what an appropriate amount of time we should give these articles before they should be renominated for deletion after they are kept, or if there was no consensus.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cdogsimmons, come on. First, deletion review is for debates that have just closed, not debates that closed over 3 months ago. Second, zero effort was made during the intervening time to improve the article (not that that's possible), so the case for deletion remains strong. And I hope more March-April AfDs, like the one for this masterpiece, are reopened as the year goes on. WP:CCC is, after all, an official policy.

As for your substantive points: yes, it's verifiable that Romania and Singapore have relations, a fact already documented here. However, the third-party independent sources positively do not show "Romania–Singapore relations" to be notable; they show that the Romanian President once stopped over there for a day. When you actually find independent coverage of "Romania–Singapore relations", rather than what you might think those to be, let us know. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comment. What is "just" closed? A day? Three months? It's debatable. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above, Biruitorul, could you do a search in Romanian for us? LibStar (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just now the Foreign Ministry's site isn't working, but I have a cached version of their Singapore page. We're told that relations exist and when they began and, tellingly, that Singapore's ambassador to Romania was based in Moscow, and only from 1987 to 1989. And then the famous 2002 visit is mentioned, as well as trade volumes (pretty small, as you can see) and the usual double-taxation avoidance agreement. I also found that in 2007, Loredana Groza sang at a party at the Romanian embassy to mark 40 years of relations. And that's about it... - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, it's convinced me even more of the delete argument for this. perhaps Cdogsimmons can prove us wrong and find some substantial non trivial coverage? LibStar (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cdogsimmons, I see my explanation didn't help. Sometimes the first step towards understanding something is just realizing that you don't understand it so you have an open mind and can see clearly. Also you seem to be confused about AfD and deletion review processes as well as the notability guidelines. Maybe LibStar can explain these things better than I can. Don't worry, you're not the only one in this situation. Drawn Some (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Some, this is for future reference. You are coming across as demeaning and insulting. I will assume that that wasn't your intent, but that is how you are coming across to me. Your comment adds nothing to this discussion (besides possibly biasing readers' opinions about both of us) so it would be more appropriately placed at my talk page. Also, if you want to tell me that I misunderstand a policy, you should tell me how you think I misunderstand that policy. Then we can be on the same page. When you simply accuse me of misunderstanding the debate or a policy and leave out the details it comes across as a personal attack. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be defensive, no one knows everything or they would be an omniscient god. I tried to word my comment in a nice manner and even pointed out that you're not the only one. I have always found it helps to keep an open mind--we never stop learning. Cheers. Drawn Some (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the supposed "notability" of the topic asserted in the last AfD, the article currently doesn't reflect any of it, still being the same pitiful two sentences it was when first nominated. Where is the secondary coverage of the topic as a whole, then? This obviously shouldn't have survived the first AfD. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (redirect) to Foreign relations of Romania. Two bits of information were dug up in the first AfD debate: an official visit by Ion Iliescu to Singapore in 2002 and a double-taxation treaty, both noted by press agencies. I have added them both to the entry for Singapore in Foreign relations of Romania. They show borderline notability. However, after we decided to keep the article on the basis of potential last time, nothing has been done to expand the article and show real notability. But there is some independent interest in the subject, and Romania is spending significant money on maintaining an embassy, so there may be more to the relationship than a quick Google search in English shows. Borderline notability seems a good reason to keep the title as a redirect rather than delete it (what is the harm in a redirect?). Aymatth2 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of what Aymatth added. BTW, I do regard a repeat nomination after only three month a little on the fast side, but not a great sin or a reason for rejecting the AfD. DGG (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I do understand Aymatth2's argument, and in principle all these X-Y relation articles could be just redirects. But I honestly don't think it borders any degree of notability. As for the 3 things which supposedly would support notability, I'd like to add: 1) Romanian leaders like visits to Asia. It's an exotic tourist attraction, and during a state visit they are received as kings. In Europe they've already met other people, who already know that they are ~~dumb~~ super-intelligent. In America also nobody treats you as a royalty. Russia treats you with an air of superiority. Africa begs for money. Japan and Australia won't invite you unless there is a purpose to your visit except tourism. So it is largely left to China and SE Asia. Iliescu is not an exception. He is not the only person who was in such situations. I can not explain why Singapore and not say Thailand, but I can explain why not China: in 2002, there was still Jiang Zemin, who once was (when younger) a diplomat in Bucharest for 1 year. Jiang had some idea with whom he would speak,so the whole air of being received as a royalty would have been diluted. 2) The embassy in Singapore is mentained for because there are too many people who must become ambassadors, and we need embassies to send them to. For example in Hanoi, Romanian Embassy is on 46 Dien Bien Phu boulevard, a house slightly bigger than the US Embassy at 42 Dien Bien Phu. Should I continue? 3) Double-taxation treaties actually do not require any work. You simply copy from other treaties each county has signed with third parties. It might require some non-zero work, but then you also need to somehow justify the existence of the embassy and the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money you spend. Dc76\^talk 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read all the external links in the article (a quick skim of the one in Romanian) and those provided above. The result is that in 2002, a politician from Romania visited Singapore while visiting several other countries. There is some minor trade and investment between Romania and Singapore, just like there is between most pairs of countries. A really minor pact about double taxation was signed. There are simply no notable relations, and no secondary sources discuss these relations. It exists, but it is not an encyclopedic topic. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit more going on between the two countries. I have added some content. Minor, routine, but noted by reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself: verifiability does not imply notability. Do Romania and Singapore have an open-skies agreement? I'm sure they do. Is that a notable aspect of a notable relationship that's actually been the subject of in-depth coverage outside Wikipedia? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question of how information should be organized in the encyclopedia - small very focussed articles or broader ones. I put the content I found into both Foreign relations of Romania and Romania–Singapore relations. I prefer broader articles like Landmarks in Buenos Aires or Inner Terai Valleys of Nepal, but I have no problem with more focussed articles like Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi or Chitwan Valley. Once an entry in a list-type article grows beyond a certain size, a separate article is justified. In this case, I have no strong opinion apart from a preference to redirect rather than delete. Perhaps the relationship will heat up, although I can't imagine why. But if so, I see no reason to discourage editors making a full article. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid a couple of content removals by user:Yilloslime which I consider inappropriate during the debate. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reexamine the material I removed. That "In March 2008, Romania ratified Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks.^[2]" has absolutely, postively nothing to do with Romania–Singapore relations. The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks is multilateral agreement signed by dozens of countries and ratified by 13 countries so far including Romania.[73] It's only called the Singapore Treaty because that's the city where it was agreed upon. Just as there is nothing Switzerland specific in the Geneva Convention, or Sweden-specific in the Stockholm Convention, it's only a coincidence that the Singapore treaty bears that country's name. That this has escaped other editors is telling of the slipshod research at work in these articles. My other removal[74] simply took away a redundant reference. All the information being sourced to that article is also contained in the next reference, so that reference could suffice for both statements. I don't see the point in sending the reader to two references when one will do. The is a principle that I have long applied. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yilloslime and have removed it, the name "Singapore" is only because it was signed there, much like Kyoto Protocol, Geneva Convention, Rio Declaration. it's a classic barrel scrape though. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the "Singapore treaty" - I didn't read it carefully enough. Not relevant. I added back the Rompres source though, since it has some information on trade volumes, which I added. Again, this is a low-keyed relationship and the information fits into a slot in Foreign relations of Romania. There is no strong argument for or against a stand-alone article: just a question of personal taste on how Wikipedia information should be organized. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since now you are using the Rompres article to source info not in the other reference, I think it's appropriate. See how that works? Yilloslime ^T_C 17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - K2. I added a source that user:LibStar noted in the nomination, and think it is getting a bit too big for a table entry in one or both of the parent "Foreign relation of" articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @187 · 03:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Futsal Club

Minor sports club with no sources covering the subject in depth. Notability not established. Quantpole (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to play in the national league so is at the highest level for this sport. It does need work however. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep applying WP:FOOTYN seems appropriate. The FA Futsal League operates regionally but does appear to be a national league using a playoff type system to find a national champion. The club seems to have been involved in this so it's probably a keep, although rather reluctantly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is WP:FOOTYN a WikiProject essay with no general consensus, it applies to a different sport. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, different; but awfully similar and it seems to work reasonably well within it's sphere of influence. It doesnt seem inappropriate to apply it's principles here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As the WP:FV taskforce of WikiProject Football uses WP:FOOTYN and WP:ATHLETE, I think this can be kept. SummerHoliday 10:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have mixed opinion on this one. The team plays in a national league in the sense that it determines the English champions, who will qualify for the UEFA Futsal Cup. On the other hand the sport appears to be very minor in England and as such individual teams cannot be considered really notable. Julius Sahara (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is this a professional team? I can't find anything that says the players are paid. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not a professional team. The impression I get is that the players are mainly university students. Quantpole (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my comment above, and it does play in the national league and at the highest level possible. SummerHoliday 10:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For a minor sport (which this is judging by the coverage it receives), 'Highest level possible' does not equal notability. There is zero coverage of the club in reliable sources, with very little coverage of the league itself. There are many minor sports that, because of their limited popularity, the competitions are almost automatically national and the highest level possible. In addition, WP:FOOTYN is just an essay, that is for a related but different sport, and the various notability guidelines are simply advice on whether a subject would meet the WP:GNG, and do not overule those guidelines. Show me coverage in independent reliable sources and then I will change my mind. Quantpole (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G10. Even companies can be attacked and as such, G10 applied. So Why 07:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocamotive

unencyclopedic rant WuhWuzDat 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this for G3 Speedy Deletion (vandalism). It's also an attack page against a particular company. This seems like a pretty clear case to me, not much to discuss. Hairhorn (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the AfD tag, this is so vandalism, and whether or not it gets delete is really not up for debate. Like you said, it's just a rant. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice replaced, discussion is still open. WuhWuzDat 03:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Hairhorn. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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+Redirect to the City of Holroyd - Peripitus (Talk) 12:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holroyd Youth Services

fails WP:ORG. a non notable suburban organisation. very limited third party coverage [75]. only reference in current article is its own myspace page which is not preferred as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Holroyd City Council, the auspicing body. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mattinbgn. Orderinchaos 11:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article Holroyd City Council is a redirect to City of Holroyd. Therefore, it's not a valid target for a redirect. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 13 July 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) 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Sorry for the second relist but as I said above, the suggested target for both redirect !votes is not valid and there's no mention of the subject in City of Holroyd. This discussion needs to be redirected to "keep/delete" or possibly "merge". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to City of Holroyd until it passes WP:CLUB. Drawn Some (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Brazilian

There is no evidence of the notability and no consent for this article. Yes, may be there are Armenians in Brazil, however it must be very small minority as it is useless to open for each tiny minority new article. Also there is no sources to back up this info.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. --LightAtmosphere (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC) — LightAtmosphere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in the usual way: multiple non-trivial reliable sources, like:

Grün, Roberto (July 1996), "The Armenian Renaissance in Brazil", The Americas, 53 (1): 113–151, JSTOR 1007476
Pereira, Liésio (2004-01-24), "Diáspora Armênia traz para São Paulo os primeiros imigrantes", Radioagência Nacional, retrieved 2009-07-07 (already cited in the article)

I'm not sure I believe the population figure of 143,000 as the Joshua Project is definitely not a reliable source (see this discussion, for example), but size has nothing to do with notability. cab (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable and sourced article about a notable population. Can and should be expanded. Badagnani (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage from secondary reliable independent sources: [76]. Algébrico (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just pointed to non-trivial sources directly above, including a 38-page journal article about this population. The reason you don't get GScholar hits for "Armênio Brasileiro" is because it's a made-up phrase which people don't use. Not every ethnic minority in Brasil is called "Fooian Brazilian". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL returns quite a few more potential sources, even an entire book on this very topic [77]. cab (talk) 05:47, 9 July 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, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references provided by cab as examples directly address the topic and the journal article certainly is non-trivial. However, the article should be retitled according to Wikipedia convention if it is different from teh current title which is awkward. Drawn Some (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are adequate. There is enough content for a start. DGG (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere else, or (weak) delete; no evidence that this is notable. The references are unimpressive. JJL (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to know what sort of reference is needed to impress the above commentor, because we have been presented above with an in-depth scholarly study of the subject. As far as the title goes I would suggest ditching the first sentence of the article, which seems to be trying to fit the title into the mould of hyphenated-American, which is not the formulation used in most of the rest of the world, and renaming the article to Armenians in Brazil. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sufficient references to demonstrate notability. Agree with Phil above, the title is awkward. The article needs some more hard data, such as some population statistics. Surely these data exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definite potential for expansion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Smashville^talk 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Drive (Washington DC)

Delete no indication that this short street is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Only barely fails to meet the A3 no content speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 7 July 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, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of importance or significance and no meaningful content or references. Drawn Some (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an uninteresting residential street, based on my original research with Google & Google maps. DGG (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) · @187 · 03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bed and Sofa (musical)

Delete no indication that this musical is notable; no refs and barely any context in this one-liner Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Reviewed by the NY Times, though I haven't found any others. Perhaps the best thing would be to have an article on the 1927 film (more clearly notable) and include info about the musical. Very difficult to find an RS that isn't based on the movie, which seems to comprise most of the 18,000+ ghits. If the film had an article, I would vote to merge. Matt Deres (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) update: I have created an article about the film and brought over what little there was in the musical in a separate section. I am still neutral regarding the deletion as I'm still unsure of notability of the musical on its own. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have switched from neutrality. The article about the film covers the topic decently and there's room for further details if needed. Should the play take off or a bunch more info become available, then a split can always be done. Matt Deres (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adolescence

Proposed Delete. Download/mixtape does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). There is a claim to notability -- a link to a review on allhiphop.com -- but 1) it's an incorrect link, 2) I can find no such review, 3) there are no published reviews (even on underground music blogs). --Junius49 (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Arrows

Band fails to fill any of the music notability guidelines. Only has one self published album, does not have major news coverage, and none of the members independently qualify as notable. Major contributors to the article are Single Purpose accounts , and the few other edits indicate that they are probably the band members themselves (edits to the fraternity the members belong to…to add themselves as notable alumni, university they went to add the band). In short WP:SPAM Coffeepusher (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND on multiple points. Winner of the "Best Unsigned Band in the country contest" pretty much sums up this bands notability. -- œ ^™ 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this one article from The Virginian-Pilot but I still think we would need more for WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orion 17

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

The result was redirect to List of Constellation missions. I've reconsidered over the past month, and I've decided that I misjudged consensus here. (X! · talk) · @347 · 07:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @187 · 03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orion 17

This page is a clear violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The policy notes that 'scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place', and uses as an example that 'the 2020 U.S. presidential election ... is not considered appropriate article topic. Clearly if something as inevitable as the 2020 election isn't notable; something as unlikely as a 2020 moonshot by an as-of-yet unbuilt rocket in an as-of-yet unfunded program is not notable. I see no reason that List of Constellation missions shouldn't suffice for this page (and likely any other launch after Orion 2). Prod removed with comment 'Please make an Afd if you want to delete. Let the various standpoints be presented'. Nfitz (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is way too far into the future with too many unknowns and variables for it to not be WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. This is 10 years away! Far too early to be starting a wikipedia page. magnius (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepsies ;) It's not fictional, just tentative, and even if plans change, it was still planned. Needs rescuing, me thinks. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see WP:CRYSTAL grounds here. Artw (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The analogy to the 2020 presidential election is flawed. We don't know who will be running for president please, don't let it be Sarah Palin, but we do know details about Orion. Undecided. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so. We do know there is going probably going to be a 2020 election. We have no idea if there actually will ever be an Orion 17 moon mission - the whole thing seems highly unlikey with the current US President having campaigned to cut back the program. I can't think of a better WP:CRYSTAL example to me. Nfitz (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, I can't see any references that actually support this ... the page doesn't provide any references; NASA's website doesn't mention this; the best I've found is an old planning document, that also notes that Space Shuttle Atlantis was retired in 2008, even though it's scheduled to fly through STS-132 in 2010. So not only is this WP:CRYSTAL I can't even find evidence that it meets WP:V. Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm ... just where are the details coming from? It needs references badly. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL - clearly not "almost certain to take place". ukexpat (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Constellation missions until more substantial information is available. (And perhaps retitle that article to "List of planned Constellation missions" or something else). Kusma (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Constellation missions (which should be re-titled "List of planned Constellation missions", per Kusma). The alleged planned of Orion 17 is 2019, and too much could happen in the meantime, including scrapping of the project due to budget cuts or a disaster. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps around 2014, there's a grey area, but 2019 is WP:CRYSTAL territory. In addition, according to Orion 17 "A landing site has not yet been chosen, but it is likely to be at either the lunar north or south pole, where NASA has decided to build a Lunar outpost" - and if the polar Lunar outpost is scrapped then Orion 17 would probably be scrapped too. --Philcha (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems like almost all of the planned constellation missions have their own page--why did you single out Orion 17 for deletion? It would be strange to have all of those other pages but none for Orion 17. 174.153.175.72 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was tempted to do most of them, however the AfD guidelines note that "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group.", so I randomly chose one. Nfitz (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human spaceflight about figuring out a plan for the whole set. Shimgray | talk | 16:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect for now. I think a reasonable test is whether there are significant resources assigned to a particular planned mission (with reliable sources that can be cited) -- say crew member are assigned and in training or significant special hardware is being built that's unique for the particular mission ("Orion 36 will be the first mission to use the $100 million solar powered rover being built by Zorch Co."). Once that happens, there may be a notable current activity that can justify an article, regardless of whether the activity ultimately comes to fruition.--agr (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of (planned) Constellation missions per Kusma/Philcha. Recreate if and when it becomes less WP:CRYSTALly, i.e. if and when there's some concrete sourceable content for this particular mission. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see that redirect may be appropiate. I don't see any material to merge; it's all the generic mission plan of a typical moon mission. Though I'm still not sure even a redirect meets WP:V. Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems most appropriate; the odds of this projection being accurate a decade in advance, or of having the confidence even to say for certain there will be an "Orion 17", seems pretty low. We should also figure out what to do with all the other "Orion xx" missions. Shimgray | talk | 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a bit of research, the usefulness of this page is best shown by the fact that "Orion 17", in the most recent projection, is going to be a flight to the space station in 2020, not a flight to the moon in 2019. Yes, we could salvage this article... but if it's been that unloved and unnoticed since February, when the projection was released, who's to say it won't have the same problem again? Far better to redirect to one page, which might be vaguely maintainable; we can always split it out again once there's something firmly known, once a crew's been named or some metal's been bent. Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Michael Wright; Sally Walters (1980). The Book of the Cat. London: Pan.
^ "Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks - Ratification by Romania". World Intellectual Property Organization. March 25, 2008. Retrieved 2009-07-16.

[1] Michael Wright; Sally Walters (1980). The Book of the Cat. London: Pan.

[2] "Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks - Ratification by Romania". World Intellectual Property Organization. March 25, 2008. Retrieved 2009-07-16.

[1]

[2]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument