Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 19

< 18 September	20 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Italia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet inclusion criteria laid out at WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO, et al. L0b0t (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in independent sources per Hindu, Guadian, Times, a search of Google News turns up more reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All coverage is trivial. Coverage of subject has not been shown to meet any of our inclusion criteria. Subject has yet to release any albums, is not considered "important and widely cited by peers," has never "received a notable award or honor, or... been often nominated for one," has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field," and fails all 12 points laid out at WP:MUSIC. L0b0t (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - The 4 sources in the article are as follows: Guardian- (Aug 2007) a blurb about the upcoming (Nov 2007) release of subject's 1st album (as of Sep. 2009 album has yet to be released), Times- (Mar 2008) brief mention (amongst a larger review of other artists) of subject failing to find success in music biz., Hindu- (Oct 2007) brief bio and mention that subject's song "made it to the top ten on Britain’s popular TV airplay Music Chart," Presswire- (no date given but press release refers to 2008 in future tense)distributes press release from subject himself. All, I posit, trivial mentions. L0b0t (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are five articles in reliable sources that focus on Italia, not trivial mentions. Hekerui (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage in the several sources cited in the article goes well beyond trivial. Listing those notability criteria that he doesn't meet is irrelevant since he meets both WP:GNG and the first criterion of WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC) There are also plenty of additional sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].--Michig (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC) And then there's the performance and interview on Frost Over The World.--Michig (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The inclusion guidelines at WP:MUSIC are quite specific. For instance, "two or more albums on a major label." (There are other ways to qualify for an article, but this one is addressed to whether the person has a known quantity of musical output). Based on a quick web search I don't see any evidence that Shayan Italia has yet released even a single album, so I don't think he meets WP:MUSIC. Note the listing at amazon.co.uk for the 'Deliverance' album, which shows it as 'currently unavailable.' This suggests to me that it was never released, though he might have mailed out advance copies to a few people. The Amazon listing does not give the name of any record label who might have issued it, so 'major label' does not seem like a possibility. If he can ever get his stuff published, we could reconsider the matter later. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject seems to fall under the people famous for one event guideline. All the sources talk about his eBay sale and his supposed bright future in the music (which has yet to materialize) some sources mention the imminent (Nov 2007) album release but (as I said above) it is now Sep 2009 and album has yet to be released. None of the sources provided establish a notability that clears the hurdle at the relevant guidelines, all mentions of subject are trivial. Subject still fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BAND, et al. When this fellow actually releases an album, and if that album is critically acclaimed, then he might warrant an article but now, not so much. L0b0t (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two albums on a major label is only one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't matter how many criteria this article fails so long as it passes one of them, which it does - the first and most important one. The argument that Amazon shows that the album was never released is nonsense. See this which states that the album was released on 12 Nov 2007 by Universal Records and is in stock.--Michig (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that the 'Deliverance' album is shown as unavailable. You've properly countered with an another Amazon listing suggesting that 'Shayan Italia' exists as an album, and is stated as being released by Universal. Amazon does sometimes list self-published items, so a positive result may need confirmation. If such a CD exists as a genuine Universal release, can anyone confirm that fact from the Universal catalog? Can anyone provide a reliable source that shows what tracks were on the album? Since Shayan Italia seems very good at publicizing his activities, why is information about this alleged album so hard to find? Do any of our editors actually own this album? EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Ed, browse through the article's history. IF those albums exist, then two of the article's contributors would have a copy, but they're the same editor really AND they are banned. Seriously, the main (first) contributor, IMO, is the subject or his brother.

I've just searched the Universal catalog (www.umusic.com--right?) and there's no Shayah Italia. I am somewhat puzzled about these albums since the orginal (bloated) entry never even mentioned it--see this version for instance (in the edit summary, editor is yelling at me). Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the search of the Universal site for the conjectured album by Shayan Italia, I observe that there is no 'Shayan Italia' shown under S at this page at universalmusic.com. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that he self-published some albums and sold them through Amazon. He has most likely been negotiating with record companies and may have optimistically pre-announced that he would be released on Universal. That's the only way I can account for the Amazon listing for an album titled 'Shayan Italia' found by User:Michig. That entry has an ASIN number (Amazon's stock number) but the entry does not offer a number in the Universal catalog. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have very mixed feelings here. On the one hand, much of the coverage is entirely trivial and relates only to that one thing, the dude selling part of his future profits on Ebay. On the other, at least there IS coverage. But then, there are too many questions here about these records, for instance--surely if the guy had released records, or at least one, on a major label, then we wouldn't have to be searching all over the place. (I think I said this before, above: in the earlier versions of the article, the author/subject made no mention whatsoever of an earlier album, only of the upcoming album.) I have spent a considerable amount of time and energy on the article (on policing it, if you will), at first in an attempt to make it look presentable and thus keepable, but I see now that it should be for nothing. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this appears to be a very well referenced article. Editor above provided more references also. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, as a good-faith attempt--but I do not believe that these establish notability. A note about YouTube, a note about Ebay, and one article from an Indian paper--that's simply not enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep have heard of him, references points towards notability. there is to mutch pointing to strong notability that i even question why this article was put up for possible deletion in the first place..--Judo112 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ on the idea that there are things here pointing to "strong notability," and I'm sure the nominator feels the same way. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable for the eBay story which I remember reading about, and clearly appears to be doing well on the music side as well. Furthermore, article has improved.Tris2000 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - notable, well referenced, and not another run of the mill article.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has not improved, subject still fails any and all relevant inclusion criteria: WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:ARTIST, WP:BAND, and WP:ANYBIO. Subject has never released an album, cited sources all speak of album's imminent (November 2007) release, yet it never happened. The eBay incident falls under WP:ONEEVENT and all the sources cited thus far include only trivial mentions of the subject in regards to the eBay incident. So far, no one opining "keep" has based their reasoning on anything other than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IVEHEARDOFTHAT. L0b0t (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cited stuff in the career section is in reliable sources and as a whole goes beyond liking/knowing the subject imo. Hekerui (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion ('imo') would be more convincing if you had made any response at all to any of the new information added to the AfD since your original post. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be belittling. Instead of posting endlessly here I tried to improve the article. Hekerui (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Subject meets WP:GNG and ~~arguably WP:MUSICBIO~~.
- (see update below) He has released at least one album, Shayan Italia on the Universal label, and possibly a second (This Guardian article says that Universal is to release Deliverence; although Amazon lists the album under FM Publishing Ltd label. This article says that a single from the album was distributed by Universal.) At least one single charted on the TV Airplay Music Chart
- There is ample independent coverage of the artist in mainstream media: The Times, The Guardian, The Asian News, The Hindu, Press Trust of India, Indian Express etc. Note that most of these articles are biographical, and don't just mention Italia in passing.

Abecedare (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Looking into it deeper, it seems that Italia's albums are on the FM Publishing Ltd label, and are only (possibly) distributed by Universal. This website lists Dolly Italia as the contact person for the FM label, and the label's website www.fmpublishing.co.uk is a deadlink - so its is quite likely that the music was self-published and the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO in that respect. GNG may still apply though. Abecedare (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per guideline. Coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to be called "significant", and is on several topics, so ONEVENT doesn't apply. ^Bongo_matic 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Home

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a non-notable organisation. I can find no sources which give this organisation notability within an encyclopaedic setting. There also appears to be a major conflict of interest with the major contributors to this article. Russavia ^Dialogue 13:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:N..South Bay (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the article needs to be fixed up, it seems to be notable enough, fulfilling Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations, it is international in scale and Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. There are quite a few hits in Google [8], while some apparent controversy over it was reported in Google news: [9]. There are even some academic articles about it in Google scholar: [10]. --Martintg (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being run by an American is not international in scale as the organisation is limited to the city of Vladimir in Russia. The only news source is this which is more to do with the sister city relationship between Vladimir and Bloomington. The only scholar source is written by the organisation itself, and the rest of the scholar results are for the term "American home". If one is going to claim something is notable, they need to provide evidence of the notability. As such, I would ask that you be able to provide at least 5 sources which discuss this organisation in great detail, which aren't promotional in nature and which aren't connected with the organisation itself. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this is not an article for a non-commercial organisation, but rather for a commercial business which would have to fulfill WP:CORP. We need to put this into perspective. This organisation is a small business which has English classes in the city of Vladimir; and these are a dime a dozen in Russia, and in the world at large. We could probably have a million articles just on such businesses, none of which are actually that notable in terms of an encyclopaedia; a directory or yellow pages, sure, but not an encyclopaedia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Pope is a professor of political science at Illinois State University, and his American Home English language program (along with a number of other programs like student exchange and police training programs) is a not-for-profit program, see the relevant section here. --Martintg (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The cited references are all regional, not suitable for WP:N.--RDBury (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced article, making the article notable. Ikip (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referenced but notability guidelines are not satisfied. The News-Gazette is Champaign-Urbana area, the pantograph is Bloomington area and Transitions Abroad has a narrow audience (English speakers newly moved/working in foreign countries). To quote WP:ORG: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."--RDBury (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the arguments given above by Russavia. This sounds like every other organization out there. Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these sorts of ESL outposts are very very common. Article makes no claim of notability. Sources found by the ARS are unfortunately local and read like they were all written/planted by Ron Pope. Abductive (reasoning) 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's also an Associated Press story here, so there are at least two sources writing about it, not just the Pantagraph. Fences&Windows 23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AP story seems to be about a general phenomenon an not about the organization in particular. It might be used as an example but the focus of the story is Americans living abroad in general. To me, it still doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. Maybe there's fodder here for a more general article, can't think of what you would call it though.--RDBury (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough about the organisation to be a reasonable source. But I'm not persuaded that a local news story and an AP story amount to enough coverage, so I'm not arguing to keep it, just pointing out that more searching did pick up an extra hit. Fences&Windows 23:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well-written and exists already. Why delete it? Keep. --AStanhope (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being well written does not mean the subject is notable. Please read WP:HARMLESS.--RDBury (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References make the article notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Not refeenced enough and not notable enough. Had to remove a reference that was from a site that charged to read the story so there's even less references now.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The above reference has been returned, and another added (The San Fransisco Chronicle). There's just enough to warrant keeping. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a reasonable article on a somewhat notable subject. I don't see how deleting it would improve the encyclopedia. Is there something disputed in it? Sadly, Russavia can't respond. Some day we'll have a dispute resolution outlet that works so we can resolve disagreements instead of banning good faith editors with strong points of view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versant (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band that has no produced albums, only ref is a local newspaper. Has future potential for notability, but not as it stands. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I declined the first nomination for speedy deletion as there was an assertion of notability, but it looks like there hasn't been enough coverage for it to meet the specific or general notability guidelines and there isn't much verifiable information available although there is likely to be more in the future. snigbrook (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Thilak Karate School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. There is nothing to suggest this is anything more then a random martial arts school in India. G-search reveals no secondary source coverage (that I could find at least). Author claims that the school has produced some champions but doesn't cite any sources, and as we all know notability isn't inherited anyway. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I did find a write-up of the school in The Hindu [11]. Not sure how significant the coverage has to be for a karate school, but this one has been covered more than most. Them From Space 01:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Medium~~ delete Notability is questionable. It seems more like a promotion, an advertisement of this karate club. The pronoun "we" and "ours" have been use. Moreover, this sentence justifies why I say its like a promotion :"Since Alan Thilak Karate School teaches modern sports karate(non contact with safety equipments) none of the children get injured during training or competition. A few of our champions have been absorbed in Medical and Engineering colleges". Based on some claims of notability (that we can barely verify), I think that it praises how good this school is in order to attract more students via Wikipedia. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems promotional in nature. Netalarmtalk 02:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 07:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but permit re-writing. As it stands, it almost fits into G11, promotional. I'd suggest first finding some sources, and then, starting over--and by someone not connected with the school. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant coverage.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC at the moment. Even the creator of the article admits here " I assure you that this band is gaining notoriety". When they have gained that notoriety (and notability, and significant third party coverage) then the article can be recreated with such. Please contact me if anyone would like the content userfied. Black Kite 10:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elmwood (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as per WP:MUSIC. No third-party media attention. Only notable member is a drummer that won a competition. Author has not responded to requests to cite references for notability. Singularity42 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The band has no third party references but on the drummer that is known. Consider deleting this article but create a page for this notable drummer? On the other hand, Wikipedia community (as I can see) seems to have accepted that fact that this band's album Dreaming Little Things is notable because this article has been on Wikipedia for appox. a month already and no one seems to disagree with it. Would it be strange to have an article about the band's album without having an article about the band itself? Or maybe you can consider AfD Dreaming Little Things too? Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have kept Dreaming Little Things on my watchlist as well. I was waiting to see if we could establish a consensus about the band's notability before dealing with the album article (i.e. if the band article is deleted, then the album article would fall under WP:CSD#A9 for speedy deletion). I initially PROD'd the band's article shortly after both articles were created, but when the article's author said he could establish notability, I gave it two weeks before bringing it here. So I don't think we should use the existence of the album article as showing that the band is notable (too much circular logic). Now, WP:BAND says that a band is notable if it has two or more independently notable members, so just the drummer isn't enough. Of course, we shouldn't blindly follow policy - but I don't think the only claim to notability being that a member won an annual drumming competition is enough for a Wikipedia article. Singularity42 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I wrote the article. I have been wanting to cite specific sources but I am swamped with work. The only chance I have to make edits is at work where I have computer access. I welcome anyone else to add references because I assure you that this band is gaining notoriety. Kbr1656 (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why asking someone else to add references? If you have time to write comments , I think you should have time finding references instead of asking others to do it... right? If the band was as notable as you say it, there should be no problem in finding 3rd party sources on Google, for example. It would take a few minutes or perhaps seconds... I have searched and I have not found anything reliable or pertinent in establishing the notability...maybe it is the same for you? Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that up until last night I did not have as much free time or the resources as you apparently do. I was at the computer lab for five minutes and I posted that comment to try to save my article from being deleted by other people who have more time. Like I said, usually the only time that I can make edits is at my place of work which happens to be during the night. It's not like I was begging someone else to add references because I didn't want to. I am trying to improve the article as I go along. The only thing I don't want is someone to come along and wipe out something that I put a lot of work into. Many people are more concerned with following guidelines and policy than they are about proper sharing of information. If you have that much of a problem with the article, then I am sorry.Kbr1656 (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The band passes WP:GNG. See this article from The News Tribune and this article from The Bladen Journal (see the full article here). Cunard (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references cited in the previous keep opinion demonstrate that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Searches for numerous permutations come up with nothing else. The fact that this band has opened for several highly notable acts and has nonetheless drawn no material coverage is telling. ^Bongo_matic 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band has received sufficient coverage to establish notability. Two reliable newspapers have devoted articles to this band and its performances. It has received material coverage. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had earlier closed this discussion as "keep" missing a late posted "delete" !vote. I still feel that after a relist the consensus is to keep but considering my closing statement, I felt it best to revert my close and allow an administrator to close it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bongomatic. I have reviewed Cunard's sources. The Bladen Journal is a purely local news source at best. The first one is not from the News Tribune but another, local, newspaper of similar name, as evidenced by the different domain name, the display of WV weather on the page, and the inclusion of (!) ticket prices and phone numbers in the article. Fails WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not preclude local sources from establishing notability. I would vote delete if only one local newspaper covered this band; however, since two newspapers have devoted articles to it, I have voted keep.
However, this is not local coverage of a local band. This band has received coverage outside of its own area. The Bladen Journal is a newspaper based in Bladen County, North Carolina and the News Tribune is from Keyser, West Virginia, while Elmwood band is based in Nashville, Tennessee.
This band passes WP:BAND #1. It [h]as been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. The reliable sources provide significant coverage about the band and its performances, thus precluding it from meeting one of the exceptions of WP:BAND #1: Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On rereading the second source, it is apparent that it originally came from a student newspaper. The only apparent reason why this band got such coverage is because a member of the band is the alumnus of the said school and another member came from Keyser, WV. Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The article isn't written neutrally either. On the basis of there being only one independent reliable source about this band, delete. Cunard (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 19:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ramos (Madden)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm 99% sure this is a Hoax but it may be a video game character being portrayed as a person? J04n(talk page) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to confirm anything in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as a hoax. Th article claims he is the 1997 Heisman trophy winner but Charles Woodson won it that year, and furthermore, the NFL lists no such player currently active [12]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Worthington

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability. This article is about a British artist from the 1870s. I found this article at CAT:CSD and added a source from Google Books. However, I have had trouble finding additional sources on Google News Archive and Google Books. I'm not sure if this individual passes WP:BIO, so I have brought this article to AfD. If more sources are uncovered, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ARTIST is pretty specific and I don't see how he would pass unless additional material can be found. I did turn up two seascapes on AskART.com but no bio.
Keep. The subject pre-dates the internet, but I've added some cited information from a few sources that I found. He may not have been internationally known, but I think there is enough on him to indicate some regional notability. Location (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few pictures in a site for a local museum do not qualify as evidence of notability. I checked Google books for his name and found nothing, that has books going back to the 19th century so I don't think being around before computers in an issue. Then I tried a different tack with AskART.com, they have bios of every artist of note (even very minor ones) as there as there has been some sort of trade in their work. They list his name but no bio. The guy was able to make a living painting and of course some of his work is still going to be around for the local museum to collect, but the criteria require much more than that.--RDBury (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that a lack of notation in AskART means too much. Their front page states: "The recognized site about American artists plus buyer information on artists worldwide." The first name in Category:English painters is Lemuel Francis Abbott who is famous for his portrait of Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson; Abbott does not appear to have any biographical information in AskART either.[13]. Worthington does not have any works at the Louvre, the Uffizi, or the Met, but he does have a large number of works at the National Library of Wales and a few at the University of Wales [14] which I think reflects regional significance to the Welsh. Location (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AskART was just one of the methods I used to try to find something on the artist. I'm just trying show that I did due diligence before making a decision. When I put Lemuel Francis Abbott into Google books I got about 10 good hits right away, so there'd be no reason to check AskART for him in the first place. I've got nothing against your guy, if you can find some good evidence of notability that I missed then add it to the article and I'll re-evaluate. I'm just trying to apply the criteria that are spelled out very clearly on Wikipedia.--RDBury (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The above is the best I've got for a "keep". Location (talk) 06:11, 12 September 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) 06:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above links provided by Location have not convinced me of Alfred Worthington's notability per WP:BIO, so I have relisted this AfD to see if anyone can uncover more sources. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on limited search information. If anyone has a good encyclopedia of art, and this painter is listed, then no prejudice to recreation. But sources available—sources that establish notability of plenty of individuals whose lifespans predate internet or electronic data—do not establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 01:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the delete arguments wer ebetter based on policy and guidelines Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Prindle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural relist from deletion review. There are more references than when this article was previously deleted at AfD. There are still concerns, however, related to notability of the subject and the reliability of the sources presented in the article. The closing admin should also be aware of the potential for single purpose accounts in this dicussion. As this is a procedural relisting, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Mark Prindle is notable. He's been quoted and printed in published books. He's had a biographical blurb in a published book. He's ran stories for Maxim UK and Spin. He's been on TV. Not as a one off "man on the street" interview. Not on public access. Not in some University production. He's been on Fox News's show Red Eye W/Greg Gutfeld. Not just once, multiple times. As such, he is being beamed into the homes of many people. He was given his own music segment. His bread and butter is his website. While much of it is humorous record reviews, he also acts as a de facto historian of the 1980's/1990's underground music scene (amongst others). He interviews artists important to the scene, that while notable enough for a wikipedia page, aren't exactly burning up the pages of Rolling Stone. As such, he too is notable. I hope that we can look past my relative inexperience on the site and discussions of the past, unreformed page and view this as the notable person it is. Thank you. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) — Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See the user's userpage. Cunard (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "He's had a biographical blurb in a published book." The "[WP]" at the end of the blurb means it was taken directly from Wikipedia. See WP:CIRCULAR about this. Unfortunately, none of the other things you listed are what Wikipedia is looking for to see if the subject of an article is notable per the Wikipedia notability guideline. What I look for to see if something or a person is notable are reliable sources "about" the subject itself in detail. For people I also check to see if any of the points listed on WP:PEOPLE are met and that there are reliable secondary sources that back this up. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate the critique. However, I feel the fact a published book needed wikipedia to reference the man shows the need for the article, and his notablitity, even if said citation is circular. As for notability, I would note that the notability guidelines aren't law. If the consensus is that a man who has made frequent contributions to a music scene, been published in print multiple times, and had multiple established appearances on a show on a major cable network as a "music contributor" is that he's "not notable", I would state that the notability guidelines are broken. I understand the want against self promotion and the ascension of the trivial for personal gain, this is not a case of that. This is the creation of a reliable source of information about a notable man. As the internet grows and grows and the older established modes of information contract, more and more articles will be like this, therefore it is Wikipedia's standards that need to adjust, rather than deleting this article. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had the notability stuff been understood and followed from the beginning then there would be no Mark Prindle article on Wikipedia and the odds are he would not have shown up in that book. :-) I believe the book was constructed from things like Category:American music critics and it's parent categories.

If Prindle is all the things you say he is then all you need to do is to prove it. That's done by finding independent reliable sources that state the things you have said about Prindle. I'll write more about your notability suggestions but not on this AfD as it should be focused on Mark Prindle. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't really understand all the hoops I have to jump through here. I don't understand this process, I don't understand why I'm being pressed so hard for everything. I feel like I'm up against a bunch of lawyers that reference laws that aren't actually laws but might as well be, and act like bureaucrats while denying this is a bureaucracy. It would appear that an oft-published, tv guest commentator with a website filled with a lot of interviews with notable people would himself be notable, but I don't know squat. I thought notability wasn't a law, but a trend. So why am I constantly pressed like stare decisis is in place? You guys can have this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 03:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Mark Prindle has had several notable outlets, and in addition to the published materials has been discussed on and appeared on TV. I don't see any part of WP:Notability that says sources must be in print form for the subject to count as notable. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As has been mentioned, Mark Prindle has had multiple television appearances, articles published in notable magazines, quoted in print, and has conducted interviews with many notable musicians. This is the second or third time people have tried to get a Mark Prindle article deleted and it's just absolutely ridiculous to keep on doing so. Munich hilton (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of evidence for WP:N. Only one reference in the article itself covers the subject of the AfD (Mark Prindle). It is an interview on a Latvian web site. As I don't know the language I have no way of evaluating this site's nor the interviewer's reputation for fact checking. Four WP:PEACOCK words in the lead paragraph is not reassuring. I then checked my local library's research database and got zero hits. Google Scholar, Books, and News (using the links at the top of this AFD) only dig up trivial references. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial is subjective. Anyways, if it is an interview you need, I can gladly get one from him, I was talking with him through facebook, and he gave me a bunch of reference to things he was in. 24.125.10.58 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that trivial is subjective. When I use the word it means the subject was mention in a single sentence (sometimes two) and then dropped. For example, many band articles may mention they were reviewed by Prindle. Those are trivial mentions.

Interviews are tricky in my mind as many of them are a glowing lead to hook the reader and then it's one sentence questions with the interview subject providing most of the content. Thus the word count is low when looking for the significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 11#Interviews and Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 11#Interviews 2. I found those using this search. You may want to dig through the results.

Please keep in mind that even if the Prindle article is deleted that it will be instantly restored should someone come up with the solid evidence of notability that Wikipedia looks for. Thus while you may feel the AfD clock is ticking it's also not the end of the universe (or Mark Prindle) should the article get deleted. The reason I bring this up is that it takes a while to assimilate all those guidelines, policies, how they fit together, and how people are interpreting them. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solid evidence suggests notability is law, which it isn't. It's culled from trends of Wikipedia, correct? I feel that while Mark Prindle does not meet the WP:N perfectly, he fits the spirit of it. Furthermore, he is part of the upcoming evolution of culture away from the dying MSM sources Wikipedia currently requires notability. Trends change, and this is a case where I feel the trend should change. If an oft-cited/quoted writer who regularly appears on a cable news channel in a creative capacity isn't notable, then notability of the problem. If people can turn on their TV set, look the man up, and come up blank on this site because of a static, legalistic approach, then the static legalistic approach is the problem, not the man's notability. 24.125.10.58 (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When going to sleep last night I was thinking about Prindle and realized that FUTON bias applies. I, and I suspect many of the people here, are doing Internet research to see if a subject is notable. The point is, we can't cover everything and so it would be worthwhile to ask Mark Prindle if he's been featured in any industry specific publications, books, etc.

24.125.10.58, you brought up some good points but my reply does not seem directly relevant to this AFD. What that in mind I started User talk:Marc Kupper/Notability FAQ#Mark_Prindle (2nd nomination). --Marc Kupper|talk 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the man himself: I've appeared on Fox News' "Red Eye" as a music commentator ten times (to date). I've had articles published in Spin and Maxim UK. I or my web site have been quoted in the following books: Lost In The Grooves: Scram's Capricious Guide To The Music You Missed -- Kim Coope Hip Priest: The Story of Mark E. Smith and The Fall -- Simon Ford Enter Naomi: SST, L.A. and All That... -- Joe Carducc Hey Ho Let's Go: The Story Of The Ramones -- Everett True The 100 Greatest Metal Guitarists -- Joel McIver Heavy Metal Music In Britain -- Gerd Bayer Studies In Language And Cognition -- Jordan Zlatev Criticises: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases -- Philip M. Parker Perfect Sound Forever: The Story of Pavement -- Rob Jovanovic Neither Here Nor There -- The Melvins. And my web site has been quoted in the liner notes of these CDs: - The Fall Box Set 1976-200 - Zip Code Rapists Sing And Play "The Three Doctors" 24.125.10.58 (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a radio or TV show and getting articles published does not count. Notability on Wikipedia is not about what the subject does. It's about the subject, Mark Prindle in this case, receiving significant attention or coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If Prindle reviews someone and then they link or cite back him then that does not count as it's not independent of the subject. One thing you might try is if a book has a section about a band and if they include a Prindle quote as part of the band article then that could be evidence he's being cited. It's a tougher way to do it but it can work as it'll be evidence of WP:AUTHOR point 1. The rub is that the band review needs to be found in a reliable source. It'll be tough, but possible, to get a keep consensus that way given that he seems to have no general WP:N coverage. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:01, 14 September 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) 06:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this AfD because it does not appear in the AfD log for 25 August 2009. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Also note that while technically not a {{spa}}, Munich hilton's edits indicate an unusual interest in this topic and may evidence a COI. ^Bongo_matic 01:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70's Dinner Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Compilation albums shouldn't be on wiki. They're just released by record companies making extra money on their back catalogue.Sargentprivate (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are notable compilation albums. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One of my earlier articles when I hadn't been here very long. Not many references for it, althouogh it does exist. I've no objections to it being deleted if that's the consensus. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, why not userfy it instead? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Userfication is useful if the editor thinks that he can find sources in the near future, but not in time for the AfD, or if he has another erason to believe tha t he can improve the article to an acceptable result. If the editor does not intend to significantly improve an article (e.g. because he has done all he can already the first time around, or because he agrees that the arguments for deletion will remain valid no matter how hard he works on the article), then userfication is pointless. Fram (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure whether I can improve it, but I'm happy to give it a go if someone wants to move it to my userspace. I'm assuming I'm not allowed to move it myself while this discussion is in progress? TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above by User:COMPFUNK2, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability, nor can one be made. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a mirror of allmusic.com. ^Bongo_matic 01:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ventricular assist device. Black Kite 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HeartMate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a trademark name for a type of Ventricular assist device. The particular product is already discussed an an example on Ventricular assist device so this page is redundant and includes unnecessary detail that promotes the manufacturer without adding particular value than already exists on the main Ventricular assist device article. The page should be deleted as there is no particular information that is unique or valuable enough to need to be merged to the general main article. It should be noted that none of the alternative devices listed on Ventricular assist device has their own Wikipedia articles. Ash (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an article is brought here. One of the alternatives would be a redirect to Ventricular assist device, and I'd be interested to know why the nominator has rejected that?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not a stub so a redirection would blank a non-trivial page without discussion. Creating an AFD gives the opportunity for discussion and does not preclude an eventual redirect.—Ash (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be merged into Ventricular assist device Billbowery (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep or Merge - discussion above compelling - suggest nominator reverses AfD nomination and appends a Merge tag instead. Williamborg (Bill) 01:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) As stated in the nomination there is no particular information that is unique or valuable enough to need to be merged to the general main article.—Ash (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could certainly write more thoroughly about this particular product within the VAD article page, but I am worried that the general article will then be dominated by information about one specific product. These are highly complex products that are of vital importance to those who need them, and I think it behooves us to set a very high standard for the amount of information we include. Second, there are many examples in Wikipedia of specific products within a product category. Operating systems, video games, etc., all have countless articles on their own. So this nomination has absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy. Leifern (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) The relevant guidance is at WP:PRODUCT (though consider that the general article on these types of product rather than a particular trademarked example may be sufficient). You should probably also consider the notability of Thoratec Corporation against the guidance of WP:ORG, this does not currently have an article.—Ash (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that clarification. I think it is pretty clear that the HeartMate series are indeed notable, and I expect that you'll withdraw the nomination. Leifern (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appears to be based on OTHERSTUFF, this is not an accepted rationale for an article. Nothing you have said so far appears to invalidate the nomination.—Ash (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that there is nothing about this subject that makes it non-notable. This is a product that is important for the public interest; there are plenty of third-party, non-promotional citations; and it meets all notability standards. Rather, the nomination seems to rest on your opinion about what is valuable. As for the OTHERSTUFF argument, I am simply trying to say that if articles about specific video games, or fictional characters actually become featured articles, then there should be no question that information about products that mean life or death for its patients, should be valuable. Leifern (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pare and merge or Delete. Even if significant coverage in reliable third-party sources are available (there are none at the article and none mentioned above here), the coverage in the article is way in excess of what would be considered notable or appropriate for coverage in an encyclopedia. The appropriate amount of coverage (which may be none) can easily be incorporated into the main article on VAD. ^Bongo_matic 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le prix

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not indicate a considerable amount of importance/notability to have a page for himself. There is not much information about him on the web to indicate his real importance/impact to the music industry (the references are not even about him nor closely related to him). It is written like an advertisement. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 20:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the references do anything but confirm that he did a remix. There are no sources writing about him that I could find. - Whpq (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is not about "the prize". 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable artist. Not even listed in allmusic, which is intended to have all recording artists, not just notable ones. ^Bongo_matic 01:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Aleksandrovich Zhukov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP of a Russian cosmonaut over 50 years old who has never made a space flight. Durova³¹⁸ 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete There are a few sources out there. There's one listed as an external link - http://spacefacts.de/bios/cosmonauts/english/zhukov_sergei.htm but it doesn't look that much of a reliable source. I can't find enough in the way of English sources to justify retention as it currently stands. To my mind, there's a strong presumption of notability to astronauts/cosmonauts etc. If someone can find sources (possibly Russian sources?) so that we can reasonably source more than existence as a cosmonaut I may change my mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being an Astronaut sounds notable to me. Can we get a russian editor to take a look at this? Omegastar (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An astronaut who never actually went into space? Durova³¹⁸ 22:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, he's never flown, but there are a significant number of Google news and Google scholar articles about him. President of the Moscow Space Club, director of the Centre of Technology Transfer[15], a nuclear physicist and a reporter[16]. He might squeak by notability even if he hadn't been selected as a cosmonaut. Pburka (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Since he has not yet travelled to space, he can't really be considered a cosmonaut, can he? I don't think he's notable enough to have an article.--Karljoos (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a cosmonaut not intrinsically notable, doubly so if never made space flight. No coverage → not notable. ^Bongo_matic 01:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Adams. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAX-AM Digital Single No. 1

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No indication that this may meet WP:NSONGS, only reference is to sale site. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this single. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Ryan Adams. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for this article to be deleted - it is an official release from a successful musical artist. It just so happens to be released on his self-made label, PAX-AM, but this does not make it any less valid.

As for significant coverage:

[17] News article from major music website Pitchfork.

[18] News article from prominant music site Stereogum.

There is no reason for this article to be deleted. Egg_Creations (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ryan Adams or an article created for PAX AM, citing the same sources. First, the sources make note of the new label, which happens to be making available digital singles. There is nothing inherently notable about the singles themselves. Second, naming the article PAX-AM Digital Single No. 1 for a single is like naming Doris Day's "Secret Love" Columbia Records 40108. The title of the A-side, according to Adams' website, is "Lost and Found". Recommend the same outcome for PAX-AM Digital Single No. 2. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 19:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Jatico

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actress would not seem to meet WP:ACTOR or WP:BIO without additional sources. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 14:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Supposed appearance in Baywatch Hawaii episode not verified by IMDB ref cited (and wouldn't suffice for WP:ACTOR anyway). Hqb (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a diligent web search, I feel that this subject fails to meet any criteria 0f WP:BIO or WP:GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Seems to meet partial notability criteria. WP:Notability Significant coverage but minimal sources. Article cleaned up from prior comments regarding Actor/Actress debate. 1:25, 21 September 2009 {UTC} — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilBit777 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 September 2009 — LilBit777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - rescue is not an option in an AFD. If what you wanted to do was add a {{rescue}} tag to the article, you succeeded in that, although I think moving the AFD notice to the bottom of the page wasn't such a good idea. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Significant coverage? I don't see any coverage at all. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even figure out what notability criteria the article is trying to meet. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Zylka

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. No significant roles. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't come close to passing the standard at WP:ENT. Eusebeus (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few minor roles and a complete lack of substantial coverage lead to a distinct lack of notability under WP:ENT. ~ mazca ^talk 10:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Rodriguez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person, reads like an ad, and no sources given Deserted Cities 04:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although she has a page on IMDb, the only other Ghits I found for her were MovieTome, Twitter and blogs (and it sure does read like an ad, considering it's written in the first person). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only trivial sources available, not clear why notable Vartanza (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hour Service Station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither can I. Nor does it appear to be a useful redirect, nor is there content that can usefully be merged elsewhere; in fact, I can see no hope at all for this content.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. The GUIDES on deletion say "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so." I have edited this page to include several sources to prove that this Record Label has Notabiltiy through the referenced newspaper and magazine articles. "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the Record Label notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." This Record Label, 24 Hour Service Station has had several magazines and newspapers that have "written and published" articles that "focus" on the label. This press coverage has been listed in the references for Verifiability and more will be added. This page is still a work in progress. I disagree with the "consideration of deletion" Wikinubot (Wikinubot) 11:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - but it might be rescued. There are lots of sources that can be found in the Internet about this label. However, I've identified a couple of problems with sourcing. One, searches using Google and similar engines will find lots of false hits, because the label's name is similar to a phrase. Second, many news sources have only trivial mentions of the label, usually along the lines of "recording artist" and mentioning the label. Third, many of the sources point to local pride in Tampa about the label. So at the least, it is notable locally. It does have some notable bands signed to it. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - current sourcing is sufficient to establish local notability. Since there is no consensus that local sources are insufficient to establish Wikipedia notability, the subject meets a literally reading of WP:N. That combined with a couple notable artists being signed to the label is sufficient for inclusion, IMO. I am qualifying my "keep" with "weak" since all significant sources appear to be local in nature. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. allen四names 05:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability and sources.--Judo112 (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Peach

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was semi-protected over a dispute, prodded, then redirected. Bringing here for a community assessment as to WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author was an SPA who obviously had an extensive knowledge of Mr. Peach beyond what appeared in the cited source. Racepacket (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to BBC Radio 2. Not notable by himself, but as he reads the news on Radio 2 people will no doubt search for him. If redirected the page should continue to be semi-protected to prevent its recreation and another pointless edit war between the two parties involved - both of who were BBC employees. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are virtually no sources on this individual (and I spent a lot of time searching for them when I tried to verify the information in the article). The only sources appear to be Peach's BBC page [19] and a 2007 article from the Times in which he is mentioned. [20] Not a great basis on which to build a stable article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Criterion 4(c) for creative professionals discusses critical recognition. He won an award at the New York Radio Festival - which, even though he won in a category specifically for England, it was still an international festival - and was nominated for Sony Radio Academy Awards. If we can source that he's won a Sony award, that will make it a more solid keep, since he'll have won awards from two organizations. Also, to RetroGuy: somebody added some new sources today, including the programme from the NYRF (primary but authoritative for award recipients). —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I didn't persevere for long enough, although to be fair I seem to recall I spent about an hour on it. I Googled, Google News'd, Yahoo'd and Lycos'd him. It didn't produce a lot, so I'm glad there are others with more determination. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search has unearthed links which support the facts in the article and I have added them to it. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.121 (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The recently added info on the awards seems sufficient--though usually I am rather skeptical about articles on radio announcers, DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fictional companies. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional businesses

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Serious question about notability. Worse, though, is the prospect of this list actually being filled. Since just about every film, book or whatever containing any sort of reference to a business will have to make it fictional for fear of a law suit, this is going to be one long list. Favonian (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I generally agree with the nom, but we might consider redirecting to List of fictional companies, which contains only notable fictional companies. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is not without merit :) Had I known about this other list, I would probably have redirected boldly, but let's see what other editors think. Following the links to other, similar lists rather confirms my dark premonitions. Favonian (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fictional companies. Horselover Frost (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the reasons given above.Tris2000 (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fictional companies, per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical installations in Herrenwyk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

badly factored article talks about two unrelated items (power station was demolished before hvdc converter even started), no assertion of notability, highly unlikely search box entry, fork of content at Lübeck-Herrenwyk and Baltic Cable, no substantial content not already in those two articles, no references or other additions in over a year, was discussed for AFD in July 2008 and no improvement since then. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I was the person who created this article, I would like to give a background why this was done. Originally, major part of this information given in this article was the only section of Herrenwyk article.[21] The Herrenwyk article was demerged because it seemed not logical to the article about the part of city talks mainly about electrical installations in the area. As it was dermerged from the Herrenwyk article, it is not the fort of its cntent. Later the article was expanded based on the article in the German wiki. Unfortunately, the Herrenwyk article and the article in the German wiki were poorly referenced, and therefore also this article still has lack of references. Beside of the power plant and the Baltic Cable converter station, there is also third item, namely 110 kV / 20 kV sub-station, which is not a part of the Baltic Cable. Information in this article is actually not covered in the Herrenwyk nor the Baltic Cable articles. Therefore, if the consensus would be that this article does not deserve to be a separate article, it would be necessary to merge this information into the Herrenwyk article before deleting this article. Beagel (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. This is a first AfD nomination for this article and there was no AfD discussion in July 2009 as was stated by the nominator. There was a request for speedy deletion (CSD A7), which was denied. And the article was improved during the period of speedy deletion request. Beagel (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to correction (comment by nominator) - there was discussion of nominating this article for deletion in July 2008 but it was never nominated then. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article should be about the power station. By all means mention and links should be provided for Lübeck-Herrenwyk and Baltic Cable but the subject of the article should be the power station otherwise, per Wtshymanski, it does not really have a rational subject. Sources in English seem to be hard to come by but it can at least be established that it existed. In my view, power stations are a large and important enough construction to be intrinsically notable, even demolished ones, but the nominator is right that more sources are needed. SpinningSpark 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you propose to rename this article to Herrenwyk power station and move information about the converter station to the Baltic Cable article and about he 110 kV / 20 kV sub-station to the Herrenwyk article? I think taht could be acceptable solution. Beagel (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the substation is pretty low down the electrical infrastructure heirarchy and non-notable as far as I can see. If it belongs anywhere, a mention along with the inverter on whose site it resides would be appropriate, not the article for the town, but I would be inclined to lose it altogether. Secondly, although you keep referring to it, we do not have an article for Herrenwyk, it is a redirect to Lübeck-Herrenwyk which is itself a very short stub. There does not seem any point to me in Lübeck-Herrenwyk existing at all in its current state and should be merged with Lübeck which pretty much already says everything that is in the Lübeck-Herrenwyk article. SpinningSpark 17:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by nominator) Agree that not every substation is notable - you'll find one every couple of miles most places and no-one writes about them (in general) unless something blows up or someone breaks in and injures himself. The converter station is already described at Baltic Cable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your comment concerning substations and I don't think that there should be a separate article about this substation. I also agree, that the Baltic Cable article covers the converter station as a part of this installation. It leaves only the power plant. I see here two options: if this power plant s notable (I think that probably is) and there is enough information (I have some doubts about this), it probably deserves its own article and in this case it would be reasonable to cleanup and rename the current article. If not, it probably should be deleted. Beagel (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time JForget 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as an article about the power station and rename, per above. Most large-scale power generation facilities are notable, I have no opinion regarding whether the substation should be mentioned on another article, but I don't think it needs to be here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and deal with further as Thryduulf suggests. Seems reasonable to me. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "rename" articles. There's nothing to keep that's not already in Baltic cable and Lübeck. There's nothing to say about the power station and mere existence is not notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Libyan Premier League 2009–10. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Premier League 2009-10 Fixtures & Results

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed without explanation. Crystal balling, only source is a Web forum. Durova³¹⁸ 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It also looks like the creator added a few tables but didn't put anything in them. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not worthy of its own article. Any valuable content can be merged into Libyan Premier League 2009–10 Spiderone 08:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant info into Libyan Premier League 2009-10. Giant Snowman 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GiantSnowman. – Pee Jay 08:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy A decenmt sytart on a list, but a little too soon. Userfying prevents the work being wated., and we can advise the user on when it should be restored. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 20:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Libyan Premier League 2009–10 as the best alternative to deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janet K. Brennan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All Gnews hits I can found are trivial mentions or unrelated, or both. The so-called "critically acclaimed" books have zero Gnews hit and is self-published according to Amazon - see this and this. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Tim Song (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant promotion of herself and her company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is indeed blatant self-promotion, but disguised to look like it's more notable than it is. Absolutely trivial Vartanza (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While authors of self-published works can be notable, there is no idication this is one of exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lair (hiding place)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic WP:DICDEF. Tim Song (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dicdef. Could have a decent article about animal's residences in general or for specific species, but this is not even the beginning of such an article. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, this is a dictionary definition that is inferior to Wiktionary's entry. An article along the lines that Pseudomonas describes could be encyclopaedic, equally so could one about the bases that superheros/supervilains have (e.g. differing portrayals of them through time). This is neither of these though, and Wiktionary's entry would be a better starting point for them than what is here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, yes, delete. It uses a dictionary as a ref, so is, like, what was said above about the inferior to a dictionary, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Nyegera Thimangu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable educator. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally nominated it for prod. Reasons as above. noq (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources offered in the article nor could any be found in searching. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly a vanity article, but this is a biography with no sources. Mr Cohen may possibly be notable, but there's no way of determining this from the article, and since a number of editors have searched for such sources without success, then at the moment it needs to go. Black Kite 10:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Cohen (NASCAR owner)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did some further research on this person at both NASCAR.com and Jayski.com, and I find his claims of ownership in the Cup, Nationwide, and Truck series to be a bit thin. I only found an entry in the Nationwide series owners points with car #58. Furthermore, his team is listed as a part-time team, something which doesn't help with notability.

However, it seems that he has partnered with another part-time team, the #07 team owned by Armando Fitz of SK Motorsports as I have seen the same sponsors on both cars at the races the #58 team has made. Not sure that helps with notability either, but there it is.

In my objective view, this person fails WP:N as I don't believe he has done enough as an owner to establish notability, especially since claiming he is in all three series yet I could only find him listed in one. ArcAngel (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I do believe that owners of NASCAR teams are notable. However, this is a vanity article written by User:John Cohen Nascar which reads like a promotional piece. I see little content worth salvaging. I don't mind if someone wants to recreate the article with reliable sources, which are available online. He did make a recent television appearance on BET which would add to his notability. Royal broil 03:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Struck out delete. Thanks for the research, ArcAngel. I looked and didn't find much. Per this link from a reliable source (which is frequently used in NASCAR articles), Mr. Cohen has a documented race as a team owner in NASCAR's Nationwide Series which proves notability. There are articles on many Nationwide owners, although most of them own Sprint Cup Series teams which are more notable. In my opinion, Nationwide teams are notable enough because they are well documented by American media. The article needs serious cleanup to get rid of the many peacock terms. It reads like a promotional piece written by a publicist. It needs to be changed because Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia written in formal tone. Royal broil 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arc Angel My publiscit Stacey Rodriguez prepared this article which i agree needs to be recreated a little I actually put it up to see how it looks . As far as Armando Fitz I own the points from Sk Motorsports the way NASCAR works the previous year whoever owns the points the name must stay as Car owner as you see Teresa Earnhardt is listed under number she doesnt even own any more thats a sticky situation that Nascar created so people would not cheat . I believe I am very Notable Person maybe not as Famous as the rest but I am The onlly African American 100% owner in this sport. I am the hope that diversity will come to a sport that has been long overdue as far as Three Series I am a registerd Cup Nationwide and Truck Owner —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cohen Xxxtreme Motorsport (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Cohen, no disrespect was intended by my actions of nominating your article for deletion, so after some thought and in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I did some research to try and find reliable sources to verify your claims of notability in the article. Unfortunately, I was not able to find that many, and none of which back up your claim that you have teams in all three series. The link to the homepage does not count as a reliable source. The sources I was able to find that verify your Nationwide Series ownership:

Nationwide Series Owner Statistics (from www.racing-reference.info)

Entry List for Subway Jalapeno 250 Powered By Coca-Cola (from FoxSports.com)

Chase Austin :to debut with xXxtreme Motorsport (from Scene Daily)

Other sources I tried were:

http://www.rotoworld.com

http://www.racingone.com

http://www.motorracingnetwork.com/

http://stockcarspin.com

http://www.nascar.com

As for your claim that you are a registered car owner in three national racing series, I found no online reliable third-party source to back that claim up. I don't know if anyone else can contribute their research to this discussion, or if anyone else even wishes to put their voice in, but I would hope that they would so that your notability can be established or not.

ArcAngel (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a email address I can send you my owners papers from nascar stating Im a owner in all three series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.254.242.66 (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cohen, it's not that simple. E-mailing me your documents is not enough to assert notability. Sources that have significant news coverage are what we are looking for, and so far - there are none or very few that do that. ArcAngel (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF this page is edited with changes thats not a promotional piece and more informative. Will that help this article from deletion, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.51.33 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the page was re-worded to be more neutral, that still may not be enough. As I stated above, there has to be verifiable third-party sources that backup your claims of notability. If there were more sources from NASCAR.com or any of the other reliable sources from above, that could be enough but as it stands now this article has no chance of surviving. ArcAngel (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you claming I am not a Nascar owner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.27.104 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no doubt that John Cohen is a NASCAR owner. However, that is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. We require that the information we present be verifiable—that is, it can be verified. Right now, we have a biography with no sources. And though this article has likely been written/approved by the subject, there is no way of guaranteeing that future additions by semi-anonymous or anonymous editors would be the same. Searches for sources came up negative: "john cohen" nascar owner and "XXXtreme Motorsport". The links provided above are enough to establish that Cohen is a NASCAR owner, but not enough to notability as a NASCAR owner. There has not been published reliable secondary source material independent of the subject. Currently fails WP:BIO and the WP:GNG. If sources can be found, I have no problem with this article existing. I do have a problem with unreferenced biographies of living persons. -Atmoz (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 01:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up this article and added some references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.51.33 (talk • contribs)

Note: I've commented out this AFD discussion on the September 10 log and added it on the September 19 log. I think it did not appeared in the log despite the relist earlier. JForget 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not here to offence you Mr. Cohen, but I must tell you that it strongly recommended to not create an article about yourself WP:YOURSELF as this will (most of the time) cause Conflict of Interest WP:COI. Moreover I like to point out that there is not much 3rd party references/sources to indicate your notability. If you are that notable, then we could easily find sources on Goggle, which is not the case here. Also, if you are that notable, someone would have already written an article about you... and not you writting an article about yourself... I suggest to weak delete. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 01:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very offended I didn't right this article but I am here to defend my notability for a long time I stayed quite on PR until i felt it was time to start my Pr push I have many article in magazines coming out in december. I am NASCAR owner which is very creditable and notable . People from Sean Combs to Jay Z support my team and they think Im Notable Ive met the President he thinks Im notable what gives you the right to say Im not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.116.183 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 September 2009

Big claims as you say the President thinks you are notable, but where are the sources? You know, saying it out loud is not enough and useless. You need to provide sources/references, so that the Wikipedia community can verify what you just said, what you claim to be. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already made up your conclusion do what you have to do Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.51.33 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW Tone 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is clear breach of WP:CRYSTAL - it assumes that 1) there will be a General Election in the UK in 2009, 2)that the Labour party will not be re-elected and 3)that this will cause Gordon Brown to resign as leader of the Labour party. Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no justification for this article. It is written in the past tense about a future event. -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Pure Crystal ball gazing. - Galloglass 06:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Urban XII (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure crystal ballery. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wp:CRYSTAL. (Really - talking in the past tense for something that hasn't happened yet?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose you could have an article on Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election if there's been enough speculation in reliable third-party sources, but an article that starts by assuming a defeat at the next election is not the way to do it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh. Crystal-ball gazing of the worst kind. Fences&Windows 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Nicholl Rail

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Smokefoot (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Rail looks like a nice chap, but I dont see any indicator of notability that merits a biography. Also Rail or his friends have written some related highly specialised articles that suggest a conflict of interest at minimum and a lack of perspective. They are using Wikipedia as scrapbook for fond memories.[reply]

Delete per nom. Also fails WP:BIO, as there appear to be no reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss the person in any sort of depth. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now at least. Wikipedia seem to want to steadily delete all my ('Whitenob') contributions because over the past couple of weeks I have focussed on the work of one person. This is just because I recently read through some of his work, and considered it valuable. It is true that I knew Anthony Nicholl Rail when I was a student at King's Worcester, but this is partly a primary biography, which are normally written by an acquaintance. SW ('Whitenob')
Delete unless evidence can be produced of achievements in chemistry. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS returns a very definitive 'Your search - "Anthony Nicholl Rail" - did not match any articles'. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP, definitely. I’m not qualified to say whether or not Rail’s scientific research renders him important, though I applaud anyone with the conviction to justifiably correct another’s mistakes, and so help purge the universal corpus of knowledge from error. I can speak about his historical research, much of which is of a very high quality. Robert E. Schofield and John McEvoy, leading researchers of Joseph Priestley, have both applauded Rail’s work. Even more important, though, is Rail’s decoding of Priestley’s idiosyncratic shorthand, giving us access to valuable material that we hadn’t been able to read for two-hundred years. That on its own makes A N Rail notable; and he must be so much more so when this is taken as a whole with his historical and scientific work. Katbun (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reliable sources please, otherwise your assertions are nothing more than hearsay. Moreover, even if true, two peoples' opinions will not be sufficient enough to prove his work has had impact. The fact that he doesn't show up even once in Google, of all places, does not bode well. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Policy Should the administrators choose to delete this entry, then I respectfully suggest they look to the consistency of the implementation of their policies. I happened to come across Anthony Nicholls (chemist), which the administrators seem to have accepted, even though his only claim to notability seems to be that he started his own business. On that basis, the electrician who rewired my kitchen this summer merits an entry. Katbun (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katbun raises interesting points about Rail's work on scientific history. But we need verifiable sources WP:RS to confirm these claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Katbun is one of a collection of admirers of Anthony Rail, all of who commenced editing in September.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We know other stuff exists. Other articles will be dealt with when we get to them. In the meantime, if you don't think Nicholls merits an article, then be bold and nominate it for deletion. Also, it's the entire community, not just the administrators. Regards, MuZemike 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as for Nicholls, it seems he is primarily notable for the accomplishments in his business, OpenEye Scientific Software, not merely for "starting a business"--and not for his previous scientific work. In any case, it's the community who decides, not we administrators. We just see what the people here say on the basis of their evaluation of the evidence in terms of our policies. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As for the evaluation of his work as a scientist, that's easy enough to determine: he has never published any of it in a peer-reviewed journal. As an historian. what is the evidence that Robert E. Schofield and John McEvoy consider him an authority on Priestley? Is it merely that they cite it? , and not even that has been shown, except for ref. 27. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Camera

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software; I haven't found any secondary source coverage. Also written like an ad. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have examined the first 30 hits obtained on a Google search for "Magic Camera", and likewise the first 30 hits on a search for "Magic Camera" shiningmorning, to make sure everything is about this software. In both cases I got nothing at all except for the company's own website plus sites offering the software for download. Likewise the "references" given in the article are (1) a link to the company's own site and (2) a link to the Wine site, which indicates nothing except that someone has tried to run the software under Linux with partial success, and has decided to report the fact on the Wine site. In short, there is no evidence, either in the article or anywhere else, of any third party coverage at all. Definitely not notable in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of links to download sites but I can't find any coverage about the software. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. per WP:FORK Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two articles have been created on the same Austro-Hungarian subdivision. This article has the exact same topic as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, except that the title of the latter is the official, proper, and most common name for it (per Google tests on Google [22] [23], Google Scholar [24] [25], and Google Books [26] [27]). "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was simply an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
The confusion arises from the fact that Croatia-Slavonia claimed another nearby Austro-Hungarian subdivision, the Kingdom of Dalmatia and therefore used this long alternative name to bolster its claim during the periods when it hoped to annex the latter. It never did manage to do so, and some users have claimed on the talkpage that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" exsited as a super-subdivision uniting the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the Kingdom of Dalmatia. All sources that could be found to use the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", use it as an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It was conclusively shown that no such "super-subdivision" ever existed, and that this term is only another (less used and unofficial) name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.

As with too many Balkans issues, dealing with this straightforward matter has been delayed by nationalist views, this time from my own ethnic group - Croats. :) Croats mostly refer to the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia as the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" and are therefore reluctant to see anything happen to this article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, per above. Just making a note of it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article (merge Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom article properely). Regards --Dvatel (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not reading my posts again... READ this link: [28] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I've already shown my arguments on the article's talk page, but the source-based facts are quite obvious: the "Triune Kingdom ..." was just an ideal for some 19th century nationalist circles in Croatia-Slavonia to recreate a medieval state. Considering that the "Triune ..." was sometimes officially used as the polity name by the authorities of Croatia-Slavonia, IMHO, the current article should become a redirect, with the ideal best described in a separate section in the article about the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Anonimu (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two articles have been created on the same Austro-Hungarian subdivision. This article has the exact same topic as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, except that the title of the latter is the official, proper, and most common name for it (per Google tests on Google [1] [2], Google Scholar [3] [4], and Google Books [5] [6]). "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was simply an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. This is a false statement.

A fact recognized by all:

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia were administrative divisions (kingdoms) within Austro-Hungarian Empire.

According to Croats (and others) who lived in Triune Kingdom:

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was legal (de jure) and real (de facto) a part of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia (sometimes within Hungarian) part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Kingdom of Dalmatia was legal (de jure) and sometimes real (de facto) a part of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia (sometimes within Hungarian) part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.

According to Hungarians who lived in Hungary:

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was legal (de jure) and real (de facto) a part of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia within Hungarian part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Kingdom of Dalmatia was legal (de jure) a part of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia within Hungarian part of Austro-Hungarian Empire and real (de facto) division within Austrian part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.

According to Austrians who lived in Austria:

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was sometimes legal (de jure) and sometimes real (de facto) a part of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia within Hungarian part of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Kingdom of Dalmatia was legal (de jure) division of Austrian part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, and during Ban Josip Jelačić (de facto) a part of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia.

Monarchy administration and Croatian assembly within Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia called officially thear country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with documents, emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage. Durin period of Ban Josip Jelačić two divisions (Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia) were in real (de facto) a one state; Triune Kingdom under Josip Jelačić. On 19 April 1848 Jelačić proclaimed the union of Croatian provinces, and the separation from Kingdom of Hungary. At the same time, he proclaimed unconditional loyalty to the Habsburg house. Later that year in May, Jelačić established the Bansko Vijeće or the Council of Ban (in German: Rat des Banus). The scope of authority of the Council of Ban covered de facto ministerial tasks (Internal Affairs, Justice, School and Education, Religion, Financial, and Military resorts), so this council was acting as a governing body in Croatia. By August, Ban Jelačić proclaimed a decree for the Croatians, where he denied accusations of separating Croatia in the name of panslavism. According to the decree "being a son of (the Croatian) nation, being the supporter of liberty, and being subject to Austria.

It may be better if articles Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia were merged in to aricle about Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. --Kebeta (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, not one source. None of the stuff you wrote there is factual. Nothing. These are all your ideas unsupported by sources. There was no "Triune Kingdom", and nobody lived in it. I've asked you repeatedly to present a source that some kind of "united super-entity" existed. You provided none. On the contrary, every single source clearly points to the fact that the Kingdom of Dalmatia was never, ever de jure or de facto united with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, or that it formed some "united entity" with it in Austria-Hungary. All sources use the name as a synonym for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Stop with the gigantic posts and start presenting references. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it wouldn't be appropriate to merge two real entities (Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia) into one that was just an ideal goal (this triune kingdom). Spellcast (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you with sources here. It just that you can not accept them, because of your point of view. First, you tried to delete this article by force, without consensus at the talk page. Now, you are trying to push your agenda through community. If this subject is black and white as you claim, please answer me to these questions:

Was Ban Josip Jelačić in war with Hungary?
Did Jelačić on 19 April 1848 proclaimed the union of Croatian provinces, and the separation from Kingdom of Hungary?
Did Battle of Pákozd in 1848 ever happened?
If Jelačić was in war with Hungary, was that a civil war in Hungary, or Austrian instrument to suppress Hungary, or Croats defence against Magyarization of Croatia?
Was Jelačić Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia from 1848-1859?
Was Croatian–Hungarian Agreement in 1868 signed between Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia and Hungary?
Is this sentence: "Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia form one and the same state complexity, alike towards the other territories under His Majesty's rule and towards other countries" a part of document called Croatian–Hungarian Agreement, and was it validate by Austro-Hungarian Empire?
Did monarchy administration and Croatian assembly called officially thear country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with documents, emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage?

Understand this, Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia is period of before, during and after the split into Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia divisions. It is just question how much success it had in certain period. Sometimes it was refered only to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and sometimes to both kingdoms (divisions). But the point is that people that lived there, embraced it, lived by its rules, wear its emblems and flags, signed documents, and so on, all under official name of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. You can not merge bigger box into smaller one properly. --Kebeta (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, not one source. ALL of the sources you've presented simply refer to the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia by this alternative name. "Triune Kingdom" is an alternative name for the Croatian Kingdom, and it has been used for Kingdom of Croatia (medieval), Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It is an alternative name. The reason why "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is going to be redirected to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia is because the other two Croatian kingdoms were overwhelmingly referred to as "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia" (with "Dalmatia" first). However, "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" (with "Croatia" first) has been used for Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), but very rarely indeed, we can easily write-up a disambiguation page.

Can you please finally understand that sources merely using the phrase "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" do not count for much in this discussion. We all know that the phrase has been alternatively used for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. All that means is that these sources use this particular alt. name. Can you understand that already, and save yourself a LOT of writing? :) You need sources that show this alternative name was a seperate state from the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. If you don't have any such sources, I suggest you stop cluttering the page with nonsense about Jelačić and Pákozd.

P.S. Read WP:TLDR and write shorter posts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for longer post. I only did that, so you could understand the situation better. Yet, you completely misunderstand me. I was not talking about Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) (c. 925-1102). The change of name that happened in northern Croatia or Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (administrative division) was embraced in southern Croatia or Kingdom of Dalmatia (administrative division) did reflect a radical shift in the structural political-institutional framework of both states (divisions). All of this happened under Austro-Hungarian Empire. The change of name and official usage of documents, rules, emblems, flags and other did reflect in a movement transforming both states into a one-semi-independent entity in a dissolving Austro-Hungarian Empire, which occurred later in the altered shape of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. --Kebeta (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sources... I completely understand the situation, and I may well know more about Croatian history than yourself. I did not "misunderstand" you, I understood that most of your post was about Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527–1868). You "misunderstood" my reply, which is to say, you did not read the whole of it. You just keep going on and on about imaginary states, I honestly don't know what to say to you anymore. The Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527–1868) had nothing to do with Dalmatia since the late 15th century. Dalmatia was a Venetian possession, and recognized by the entire world as such. Afterwards, when Austria annexed Venice, it was included in the Austrian Empire as a Kronland. Croatia was ignored.

At no point during its entire history in the Austro-Hungarian state (1815–1918), did the Kingdom of Dalmatia ever unite with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia under any name. Provide a source for that ridiculous Transleithania-Cisleithania fantasy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Having looked over the evidence, and based on my own (not profound) knowledge of Croatian history and Austro-Hungarian subdivisions, I have to say this article looks entirely concocted to address an imaginary construct like a political reality (in breach of WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE, you name it). Contrary to the absurd claim made in the article, Dalmatia and Croatia-Slavonia were divided by the sharpest political division existing within Austria-Hungary (that between Cisleithania and Transleithania). No ifs or buts here. Dahn (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the closing admin. I think we can probably close this issue? The consensus is apparently to "delete or merge" with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. Since the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article already includes the information from this article, and has the most common name (see links above), all that's essentially left is a redirect.
User:Kebeta is opposing the deletion on the basis that the Kingdom of Dalmatia (part of Cisleithania) was somehow "united" with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (part of Transleithania), but not one single source suggests something to that effect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, I provided you with the sources. Anyway, you just have to walk through the centre of Zagreb, or some other city in Croatia, and you will see sources on the facade of the buildings. If Wikipedia will provide same standards (not double ones), than bunch of articles about Croatia in period from 1990-1995 would not existed. On 25 June 1991, Croatia declared independence and became a sovereign state, yet we have tens of articles about so-called entities such as SAO Krajina, SAO Western Slavonia, SAO of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srijem, SAO Kninska Krajina, Kninska Krajina or Republic of Serbian Krajina? --Kebeta (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Kebeta because that was the common name of the Croatian realm for centuries. One should bear in mind the following:
- Venetian rule spread from XII to XIV century, Venetian Republic took city by city, not the hinterland, gained Knin as late as in 1699, etc.
- 1358-1409 Dalmatia was a part of the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia (then and later under slightly different names)
- End of medieval era roughly in 1492 (in Europe)
- The Parliament in Cetin convened on 1527-01-01 and decided that the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia exist in a personal union under the Habsburg king
- 1st Austrian rule over Dalmatia from 1797 to 1806
- Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy (Milan) rule over Dalmatia from 1806 to 1809
- Illyrian provinces (»Slovinske države«) rule over Dalmatia from 1810 to 1813
- Illyrian provinces subjected to Austrian rule and attached to the Austrian Empire in 1814; Dalmatia still part of those provinces
  - Napoleonic judiciary system existed up to 1820-01-31
- Austrian Empire forms the Kingdom of Illyria in 1816, while Dalmatia was considered a separate Kingdom with no connection to Ljubljana
  - Dalmatia gained its own provincial (crown land) Parliament in 1861 in Zadar
  - Croatian language gained parliamentary status in 1867
  - Croatian language gained official status in 1883

The medieval Croatian kingdom was officially known as the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia and joined as such the Kingdom of Hungary in a personal union under the Crown of St. Stephen. Croatian State Archives possesses documents from all periods that speak of the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia; the Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia; the Kingdom Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

Privileges – Privilegia Regnorum Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae: date from 1377
Protocols – Protocolla Congregatio generalis Regnorum Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae: date from 1557
Minutes – Acta Congregationum Regni: date from 1562
Minutes – Transumpta documentorum iura Croatica tangentium: date from 1249

These archival funds and collections are available to everyone at the archives, they are published in the Codex Diplomaticus, by Nada Klaić, and other historians, jurists, literary scientist, political scientist, etc.

It is completely irrelevant what Mr. DIREKTOR wants you to believe that the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia never existed. It did exist and was united under the rule of Josip Jelacic from 1848 to 1850, whose governmental jurisdiction extended to all of modern Croatia except Istria. The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia were not just a project. That kingdom also severed links with the Habsburg Monarchy and the Kingdom of Hungary in 1918, and was part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.

The article on the Triune Kingdom should not be deleted but rephrased to include the description of mainly internal and external self rule periods, the context of those periods, the history of the Croatian lands in different supranational entities, the streaming of Croatian politics that led to 1918, and much more that cannot be described under false names like the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) [which should be merged with this article, or renamed to Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia (Habsburg)], but still this article should remain to contain both periods of the Kingdom, its personal union with Hungary, its personal union with the Habsburgs, its rule over Dalmatia (1358-1409, 1848-1850, 1918-1918)

Imbris (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imbris, not one iota of the above addresses the point, and your faux citation of sources is a fancy form of WP:OR (or, more specifically, speculation from primary sources -presuming those sources existed or were published etc. etc.). Dahn (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imbris is here WP:STALKing me, its what he does. His arguments don't make sense, they don't adress the issue, and they never do - the point is to try and hinder me in every way possible. His only "contributions" on Wiki are POV-pushing, edit-warring, and talkpage disputes that maim articles. He's a typical Croatian ultranationalist.

Dahn, a word of advice: do NOT under any circumstances actually start discussing with User:Imbris. As personal experience has taught users who dealt with his disruptions on previous occasions - he will not yield or change his opinion, ever, not even if you actually had a dozen university publications directly contradicting him will he consider the possibility of changing his position. Using reasonable arguments like "none of the above has anything to do with the issue" will not sway him, even if five users repeat them for six months (as actually happened on Talk:Hey, Slavs). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider my reply above a community service. That is to say, if the closing admin will somehow interpret a rant riddled with original research as a valid argument (at least because s/he may not have the patience of reading through it and noticing that it's built on sand), then at least s/he'll have these measly pointer that it's not. And if Imbris really is a problem editor, then the thing one does to begin with is present him with the policies/guidelines he still chooses to ignore and make sure they're inescapable to his attention. In that case, he'd have no excuse for ignoring them - you know, the Miranda rights thing. If what you say really is the case, then my message has arguably played a part in that. In any case, we should discontinue discussing Imbris' supposed habits on this page - and I will be glad to continue discussing his arguments if and when he actually substantiates them in some rational way. Dahn (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The simple fact is the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was part of Hungary and the Kingdom of Dalmatia was an Austrian province. It was the goal of Croatia-Slavonia officials to unite with Dalmatia, so these officials stylised themselves with titles containing the term "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" and made flags containing Dalmatian symbols. But the title, flags, and emblems were only valid in Croatia-Slavonia because Dalmatia was under Austria. The name of this triune kingdom was just a way to facilitate their claim over Dalmatia. It was a goal, not a separate entity. Just because the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article doesn't have "Dalmatia" in the title doesn't mean it can't be explained there. Dalmatia was obviously important to the politics of Croatia-Slavonia and should be explained in that article (which it already is). The way forward is to improve the Croatia-Slavonia page, not create content forks by copying and pasting info from an existing page and having two almost identical articles. Spellcast (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Spellcast: The simmilarity of titles is confusing but the Kingdom of the name Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (with variations thereof) existed. This is common knowledge for any student of the history of the Croatian Statehood Law in Croatia. This list contains one of the books I used when listing the the clam to keep, that being the book by Ivan Beuc, Povijest institucija državne vlasti Kraljevine Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije (Zagreb 1985). This translates to Ivan Beuc, History of Institutions of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. The book was published in 1985, when Croatia was still in Yugoslavia. The author is considered a major historian in the field of the History of Institutions, his book used by various faculties of the University of Zagreb. The article should be improved and not deleted. -- Imbris (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Have you ever read the texts in Croatian [29], or [30] or in Hungarian [31]? You must not mix these two terms. K. of Croatia-Slavonia was under Hungarian part, K. of Dalmatia under Austrian part. However, with Nagodba Triune Kingdom was in virtual union. However, the phrase "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" is older than that division of Croatian regions. Further, DIREKTOR, you have to discuss this thing on the talkpage, and not promptly put it on the AfD. You're skipping the steps! Kubura (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR, WP:PSTS, WP:FRINGE, WP:CFORK. And - in Direktor's defense - there's no requirement that potential AfDs need to be "discussed first", on the talk page or anywhere else. So far, no adequate reason was presented why wikipedia should tolerate a POVed content fork on some imaginary construct. More verbosity will not address that simple issue. Dahn (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I see Imbris still has no idea what this is about :) Kubura, ALL you have to do is prove that the Kingdom of Dalmatia was united with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, or that it administratively belonged in something called "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". That is all. A lot of people know I am not a guy that supports the irredentist point of view on Dalmatian history. This is not "POV-pushing", I am being factual. Nobody is saying that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" did not exist per se, it just wasn't a seperate entity from the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, it was another name for it. We cannot have two articles on the exact same country. It ruins the whole continuity of Croatian history articles on Wiki - all because many Croats are under the false impression regarding this.

Also, you can both probably stop listing sources that use "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", we've already established that it has been used - and that is NOT what this AfD is about. Alternative names are redirected. I did not "skip any steps" the issue was discussed on the talkpage at length. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kubura, the Croatian-Hungarian Agreement uses the term "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" as an alternate name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia to facilitate its claim over Dalmatia as I've explained in User:Ex13's comment below. (Also, you can't "vote" twice). Spellcast (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. From speech of Stjepan Radić in Croatian parliament on November 24^th 1918 (Govor Stjepana Radića u Saboru 24. studenog 1918.): I vi, gospodo, Srbi Vojvođani, i vi ste posve zaboravili na program i vapaj neumrloga svoga prvaka Svetozara Miletića: "Trojednica naša uzdanica", te i vi sad od ove Trojednice pravite dvojednicu i hoćete da načinite nijednicu. - my translation:

"And you, gentlemen, Serbians from Vojvodina, you also have forgotten ideas and cry of your undying leader Svetozar Miletić: "Triune our trust", and you are now making this Triune (kingdom) Dual and you want to make None."

Full text of speach is on Croatian Wikisource (in Croatian language): Govor Stjepana Radića u Saboru 24. studenog 1918. Or in todays words, Triune kingdom can not be swapped with Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, because that is Dual kingdom, not Triune. Above user Dahn mentions WP:OR. Well, go to library, and you will see with your own eyes that this article is not original research. Some users are too eager to mention Wikipedia rules and/or guidelines when some problems can be so easily solved just by checking (reliable) sources, but it is so much easier to resolve (read: delete) problems quoting rules, then searching in old books for real truth. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To all users (and the closing Admin): sources denoting the usage of the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" are meaningless, and so are all "Strong keeps" based on a lack of understanding of this AfD's subject. We all KNOW the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" has indeed been used for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. We KNOW that. That is actually the very reason why this article is being merged with Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia in the first place. Listing all the Googled instances where this term has been used is NOT RELEVANT. The issue is wether the Kingdom of Dalmatia was united with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia into this "Triune Kingdom", thus warranting a seperate article.
Can I make this any clearer? Could you guys stop cluttering the page with non-relevant links? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh, boy, somebody forgotten WP:CIVIL. To all users (and the closing Admin): sources denoting the usage of the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" are valid as any other source for any other subject. If such name is used in literature, then we can safely assume that it meant something, and that meaning should be described in appropriate article. Or authors of following books had no clue, and proposer of deletion knows better and we all should listen to him and forget what is written in our books?

I saw that proposer of deletion objected twice that there are no sources, above is just one from real political life of country in question, but here are more, to quench any possible objection that one source is like none:
Ivo Goldstein "Croatia, A History", Hurst & company, London, 1999, ISBN 1-85065-525-1, pages 68, 77 and 111
Marcus Tanner "Croatian, a nation forged in war", Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1997, ISBN 0-300-09125-7, pages 79, 86, 88 and 103
Joanna Rapacka "Leksykon tradycji chorwackich", Slawistyczny osrodek wydawniczy, Warszava, 1997, ISBN 83-86619-27-9, pages 26, 52, 77, 79, 80, 98, etc (8 more pages)

I hope proposer will not defy book published from Yale University Press, because recently I read how vigorously he (to be precise, IP user who signed his edits as DIR :-) defended university press in general, which is (according to him) unquestionable source, such that no error of any kind is not even remotely possible. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its like I keep talking but nobody's listening. READ THIS: We all KNOW the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" has indeed been used for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. We KNOW that. That is the very reason why this article is being merged with Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia in the first place. PLEASE READ THE AfD. First understand what this is about, ffs

How can I explain this more cleraly to everyone? Please tell me. Do you or do you not have sources showing that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was a seperate entity from the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, thus warranting a seperate article. Can you prove that the Kingdom of Dalmatia was united with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia into a state called the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". DO NOT list links to (respectable) sources, if those sources do not show this article shouldn't be merged by showing these two states as seperate entities. Am I still unclear?? These sources are high quality, but they do not support the idea that these two are different states. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I apologize for calling anyone a "zealot". I haven't forgotten WP:CIVIL, its just that I've literally repeating the same argument over and over again for days - with nobody bothering to read and understand. What should've been a simple matter has turned into a farcical display. People: please stop listing irrelevant sources and arguments - read why this page is being redirected. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: the simple use of the term is not enough to guarantee an article. The context is important: a source saying "the ban of Croata-Slavonia claimed to be the ban of the Triune Kingdom ..." is fundamentally different from "the Triune Kingdom was a division inside Austria-Hungary". The first type, of which we have a plenty, means that "Triune Kingdom..." should be just a redirect. The second type, of which I've seen none (i.e. excluding primary sources), means we should have a separate article. Remember: just because Myanmar and Burma are both verifiable terms found in reliable sources it doesn't mean we should have two articles with the same content.Anonimu (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

1) On January 1, 1527 the Croatian nobles at Cetin unanimously elected Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria as their king, and confirmed the succession to him and his heirs. In return for the throne Archduke Ferdinand at Parliament on Cetin promised to respect the historic rights, freedoms, laws and customs the Croats had when united with the Hungarian kingdom and to defend Croatia from Ottoman Empire invasion.
2) In 1848 Croatian Parliament under Ban Josip Jelačić proclaimed the union of Croatian provinces (Croatian-Slavonian Kingdom and Kingdom of Dalmatia), and the separation from Kingdom of Hungary. Furthermore, it issues a proclamation abolishing serfdom, full civil rights and affirmation of the equality of nations within Croatian provinces.
3) In 1868 Croatian–Hungarian Agreement was signed by Croatia and Hungary. Croatia was represented under the name of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia ("Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia form one and the same state complexity, alike towards the other territories under His Majesty's rule and towards other countries").
4) Monarchy administration and Croatian assembly called officially thear country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with documents, emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage.

Croatia entered House of Habsburg in 1527 within its historic rights, and by its own will. Nobody is disputing administrative division of Empire, but Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia were two parts of one entity. Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia was a semi-independent entity in a Austro-Hungarian Empire, not an administrative division. --Kebeta (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kebeta, if you post the same basic original research over and over again, it doesn't become a valid argument. "Nobody is disputing administrative division of Empire, but Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia were two parts of one entity." - that is an absolute absurdity, since it it was not for those who claimed the kingdom existed to decide whether it existed; it was up to the empire, and as long as you admit the main internal border run straight through the supposed kingdom, there is really nothing more worth discussing here. The rest is just a nationalist counterfactual ambition to keep two articles on one topic separated - one article under a neutral title, the other under a unilateral and misleading title. Dahn (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The division on two parts of the Austro-Hungary happened with Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Not before, and the Croato-Hungarian Compromise in 1868 showed that even divided, the Hungarians counted the Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia together. Furthermore, king of Hungary was crowned with the Crown of St. Stephen, and both these compromises established that the king of Croatia-Dalmatia-Slavonia (under various times called this way) is crowned with the same crown as the king of Hungary. It was a personal union. Josip Jelacic also had Rijeka under his governorship in the same time he was the viceroy (ban). -- Imbris (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? Dahn (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot be merged with any other Croatian, Slavonian or Dalmatian related article from the monarhist period. The article can describe the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia which voted on independence in 1918, as it describes now. -- Imbris (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you keep saying that, but other than the same stuff about how you think incidental use (btw, even this irrelevant primary sourcing is so far only documented by your claim that it's documented, and you have so far cited nothing that would explicitly back your interpretation) should create a parallel reality, we have nothing. I'm getting the picture that you really don't want to familiarize yourself with how wikipedia works, and that may be the real problem behind the POV pushing here. Now, unless we talk something (preferably consistent) outside a bogus and convoluted claim that a state can exist by not existing, there really is no point to carry on this discussion. Dahn (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per arguments given by Kebeta, Kubura and SpeedyGonzalesAñtó| Àntó (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kebeta, Kubura and SpeedyGonsales do not have an argument. All their posts simply refer to the usage of the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". The incredible thing is that, since their posts actually prove the usage of the alternative name, their arguments actually support the merge. :) What we're looking for is evidence that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was something different than the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - i.e. a reason why the merge should not go through. If you think that vote-stacking will somehow count for the silly fact that your arguments are self-refuting - you're in for a surprise. Nobody here has shown that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is something other than another name. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, between 1420 and 1918, Dalmatia was (unfortunately for Croats) never united in any kind of state with Croatia. Never. I don't "like" it, I'm just being factual. It was within the Venetian Republic (1420-1797), then came the Napoleonic period (1797-1814), and then the Kingdom of Dalmatia (1814-1918). All the gibberish above simply shows that the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527-1868) and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918) were sometimes referred to as the "Triune Kingdom" by themselves and those elements of the Austro-Hungarian administration that supported the union of Dalmatia with Croatia. The reason why the Hungarians used the alternative name is because they wanted Dalmatia within the Hungarian part of the Dual Monarchy (like Croatia).

Now, you can list 50,000 instances of when the alternative name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was used, you're actually proving the usage of an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - you are actually supporting the move with your links. Its silly. :)

Was the Kingdom of Dalmatia united with Croatia in 1848 by Ban Joisp Jelačić? Can we get a source on that, please?
I could be crazy, but Ban Jelačić was simply the viceroy of both the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and the Kingdom of Dalmatia (as well as commander of the Croatian Military Frontier). Just because he was the viceroy of both Kingdoms (for a short period) does not mean those kingdoms were actually united. Also, just because he proclaimed his intention of unifying them, does not mean they were actually united.
Was Dalmatia a part of any Croatian kingdom 1420-1918? Can we get a source on that, please?

Because if it wasn't, then the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is the same thing as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - another name for it, a name that is less frequently used. Does everybody understand this? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again for the record, all the "Keep" votes were cast by users who do not understand the issue, as is evident from the fact that they actually backed-up their "Keep" votes with arguments and links supporting the merge :P (as their links and arguments only prove that the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was used alternatively for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia). Not a single source was presented to prove that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was anything other than an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep according to Croatian–Hungarian Agreement (or Compromise, or Pact, Nagodba in Croatian), that arranged Croatia's political status in the Hungarian-ruled part of Austria-Hungary, and it was a constitutional act (king enforced it and sanctioned it) until the end of Monarchy. The full text of the Agreement you can read here. Also please read this: Hungary and Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia form one and the same state complexity (thats the translation from Nagodba)--Ex13 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the absurd posts. Does anyone READ anything here? The Nagodba is plainly a source that actually supports the merge and redirect of this article. READ the above post. The Nagodba is only a document that uses the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It is also a document that voices Hungarian support for the Croatian claim on the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia. This document in no way supports the idea that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is a seperate entity from the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - it actually PROVES MY POINT. How many times will I have to write this up for you people?! :P

This is unbelievable... With the exception of the Hey, Slavs discussion, I've rarely had to deal with anything so irrational and absurd. Do you people even understand why this article is being merged in the first place. PLEASE do list some more links to sources using the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - you are proving my point. Does any of you "Keep" voters even understand this? Absolutely absurd, I feel like Alice in Wonderland... The irrational nationalist nonsense like this that makes croWiki a joke will not be allowed spread to enWiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "irrational" when I reffred to constitutional document? And what is absurd in that? Nagodba supports the idea of Triune Kingdom.

What is irrational and absurd on the following picutres

Glory to the Parliament of the Triune Kingdom (foto from the Zagreb City Museum)
CoA of Triune Kingdom on Croatian Parliament with CoA of Dalmatia inside

Also please read this [32] Its refered to Triune Kingdom--Ex13 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you still don't get it: there was only ONE Croatian kingdom in Austria-Hungary. This Kingdom was known as the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" OR "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". Some documents used the name "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" (which is also the most common English name), while other authorities, those that supported the unification of Croatian lands, used the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". Are you with me? This is why this page is being merged with the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" article on this same state. Ok?

RE:"Nagodba supports the idea of Triune Kingdom."

The Hungarians did indeed support the unification of the Kingdom of Dalmatia (part of Cisleithania) with Croatia (part of Transleithania), but the point is: SO WHAT? The two states did not actually unite. Hungarian and Croatian documents and insignia at the time used the title "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" for the Croatian Kingdom (Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia), then why should we have TWO seperate articles on the exact same state just because two names were used for it??? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. As I explained on the talk page, when you read the Nagodba (or any other source presented in this AFD and the talk page), it's clear from the context that they repeatedly use the term "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" as a way to support the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia's claim over the Kingdom of Dalmatia. Spellcast (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between irredentist fiction and political reality, as discussed by reliable, professional secondary-sources:
- Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans: Twentieth century, 1999 edition, p.57, discussing the situation in the late 1800s and early 1900s: "The fundamental controversy at this time [in Dalmatia] was over the political future of the region. The Autonomist Party called for a separate provincial administration for Dalmatia. [...] The rival National Party wished to be united with Croatia to form a reconstituted Triune Kingdom." - this hopefully shows that the Triune Kingdom was not even considered a political reality by all Croatians. P. 66: "In Croatia-Slavonia the population consisted of 62.5 percent Croats and 24.6 percent Serbs. The ideal Croatian state for the nationalist would have included the lands of the Triune Kingdom with the addition of Bosnia-Hercegovina" - this hopefully clarifies that, while there was an ambition to unite three regions into one state, only two were governed together, the other being a matter of political fiction.
- Jelavich, The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920, 1986, p.256 (same context): "[The Croat nationalists] hoped in return for their stand to win Magyar support for the restoration of the Triune Kingdom." - the word "restoration" should further underline that there was no such reality in the modern age, as the article we're discussing would have you believe. Incidentally, this administrative situation did not change at all, for as long as Austria-Hungary existed, and, obviously, beyond.
- Ignác Romsics, Béla K. Király, Geopolitics in the Danube Region, 1999. P.177: "The Hungarian-Croat Commonwealth originated in the Middle Ages and retained into modern times [its] feudal institutions [...] even though the Croat territory itself did not constitute a separate political and administrative unit [before 1848]. However, within the Habsburg Monarchy the Dalmatian-Croat-Slavonian Triune Kingdom implied a virtual Croat state and included at least four different territorial units. The authority of Croat feudal institutions was limited and affected only three counties of Croatia proper. Yet, this central area was separated from the three Slavonian counties by the Military Border which was under the auspices and directions of the Vienna Court War Council [...]. The Slavonian counties [...] were claimed by both Hungarians and Croats. Furthermore, Croat constitutional theory also claimed Dalmatia, an Austrian province (governed from Vienna), Fiume ([...] annexed in 1779 by the [Hungarian Crown]), and Turkish Croatia (belonging to the Ottoman Empire) to be part of the Triune Kingdom." - quite clear we are talking about wishful thinking, theoretical claims, and fictional senses rubbing on hard facts. P. 178, on the Croatian National Party's activities in the second half of the 19th century: "Their primary goal was to establish a united Croat political nation and to achieve equal political status for the Trune Kingdom." The discussion of how this goal was contrasted by the absence of any actual administrative reform continues over several pages, to conclude p.187-188: "Therefore dualist [that is, pro-Austrian and in power as overseers of Croatia-Slavonia] Hungarian liberals never did consider the recognition of the Triune Kingdom as a completely separate country between Austria and Hungary. The first Hungarian Prime Minister of Dualism, Gyula Andrássy, perceived a direct connection between the recognition of a politically separate Croat-Slavonian-Dalmatian Kingdom and the federalization of the [Habsburg] Monarchy." P.194: "the [Croat-Hungarian] compromise acknowledged Croat integrity relating to the area within the Habsburg Monarchy and acknowledged Croat the unity of Croatia proper, Slavonia, eleven border regiments, and Dalmatia, but did not change the status of Austrian Dalmatia. Hungary declared that it would promote the unification of Croatia and Dalmatia but did not put much dedication nor interest in the implementation of the pledge since annexation would have entailed conflicts between Hungary and its Austrian dualist partner." Clear enough, for those who claimed above that Hungary recognized the Croat-Dalmatian union?
- Mikuláš Teich, Roy Porter, The National Question in Europe in Historical Context, 1993, p.284: "[In the Croat-Hungarian compromise,] the Triune Kingdom is declared to be a 'political nation', a term understood by the Croatians in the sense of 'nation-state'. This declaration of state-right in the compromise was by no means carried out in practice, but its ideological impact was immense. The Croatian version of the Compromise uses the expression 'Kingdoms of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia' whereas the Magyar texts avoids the term 'Kingdoms' and puts Croatia in the first place. [...] It is important to note that paragraph 65 of the Compromise states [...] that Dalmatia should be reincorporated and united with Croatia and Slavonia on the basis of 'the Holy Hungarian Crown', but that the option of Dalmatia must first be obtained. This declaration was in opposition to the Austrian 'December Constitution' of 1867 which included Dalmatia as one of the lands represented by the Reichsrat. At the beginning, the statement of a possible union was of no importance. Later, when the National Party of Dalmatia reached a majority in the Diet, this issue affected the very essence of the Dualist system. The Austrian and the Hungarian ministers even combined forces to prevent demands for union in the Croatian and Dalmatian Diets, and there were also objections raised in the Reichsrat."
- Ivo Goldstein (who was misleadingly cited above) apparently only refers to the Triune Kingdom as a political project, not as a fact. This is the case in Goldstein & Nikolina Jovanović, Croatai: A History, 1999. P. 68: "[1848-9 demands formulated by Croatian representatives] demanded the unification of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia." P. 77: "[In 1848], representatives of Croatia and Slavonia submitted a request to the Emperor formulating the basic elements of Croatian state ideology. It assumed that the triune kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia was independent of any other, and demanded the unification of Dalmatia and parts of Istria with Croatia and Slavonia." See p.102-103 for the vain efforts of Croats in Dalmatia to unite with Coatia and Slavonia, in and around 1906 (with detail on the conflict this sparked between Dalmatian Croats and Dalmatian Italians).
- Blunt statement in Hugh Seton-Watson, Nations and States. Part 32, 1977 (nb: from someone who supported the dissolution of Austria-Hungary). P. 133: "[Since 1867,] Dalmatia remained under the rule of Vienna: thus the former triune kingdom continued to be divided."
I could go on and on, but this should be enough to settle the matter. The core issue here is: the notion of "Triune Kingdom" is POVed, expressing a nationalist construct and a fictional reality; the subject is already covered in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, where it belongs, and which does address a political and juridical reality. Dahn (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and let me add that no matter how many links, sources, and documents are quoted that contain the phrase "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", it still does not alter the fact that there was only ONE Croatian kingdom in Austria-Hungary. This ONE Kingdom was primarily known as the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, but the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was also used at times when Croats (and, at times, Hungarians) were pushing for the unification with Dalmatia and/or Bosnia. The point is - you can quote stuff as much as you like, its still ONE state, and there is no way this ONE state will have two articles because two names were used for it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dahn, but you above mention irredentist fiction, and you obviously don't know what irredentism means: One who advocates the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one's nation but now subject to a foreign government.. Todays Republic of Croatia covers territory which is mentioned in this article, and Croatian people lived at least last 10 centuries on mentioned territory. So if all other things you claim are true (which are not), firstly you are blatantly accusing all your opponents on matter of keeping or deleting this article on doing something, or using worst imaginable sources, and you don't have slightest clue what you are talking about. Or, you are rude, and forgot WP:CIVIL same as DIRECTOR above (apology accepted). If that areas weren't united (which is fact), that doesn't mean some other nationality lived there, or there is any kind of irredentism involved. Actually, Habsburg throne liked such situation, per divide and conquer. I strongly urge that in future you abstain from vilifying accusations, and stick to facts. Thanks.

Secondly, if anything, this discussion proved that term Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia exists. If term exist, so why to delete an article which describes that term? You (and your allies) claim that this term is fully covered in article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and I say it isn't. Wikipedia is known not to allow forks (which is mentioned somewhere above), but here is not such case, because Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Triune Kingdom are not the same. And that difference should be described in this article, and separate article about Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia can exist, to describe that closely related, but not identical political entity. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is my definition of the word "irredentist" what is being discussed here, Speedy? The rest of your post is either purely inflammatory or sophistical and frivolous, so I will ignore it as such. Dahn (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(And let me be very clear here: the term discussed was irredentist under any definition, including the one you cite, since Dalmatia was not part of either Croatia-Slavonia or even Transleithania. Trying to read the term as a personal attack - right before you produce your own personal attacks, no less - is so contrived and manipulative that I would demean myself to take it into consideration.) Dahn (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoL... You actually contradicted yourself again Speedy. First you list sources that support a view contrary to your vote, :P then you ever so kindly prove that this is indeed a matter of Croatian irredentism, as Dalmatia was exactly that - "a territory culturally or historically related to a nation but now subject to a foreign [direct Austrian] government", as opposed to that of the Croatian Kingdom. It would appear that you do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Secondly, lets answer the nonsensical statement that "If term exist, so why to delete an article which describes that term?" We ALL KNOW the term exists. Nobody's actually "deleting the term" - we are redirecting (merging) it. The reason why every single term does not have its own article on Wikipedia is because they are synonyms (i.e. another name for something). The term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is another term for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, so unless you can provide a source that these were two different things - its getting redirected. ok? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - much evidence has now been produced showing that the "Triune Kingdom" is simply the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Mention the term there, but we don't need this content fork. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wrote above why "Triune Kingdom" isn't the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and why this isn't a fork. Overlapping of content should be eliminated if it exists, articles should be different, as they should describe different terms, one should describe real entity, other should describe fight of people under foreign rule for unification of all Croatian lands in one state (at that time). SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible, someone actually read the AfD... Well then, you need an article called "Struggle for the unification of Croatian lands" (or a section in the Croatia in the Habsburg Empire article). As all you guys so intelligently and dilligently proved with all your links and sources, - this term ("Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia") is an alternative name used for a country, namely the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and it'll be redirected to that article. Using this article name for such purposes is against Wiki policy.

Now do you see what I mean when I say your sources actually support the merge? LoL :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a final comment. Firstly, I feel sorry for the closing admin who has to read through all this text. Don't let these long replies give the illusion that this is a complex issue or that there's a legitimate dispute. This really should be a simple, straightforward case. This triune kingdom was a Croatian unification goal and was a title that the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia gave themselves to lay claim over the Kingdom of Dalmatia. Please read this source (page 2, fifth paragraph), which makes it perfectly clear that this was a goal, not a real entity. But those who sympathise with Croatian nationalistic ideals would like to think otherwise. This kind of POV-pushing is why ArbCom have issued sanctions on certain types of editors in Balkan articles. It's clear from the context of all the verifiable sources given that this triune kingdom was a title to facilitate Croatia-Slavonia's claim over Dalmatia. Because it duplicates virtually all the content on Croatia-Slavonia, it's undoubtedly a content fork and should be redirected as such. And finally, the map title is original research (or maybe a misunderstanding of the uploader) because it implies that these three entities were united as a division of Austria-Hungary (which someone previously brought up at File talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia (1868-1918).png). But that's for another time. Spellcast (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed at Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. In addition, I'd like to request that an admin also takes a look at the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, as it has become a target after all this. User:Imbris, a Croatian nationalist account, is trying to turn it into a battleground by revert-warring over false tagging with {{disputed}} and {{POV}}. Sanctions and/or article protection may be a good idea. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment to closing admin - Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia:

was another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. (everybody approve)
was a territorial aspirations of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia towards the Kingdom of Dalmatia. (everybody approve)
was a territorial aspirations of the Croats in Croatia-Slavonia for unified Croatia. (everybody approve)
was a territorial aspirations of the Croats in Dalmatia (less than Croats of Croatia-Slavonia) for unified Croatia. (everybody approve)
was a territorial aspirations of Hungary for all Croatia, not only for Croatia-Slavonia. (everybody approve)
was a balance of Austria between two threats: strong Hungary and strong South Slavs in the monarchy. (everybody approve)
was a Serbian question for their place in these territories (Triune Kingdom). (everybody approve)
was a historical reference to unified Croatia in a sense that Croat populated medieval kingdoms of Croatia proper, Dalmatia and Slavonia. (everybody approve)
was a popular name for one and for both administrative divisions of Austrian-Hungarian Empire in late 18th and during 19th century. (everybody approve)
was official name in Austria-Hungarian Empire. (everybody approve)
was not an administrative divisions in Austrian-Hungarian Empire. (everybody approve)
was by monarchy administration and by Croatian assembly called country Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia with emblems, flags and maps of Triune Kingdom in real administrative usage. (everybody approve)
was a semi-independent entity in a Austro-Hungarian Empire. (some approve/some disapprove)

The question is: do we need an article about Triune Kingdom, or the subject can be described in other articles. I think that article Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia can not explain this matter, because we are not talking only about an administrative division, but of subject that is much bigger and far more important. I agree that the article needs huge rewriting, because its to similar with the Croatia-Slavonia article, but that is not a reason to delete it. --Kebeta (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, i'm against deletion of this article. But i agree with most of Kebeta's comments. I find on Commons foto of the first page of Nikola Tesla's passport.

As you can see in the name of the Land Government is Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia--Ex13 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ex13, for once again confirming that "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" is indeed an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis of the material in the article itself, it never actually existed, at least under this name. On the basis of the material quoted above, there were people who thought it ought to exist, that it was a "territorial aspiration." A paragraph explaining that should be inserted in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, with a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayllu Initiative

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it's not notable, and is blatant advertising for an organization. Hires an editor (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. —Hires an editor (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD nomination got lost somehow, so I'm listing it. I wonder why dumbot failed in this case? Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious advertising, a non-notable business startup with grand aims: Ayllu's purpose is to replicate 'social enterprise' models that solve root causes of poverty, like health, education, and climate change. If they could do that, they would be notable, but they can't, so they ain't. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps not even a startup yet, and ddefinitely not notable. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mama (Vitas album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM Never charted anywhere, only thing listed is the track listing. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a nutshell:

This article already includes songwriting credits, important information which is very difficult to find on English language websites, and I am currently working on expanding and improving this article and others on Vitas albums
Mama is a notable album by a notable artist
Deleting this article would mean the loss of significant information which is likely to be sought by Wikipedia readers; and moving the information from the individual album articles into the Vitas Discography section is not a suitable solution because this would make the section overlong and the article appear cluttered.

The above claim "only thing listed is the track listing" is blatantly untrue. I am working to improve all the Vitas album articles, but this is currently the most detailed of them: significantly, it includes songwriting credits, as well as the usual tracklisting and an infobox. Information on the songwriters involved with this album is actually almost impossible to find on English language websites, and I feel strongly that this information should be accessible rather than virtually a secret to those who can't read Russian or don't own the album. The information was also used to make a correction to the main Vitas article.

I don't think the notability of Vitas himself is in question: he is a major star in Russia, China and several other countries and meets several of the WP:NM criteria.

The subject is inherently notable as a major album from a notable artist, and the song The Star from this album won a Russian People's HIT award. Several songs from this album also featured in the set for Vitas' major concert tour The Songs of My Mother. The song Starry River featured on this album was composed by Alexandra Pakhmutova.

According to Vitas' website:

he released nine albums ("Philosophy of Miracle", "Smile!", "Mother", "The Songs of My Mother", "Kiss As Long As Eternity", "Return Home. Part 1", "Return Home. Part 2", "XX-th Century HITS", "Light Of A New Day") which were entered into the Top Three most popular albums in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

I am surprised by the claim that this album "Never charted anywhere". It's generally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, particularly in a case like this, when many foreign music charts are not widely published online, and sources such as the one quoted above are unclear about specifics. It would be more accurate to say that we currently have no information as to whether this album has charted anywhere. If I find any information regarding chart positions in any country, I will add this to the article.

The WP:NALBUM section states:

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.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

Since this article does contain significant information beyond mere tracklisting, and since Vitas has released 9 studio albums as well as a number of compilations, singles and DVDs, it is obviously not a suitable candidate for merging into the Discography section of the main Vitas article. What we have here is important information on a notable subject for which interested readers are likely to search Wikipedia, so it should stay. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
In what way is this album (or any of his other albums) notable? WP:NALBUM states

Only official official charts can be used in Wikipedia for albums and singles and notable songs. If you can provide such charts with reliable sources, then feel free to add them.

These tracklisting are not likely to be sought after by Wikipedians, considering that a link to his official site is posted on his artist page.

WP:NALBUM states:
All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

PopMusicBuff ^talk 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment - Your nomination itself is a de facto !vote to delete. It is not necessary to !vote delete in the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The discussion about whether the album charted may not be relevant, since charting is specifically an issue for songs, not albums. The album guidelines are more lenient. For albums, WP:ALBUMS states "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." As of yet, I see no reason to override the general rule for this album. I could be convinced otherwise if no significant coverage actually exists, but the coverage requirements under WP:N are not limited to English sources, and since this is a Russian album, I would need to be convinced that no significant Russian sources exist before !voting delete. As of now, there is no indication of what the nominator did under WP:BEFORE to ascertain that there is no significant coverage in Russian sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This article has been improved since AfD nomination was made. I believe the concerns raised have now largely been addressed, and the tags applied will encourage other editors to make further improvements.

Notability: Track The Star won People's Hot prize, and this album is also associated with a major world tour. I would also contend that Vitas albums are inherently notable as major albums from a notable artist (and as I mentioned above, Vitas meets several WP:NM criteria). It is questionable whether he would be famous for other activities were it not for the music on these albums.

Content: This article has been considerably expanded, and now includes far more than a tracklisting (and Wikipedia is the first place I and many others look for album tracklistings anyway: there are many reasons why it may be preferable to commercial sites). Includes songwiting credits which are very difficult to find in English language. It provides information about the associated tour and and other information. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Keep and close discussion PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Kiss as Long as Eternity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM Never charted anywhere, only thing listed is the track listing. No reviews, no critical reception. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a nutshell:

A Kiss as Long as Eternity is a notable album by a notable artist
I am currently working on expanding and improving this article and others on Vitas albums
Deleting this article would mean the loss of significant information which is likely to be sought by Wikipedia readers; and moving the information from the individual album articles into the Vitas Discography section is not a suitable solution because this would make the section overlong and the article appear cluttered.

I don't think the notability of Vitas himself is in question: he is a major star in Russia, China and several other countries and meets several of the WP:NM criteria.

The subject is inherently notable as a major album from a notable artist, and is reported to have sold 2 million copies within the first 6 months of its release.

According to Vitas' website:

he released nine albums ("Philosophy of Miracle", "Smile!", "Mother", "The Songs of My Mother", "Kiss As Long As Eternity", "Return Home. Part 1", "Return Home. Part 2", "XX-th Century HITS", "Light Of A New Day") which were entered into the Top Three most popular albums in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

I am surprised by the claim that this album "Never charted anywhere". It's generally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, particularly in a case like this, when many foreign music charts are not widely published online, and sources such as the one quoted above are unclear about specifics. It would be more accurate to say that we currently have no information as to whether this album has charted anywhere. If I find any information regarding chart positions in any country, I will add this to the article.

The WP:ALBUM section states:

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.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

I think the second guideline quoted above is intended for cases where an artist has a very short discography and where no existing articles on their individual albums include notable information beyond tracklisting, year of release etc.

Vitas' discography on Wikipedia is currently a section within the main Vitas article. He has released 9 studio albums, in addition to a number of singles, compilations and DVDs, so I do not consider merging full track listings into the main article to be practical. I intend to expand on the existing Vitas album articles, this one included, as well as writing articles for those albums which do not already have their own, so we're going to end up with way too much information to include comfortably in the main article. I should also add that the album Mama already includes songwriting credits - significant information beyond a mere tracklist.

It is perfectly normal for major releases by notable artists to have their own Wikipedia articles, and this is as it should be. It would be ridiculous and confusing to have a Discography detailing tracklistings for the albums deemed less "notable" with entries for more notable albums linking to separate articles. What we have here is information on a notable subject for which interested readers are likely to search Wikipedia: it is in the right place and I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) currently the only webpage anywhere which presents the tracklisting in the original Russian and in English on the same page. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The discussion about whether the album charted may not be relevant, since charting is specifically an issue for songs, not albums. The album guidelines are more lenient. For albums, WP:ALBUMS states "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." As of yet, I see no reason to override the general rule for this album. I could be convinced otherwise if no significant coverage actually exists, but the coverage requirements under WP:N are not limited to English sources, and since this is a Russian album, I would need to be convinced that no significant Russian sources exist before !voting delete. As of now, there is no indication of what the nominator did under WP:BEFORE to ascertain that there is no significant coverage in Russian sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This article has been improved since AfD nomination was made. I believe the concerns raised have now largely been addressed, and the tags applied will encourage other editors to make further improvements.

Notability: Sales in excess of 2 million reported in multiple sources. I would also contend that Vitas albums are inherently notable as major albums from a notable artist (and as I mentioned above, Vitas meets several WP:NM criteria). It is questionable whether he would be famous for other activities were it not for the music on these albums.

Content: This article has been considerably expanded, and now includes far more than a tracklisting (and Wikipedia is the first place I and many others look for album tracklistings anyway: there are many reasons why it may be preferable to commercial sites). I believe it is currently the only English language source of songwriting credits for this album. It features a new Infobox and other information. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close discussion PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Miracle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM Never charted anywhere, only thing listed is the track listing. No reviews, no critical reception. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a nutshell:

Philosophy of Miracle is a notable album by a notable artist
I am currently working on expanding and improving this article and others on Vitas albums
Deleting this article would mean the loss of significant information which is likely to be sought by Wikipedia readers; and moving the information from the individual album articles into the Vitas Discography section is not a suitable solution because this would make the section overlong and the article appear cluttered.

I don't think the notability of Vitas himself is in question: he is a major star in Russia, China and several other countries and meets several of the WP:NM criteria.

The album is inherently notable as a major release from a notable artist, and also his debut album: furthermore, this album is reported to have sold millions of copies (I have now added a reference to this effect to the article). The album includes Opera #2 which was released as a single and earned the Best-selling Single Russian Record prize in 3 consecutive years. Several songs from this album also featured in his Philosophy of Miracle concert programme, whose performance at the Kremlin earned Vitas a record as the youngest artist to perform a solo concert at the State Kremlin Palace; a DVD of this concert was later released.

According to Vitas' website:

he released nine albums ("Philosophy of Miracle", "Smile!", "Mother", "The Songs of My Mother", "Kiss As Long As Eternity", "Return Home. Part 1", "Return Home. Part 2", "XX-th Century HITS", "Light Of A New Day") which were entered into the Top Three most popular albums in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. (according to the official sales) - he released two singles ("Opera # 2" and "Goodbye"). According to the official sales results, the single "Opera # 2" was awarded a Russian Prize (established by the producers of phonograms "Record") as the bestselling single of 2001, 2002 and 2003

I am surprised by the claim that this album "Never charted anywhere". It's generally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, particularly in a case like this, when many foreign music charts are not widely published online, and sources such as the one quoted above are unclear about specifics. It would be more accurate to say that we currently have no information as to whether this album has charted anywhere. If I find any information regarding chart positions in any country, I will add this to the article.

The WP:ALBUM section states:

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.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

I think the second guideline quoted above is intended for cases where an artist has a very short discography and where no existing articles on their individual albums include notable information beyond tracklisting, year of release etc.

Vitas' discography on Wikipedia is currently a section within the main Vitas article. He has released 9 studio albums, in addition to a number of singles, compilations and DVDs, so I do not consider merging full track listings into the main article to be practical. I intend to expand on the existing Vitas album articles, this one included, as well as writing articles for those albums which do not already have their own, so we're going to end up with way too much information to include comfortably in the main article. I should also add that the album Mama already includes songwriting credits - significant information beyond a mere tracklist.

It is perfectly normal for major releases by notable artists to have their own Wikipedia articles, and this is as it should be. It would be ridiculous and confusing to have a Discography detailing tracklistings for the albums deemed less "notable" with entries for more notable albums linking to separate articles. What we have here is information on a notable subject for which interested readers are likely to search Wikipedia: it is in the right place and I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) currently the only webpage anywhere which presents the tracklisting in the original Russian and in English on the same page. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
- In what way is this album (or any of his other albums) notable? WP:NALBUM states
- Only official official charts can be used in Wikipedia for albums and singles and notable songs. If you can provide such charts with reliable sources, then feel free to add them.
- These tracklisting are not likely to be sought after by Wikipedians, considering that a link to his official site is posted on his artist page.
- WP:NALBUM states:

All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

PopMusicBuff ^talk 16:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Your nomination itself is a de facto !vote to delete. It is not necessary to !vote delete in the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For albums, WP:ALBUMS states "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." As of yet, I see no reason to override the general rule for this album. I could be convinced otherwise if no significant coverage actually exists, but the coverage requirements under WP:N are not limited to English sources, and since this is a Russian album, I would need to be convinced that no significant Russian sources exist before !voting delete. As of now, there is no indication of what the nominator did under WP:BEFORE to ascertain that there is no significant coverage in Russian sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has been considerably improved since AfD nomination was made. I believe the concerns raised have now been addressed.

Notability: 3.5 million sales in China alone, with 20 million downloads of the multi-award winning Opera #2. Opera #2 is probably sufficiently notable to warrant its own article (it's on my to-do list), and it would be a strange and unusual situation for an article on a notable single to have no link to a corresponding album article.

I would also contend that Vitas albums are inherently notable as major albums from a notable artist (and as I mentioned above, Vitas meets several WP:NM criteria). It is questionable whether he would be famous for other activities were it not for the music on these albums. This one is particularly notable as his debut. I believe this article has potential to grow into a WP:Good Article.

Content: This article has been considerably expanded, and now includes far more than a tracklisting (and Wikipedia is the first place I and many others look for album tracklistings anyway: there are many reasons why it may be preferable to commercial sites). I believe it is currently the only English language source of songwriting credits for this album. It provides information about the associated tour, critical reception and the single Opera #2, and cites multiple sources.

Keep and close discussion PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile! (Vitas album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM Never charted anywhere, only thing listed is the track listing. No reviews, no critical reception. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a nutshell:

Smile! is a notable album by a notable artist
I am currently working on expanding and improving this article and others on Vitas albums
Deleting this article would mean the loss of significant information which is likely to be sought by Wikipedia readers; and moving the information from the individual album articles into the Vitas Discography section is not a suitable solution because this would make the section overlong and the article appear cluttered.

I don't think the notability of Vitas himself is in question: he is a major star in Russia, China and several other countries and meets several of the WP:NM criteria.

The subject is inherently notable as a major album from a notable artist, and its title track won the People's Hit and Golden Gramophone awards in Russia. Several songs from this album also featured in his Philosophy of Miracle concert programme, whose performance at the Kremlin earned Vitas a record as the youngest artist to perform a solo concert at the State Kremlin Palace; a DVD of this concert was later released.

According to Vitas' website:

he released nine albums ("Philosophy of Miracle", "Smile!", "Mother", "The Songs of My Mother", "Kiss As Long As Eternity", "Return Home. Part 1", "Return Home. Part 2", "XX-th Century HITS", "Light Of A New Day") which were entered into the Top Three most popular albums in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. (according to the official sales) - he released two singles ("Opera # 2" and "Goodbye"). According to the official sales results, the single "Opera # 2" was awarded a Russian Prize (established by the producers of phonograms "Record") as the bestselling single of 2001, 2002 and 2003

I am surprised by the claim that this album "Never charted anywhere". It's generally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, particularly in a case like this, when many foreign music charts are not widely published online, and sources such as the one quoted above are unclear about specifics. It would be more accurate to say that we currently have no information as to whether this album has charted anywhere. If I find any information regarding chart positions in any country, I will add this to the article.

The WP:ALBUM section states:

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.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

I think the second guideline quoted above is intended for cases where an artist has a very short discography and where no existing articles on their individual albums include notable information beyond tracklisting, year of release etc.

Vitas' discography on Wikipedia is currently a section within the main Vitas article. He has released 9 studio albums, in addition to a number of singles, compilations and DVDs, so I do not consider merging full track listings into the main article to be practical. I intend to expand on the existing Vitas album articles, this one included, as well as writing articles for those albums which do not already have their own, so we're going to end up with way too much information to include comfortably in the main article. I should also add that the album Mama already includes songwriting credits - significant information beyond a mere tracklist.

It is perfectly normal for major releases by notable artists to have their own Wikipedia articles, and this is as it should be. It would be ridiculous and confusing to have a Discography detailing tracklistings for the albums deemed less "notable" with entries for more notable albums linking to separate articles. What we have here is information on a notable subject for which interested readers are likely to search Wikipedia: it is in the right place and I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) currently the only webpage anywhere which presents the tracklisting in the original Russian and in English on the same page. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
- In what way is this album (or any of his other albums) notable? WP:NALBUM states
- Only official official charts can be used in Wikipedia for albums and singles and notable songs. If you can provide such charts with reliable sources, then feel free to add them.
- These tracklisting are not likely to be sought after by Wikipedians, considering that a link to his official site is posted on his artist page.
- WP:NALBUM states:

All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

PopMusicBuff ^talk 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - This article has been considerably improved since AfD nomination was made. I believe the concerns raised have now largely been addressed, and the tags applied will encourage other editors to make further improvements.

Notability: Title track won 2 awards, and this album is also associated with a major tour and the single Good-Bye. I would also contend that Vitas albums are inherently notable as major albums from a notable artist (and as I mentioned above, Vitas meets several WP:NM criteria). It is questionable whether he would be famous for other activities were it not for the music on these albums.

Content: This article has been considerably expanded, and now includes far more than a tracklisting (and Wikipedia is the first place I and many others look for album tracklistings anyway: there are many reasons why it may be preferable to commercial sites). I believe it is currently the only English language source of songwriting credits for this album. It provides information about the associated tour and single, and also features a new Infobox and other information. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Keep and Close discussion PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Songs of My Mother

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM Never charted anywhere, only thing listed is the track listing. No reviews, no critical reception. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." If this album really received no reviews, then redirect to Vitas may be appropriate nonetheless. But since this is a Russian album, what has been done to check Russian sources to confirm that there have been no reviews in reliable Russian sources? Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:NALBUMS also states "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There has not been "significant coverage" of this album (or any of his other albums). And nothing is being done about RS for Russian music, which makes this fail even more. Unless more RS and information is added, this page (along with all the other albums I marked for deletion) will fail. PopMusicBuff ^talk 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - I am not sure what the statement "nothing is being done about RS for Russian music" means. If there is significant coverage in Russian sources, even if those sources are not referenced in the article yet, then the article meets WP:N and WP:NALBUMS and should be kept. Rlendog (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a nutshell:

The Songs of My Mother is a notable album by a notable artist
I am currently working on expanding and improving this article and others on Vitas albums
Deleting this article would mean the loss of significant information which is likely to be sought by Wikipedia readers; and moving the information from the individual album articles into the Vitas Discography section is not a suitable solution because this would make the section overlong and the article appear cluttered.

I don't think the notability of Vitas himself is in question: he is a major star in Russia, China and several other countries and meets several of the WP:NM criteria.

The subject is inherently notable as a major album from a notable artist, and since it includes cover versions of already popular songs, some of the songs may be also be individually notable. Several songs from this album also featured in the setlist for Vitas' major international tour of the same name.

According to Vitas' website:

he released nine albums ("Philosophy of Miracle", "Smile!", "Mother", "The Songs of My Mother", "Kiss As Long As Eternity", "Return Home. Part 1", "Return Home. Part 2", "XX-th Century HITS", "Light Of A New Day") which were entered into the Top Three most popular albums in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. (according to the official sales) - he released two singles ("Opera # 2" and "Goodbye"). According to the official sales results, the single "Opera # 2" was awarded a Russian Prize (established by the producers of phonograms "Record") as the bestselling single of 2001, 2002 and 2003

I am surprised by the claim that this album "Never charted anywhere". It's generally much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, particularly in a case like this, when many foreign music charts are not widely published online, and sources such as the one quoted above are unclear about specifics. It would be more accurate to say that we currently have no information as to whether this album has charted anywhere. If I find any information regarding chart positions in any country, I will add this to the article.

I'm sure you will understand that attempting to research a subject when the vast majority of relevant information is in languages I cannot read will not produce results comparable to research of subjects which are written about mostly in English, but Wikipedia is and should be an important reference source for others to locate information about non-English-language subjects. Deleting such articles without very strong reasons for doing so could be construed by some as dangerously close to racism.

The WP:ALBUM section states:

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.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.

I think the second guideline quoted above is intended for cases where an artist has a very short discography and where no existing articles on their individual albums include notable information beyond tracklisting, year of release etc.

Vitas' discography on Wikipedia is currently a section within the main Vitas article. He has released 9 studio albums, in addition to a number of singles, compilations and DVDs, so I do not consider merging full track listings into the main article to be practical. I intend to expand on the existing Vitas album articles, this one included, as well as writing articles for those albums which do not already have their own, so we're going to end up with way too much information to include comfortably in the main article. I should also add that article for the album Mama already includes songwriting credits - significant information beyond a mere tracklist.

It is perfectly normal for major releases by notable artists to have their own Wikipedia articles, and this is as it should be. It would be confusing and somewhat ridiculous to have a Discography detailing tracklistings for the albums deemed less "notable" with entries for more notable albums linking to separate articles. What we have here is information on a notable subject for which interested readers are likely to search Wikipedia: it is in the right place and I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) currently the only webpage anywhere which presents the tracklisting in the original Russian and in English on the same page. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close discussion PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After 7 days (minus some change) there appears to be a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navah Perlman

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Navah Perlman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. This person is not known as a performer, she hasn't made any impact on the classical music world, she's not even a professional musician, and she's only known as the daughter of a well known violinist Karljoos (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of cites given in article to show notability, and there are plenty more out there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comment. This person is not known as a performer, she hasn't made any impact on the classical music world, she's not even a professional musician, and she's only known as the daughter of a well known violinist (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family). She doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.

Note. The above unsigned post was made by the nominator, whose nomination already "counts" as a delete !vote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It was a mistake, sorry. --Karljoos (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed those, but she definitely meets the General notability guideline, and she is a professional musician, as is already shown in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close. I forecast snow. As Sarek accurately points out, there are hundreds of pertinent Google News hits, demonstrating notability, and a few recent examples demonstrate that while her early press may have centered on her family background, she's now clearly notable in her own right. [33] [34] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not eligible for WP:Speedy keep unless nom withdraws, as it's an apparent good-faith nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To be honest, I had never heard of this person before. Reading the article it seems like her notability comes from being a relative of Itzak. There're thousands of musicians with careers like hers. As I said, I think that not every professional musician is worth an article on Wikipedia. Reading her music achievements she doesn't seem notable for her profession. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solo album "Debut" released by EMI, 2001; Schubert and Shostakovich piano trios on Telarc, 2008 (Perlman/Schmidt/Bailey Trio); The Courier Journal, October 4, 2004 (review of solo recital); Hartford Courant, January 15, 2004 (feature article); Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2001 (review of solo recital). Notability is clear. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Notability has previously been readily demonstrated. ceranthor 01:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, not eligible for speedy keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that most editors agree that this performer is worth an article on Wikipedia so I won't pursue this, and I'm sorry for the trouble. Thanks--Karljoos (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD was speedy closed at this point, after which the following comment was added. Reverting non-admin closure and reopening discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I may be late in this discussion, I agree with Karljoos. I'm pretty well connected but I had never heard of Navah Perlman until recently, and I certainly don't think her career merits a Wikipedia article for her achievements - if we can use this word - so far. I doubt her name would have even been considered for an article were she not Itzhak's daughter. I therefore support the deletion of the relevant article. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that she's the daughter of a famous violinist, but that makes it notable that she's continuing (successfully) in the same field. She has also shown staying power. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The standard isn't "notability in her field"; it's "notability". From the comments here, this sort of looks like a "Pete Best" situation. While being linked or related to a notable person doesn't confer notability in Wikipedia, in the real world it can sometimes drive "derivative" notability, as with Best. The key distinction is: are there quality reliable sources on which to develop an article, and do those articles indicate some sort of notability, even if it's the circle notability of "famous for being famous"...? Studerby (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not accept the above view, but I think that her recordings are sufficient for notability. Why were they not mentioned in the article in the first place? DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Leona Lewis. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (Leona Lewis album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable demo album that has never been released, fails WP:NALBUMS. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Leona Lewis. These recordings are mentioned in the latter article but there is a little more detail here that could be included.--Michig (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Leona Lewis. There is notable information that certainly can be kept. Dynablaster (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW Tone 21:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery time preschool

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a preschool that fails google for reliable third party sources. It doesn't appear to be notable. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to explain why subject is notable. Article features only sources from the preschool's website and nothing from reliable sources to prove why this preschool is more notable than any other preschool in Edmonton. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Not much 3rd party references to justify notability. This preschool is just like many many many other preschools in the world. Nothing justifies that this specific preschool is more notable/better/internationally-known that can seperate them from the other preschool. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable preschool. Joe Chill (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11, blatant advertising. Hmmm, is enrollment down this fall? Mandsford (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Way to early for an article. However, in some time, maybe this can be recreated. Tone 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Pop (newspaper)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity puff-piece for online student newspaper which just published its first hard-copy edition today. Strong evidence of COI involvement; no hint of notability (footnotes are to paper's own website, quotes about its competition, or information about the college where it is published). Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's a University, not a college. Secondly, there is not hard copy, it is online. So clearly not been read. 2. I don't understand what the problem is about providing accurate information and allowing others to build on it by starting page for organisation. 3. This is one of a number of student newspapers on Wikipedia including over 20 in the UK. This IS a notable piece, but inexperienced user and poor explanation of notability requirements leaves sources not up to scratch.

More constructive advice on how to make sources notable would be appreciated instead of immediate poo-pooing.--Alexanderryland (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note mentions in The Scotsman, a national Scottish newspaper, and interview on BBC Radio Scotland. I think the university would also argue it's quite notable.--Alexanderryland (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Alexander is the Editor-in-Chief of this publication, and the most involved of the conflict-of-interest editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see that this is notable at the moment. It may become notable in the future, but at the moment, it fails WP:NOTABILITY. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Alexander: The problem isn't about providing accurate information. The problem is that the publication is not notable as Wikipedia defines notability. There are very very few publications which are notable during the first few months (bare minimum) of existence. Saying "Other stuff exists" is not generally accepted as a valid reason for keeping this article. We are not discussing those articles here, but this specific one. Having mentions in The Scotsman and BBC Radio Scotland is nice, but they do not amount to significant coverage. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the article should not be deleted, however all unsubstantiated claims and opinion should be removed.RLimpkin (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)— RLimpkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, cannot be said to be a notable publication. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this page needs to be kept, it may not be huge, but will be. it already has a readership or over 3,000 and has potentail to reach 20,000 beforew the end of october. this is a a page that in the future will be very used but deleting it will not only spoil wiki but the paper itself. if wiki is at all willing to keep freedom of speach it needs to keep thios page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevityDave (talk • contribs) 01:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — LevityDave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment - oh, it's gonna be huge someday, huh? That argument is called "Up and coming next big thing", and it is not considered a very useful one. (See also WP:CRYSTAL.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this publication is being talked about all over campus and has gained a huge readership in the month before publication when the project was announce to students (have a look at their Facebook interest) and it has caused strong reaction from Aberdeen University Students' Association. I say that as a student at the university in question. Just happens that they made it themselves. The page history shows others are contributing. --Katiekitten2009 (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Katiekitten2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - caused huge buzz on campus and supported by a number of student societies. Has been featured in local and national media and is taking part in and causing a lot of debates on campus. Clearly of use to students at this university.--Wright89 (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC) — Wright89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment - if this is useful to students at that university, then it should be in a wiki for students of that university. Such arguments are not relevant here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide details about which local and national media have reported on this newspaper. I only see one news source on Google News. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News Sources - On the 0756 and 1254 north-east only news bulletins on BBC Radio Scotland, the group were featured with a response from their Student President, Robin Parker, and from Angus Robertson, the MP for Moray. Being a news bulletin, BBC don't keep it online but you'll notice that one of them recorded it (a lot of background noise, clearly just using PC speakers and mic) to put on their YouTube page- www.youtube.com/voxpopaberdeen. Discovered that earlier. Reported by Caitlin Smith. They've also featured in the campus newspaper Gaudie (the focus of the campaign) in the September 2009 edition. That's not online, but is obtainable from AUSA if you contact via the website. They are also scheduled on a debate by a group called "Alternative Freshers' Week" on campus and are featuring on Aberdeen Student Radio next week (it's been the Freshers' Fayre this week, so have been able to find this out). Also can be found on NorthScot Media about a week ago - they're a private media group and I can't find them on Google News, but they have a website with a contact address.--Wright89 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)— Wright89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Being useful to the students at that university does not make it notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Two short, very localised news bulletins does not make it notable enough - although BBC Radio Scotland would be counted as a national station, it was not nationally reported, only locally. Being featured on the campus newspaper does not make it notable enough. All of the references here seem to indicate that it is arguably important to the students at the university, but nothing to indicate its notability outside of its local area. I'm afraid that I would need to see much more significant coverage away from the local area to justify changing my recommendation above to keep. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable, not at all surprising considering it was launched only on Sept 19, 2009. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

THE RESULT OF THIS REVIEW WAS NOT TO DELETE. COMMENTS SHOWED 5-4 MAJORITY IN FAVOUR OF KEEPING. WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN LEFT OPEN TO FURTHER DISCUSSION OR HAD AFD TAG REMOVED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.114.205 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment left on user's talk page -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:50, 27 September 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 delete. — Jake Wartenberg 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy E. Edwards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Noteable COI Jordan Payne ^T /_C 14:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUTHOR fail. Sorry. –Moondyne 16:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet the notability criteria just yet. Recreate if and when he does. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matrikon Inc.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Matrikon Inc. Was origionaly created as article Matrikon, which was deleted 6 (six) times^[35], before being re-created again as Matrikon Inc. Which subsequently was deleted again as a WP:CSD#G11 Spam Article.^[36]

*This is one Part of a long history of Spam, promotion and abuse on Wikipedia by Matrikon Inc., see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Matrikon_Inc._Spam

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and Blatant advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references and external links establish that the company exists; it made a profit after a loss last year; was founded by a graduate from the University of Alberta and won some minor awards (none at a national level); has a minor partnership with that university; has an agreement with a company in India. This information does not establish notability; fails WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides being a spam article, the sources don't show any actual significant coverage. Triplestop x3 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-2 (number)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At least based on the content of this article, doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:Notability (numbers)#Integers. Previous PROD; a PROD2 contributor wrote "Content is so obvious that it is not noteworthy." —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. It may be possible to rewrite this article to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), in which case I might change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information given that we didn't already know.Borock (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just can't see that -2 is a notable number. 2 is, -1 is, but not -2. pablo_hablo. 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However, if the article is deleted, of all the integers not possessing a Wikipedia article, -2 would have the smallest absolute value. Would this make it notable? Thincat (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose someone had to throw in that old paradox! —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that all integers [-10,-2] should have articles, but the state this article is in, it's not really worth keeping. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously, that would be an infinite number of articles. While I agree that every positive integer could, potentially, have an article, we don't have a page for "2π"; "-2" is simply 2 x -1. I say keep this up for negative two years. In other words, bring it back in September 2011. Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see how integers in [-10,-2] is an infinite range, perhaps someone has invented new maths I am unaware of. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like I misunderstood. I thought you meant "all integers", and I didn't pick up that you were referring to the ones ranging from -10 to -2 (or put another way, -10, -9, -8, -7, -6 etc.) I agree that some of those may be worth their own article; -8 is (-2)³ for instance, and -7 is by definition an unlucky number because it negates all of the good luck from the number 7, and -5 is a penalty in football. However, I think that -6 is non-notable in the extreme and I will fight any attempt to make an article about it, I am not kidding, -6 does not merit its own page under any circumstances, it is only trying to sneak in to the range [-8, -5]. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-7 is just an upstart and a chancer, claiming inherited notability from 7. No more integercruft! pablo_hablo. 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there is enough interesting facts about this number to make it notable, just because the article as it is now does a bad job at supporting this doesn't mean we should delete it. Instead the article just needs more supported content. J kasd 05:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone comes up with some interest facts, can't that person create the article then? —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if someone has something interesting to say about a number, create an article about it then rather than reserving a place for it. Wikipedia is not like the elementary school "number line" that gets posted at the top of the wall. As an aside, I'm reminded of the Interesting number paradox, which says that there is no such thing as an uninteresting number; because if you could make a group of numbers that were not interesting in anyway, that quality in itself would be interesting. Mandsford (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Seong-Min

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Contested PROD. The contester says the subject has played but no references back this up. Spiderone 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - K-League website is clear that he hasn't played in the league. The article's claim that he has "played" for the club probably just means that he's played in practice, reserves, or friendly matches. Article fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG and generally appears not-notable.Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seo Hee-Won

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. He appears to just be on the roster. [37] Spiderone 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - K-League website is clear that he hasn't played in the league. The article's claim that he has "played" for the club probably just means that he's played in practice, reserves, or friendly matches. Article fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG and generally appears not-notable. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Young-Joon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. The K-League site [38] says he hasn't played. Spiderone 12:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - K-League website is clear that he hasn't played in the league. The article's claim that he has "played" for the club probably just means that he's played in practice, reserves, or friendly matches. Article fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG and generally appears not-notable.Jogurney (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Jung-Han

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed for no reason. This source confirms [39] he hasn't made an appearance. Spiderone 12:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His club's website is clear that he hasn't played in the league. The article's claim that he has "played" for the club probably just means that he's played in practice, reserves, or friendly matches. Article fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG and generally appears not-notable.Jogurney (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedish logistic regiments

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Swedish logistic regiments

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry, which was edited 2 years ago and never changed so far, does not bring forward any information to the reader. It is confusing, consists mostly of Swedish names, and no Wikipedia entries for the listed entries exist, either. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Regiments are generally considered notable units, and a listing of regiments, grouping several, would be more notable still. When we get more Swedish speakers along we'll no doubt get this translated and expanded. Deleting this now would just be an example of our Anglo systematic bias. Buckshot06(prof) 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Buckshot. This is a perfectly valid topic for a list and there's no reason to delete it. The reason the names of the units are in Swedish are because they're part of the Swedish Army. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the nominator gives no compelling reason why this article should be deleted. Following his current argumentation more articles in the List of Swedish regiments must be deleted, which I think would be wrong. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel that the article is a valid topic and I don't feel that the large number of redlinks should be its downfall. Indeed, having this article might encourage some Swedish readers to write those articles, which would be as notable as any Australian, British and US regiment (provided the sources exist, of course). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm 105% sure the sources exist - mostly in Swedish-language hardcopy books. As well as Anglo bias, this is an example of our overreliance on web sources bias. Buckshot06(prof) 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it's in sore need of editing and improvement, but please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion and the boldface statement If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Tomas e (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Ricci

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is the founding editor of The Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning. However, this journal doesn't seem to be a "major well-established journal" as required by WP:PROF#8. The fact that several of his peer-reviewed publications are in the journal he himself edits may play against his notability when considering WP:PROF#1. I haven't looked at citations though. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The journal is indeed not a "major well-established" one: it was founded only 2 years ago and does not seem to be listed in any of the major indexing services, e.g. it's not in the ISI indexed journals. Also, and very unusual, it seems to have a "closed" list of about a dozen authors who've written almost all the articles, including Ricci himself. The article's claim that this is "an internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal" is clearly false – fails WP:PROF #8. There is another claim on WP:PROF #1, as the article shows lots of publications, many of them in the above journal. (In fact, much of the article is simply this person's CV.) None of these publications seems to be listed in WoS, giving Ricci an h-index of 0, which I found a little odd. Upon further checking, part of the issue seems to be that some of the journals are really only teacher's trade publications, while others do not exist, at least any longer. For example, Journal of Pre-service Education and Checkmark cannot be found. All the other Youtube videos and such do not lend further notability in this case 7ndash; fails WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The evidence above indicates that none of the items in WP:PROF is satisfied. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. JUAL is part of the Directory of open access journals www.doaj.org/ and has an issn and is listed as a peer reviewed journal in searches for journals by title in any university catalogue. As well, it is the only academic journal dedicated to unschooling and alternative schooling and has received international attention. It is important to not use scientific journal requirements for researchers in the social sciences field.

His most recent book, Turning Points, is a collection of stories about education from those who have dared to do things in different ways. The contributors to this book have a high profile, namely: Riane Eisler, John Taylor Gatto, Yaacov Hecht, Matt Hern, Helen Hughes, Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, Herbert Kohl, Mary Leue, Deborah Meier, Chris Mercogliano, Susan Ohanian, Wendy Priesnitz, Zoe Weil as well, the forward was written by Alfie Kohn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephentedesco (talk • contribs) — Stephentedesco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. So, you're saying that it's important that we not apply the standard requirements in this particular case? Are you kidding? Be assured that the field of social sciences does indeed have its own set of scholarly journals that precisely follow "journal requirements for researchers". The fact of the matter is this: this journal, JUAL, may become a mainstream one in the future, but it certainly is not one at the moment. All indicators support this assertion: journal not listed in major indexing services, journal limited to extremely small author-base of a few people who've written all the articles in the journal's (short) history, GS shows that none of any of the articles in the journal's history have ever been cited, etc. Actually, this last point is not quite true. There does seem to be one article that was cited once: John Vitale, one of the dozen or so authors on the "closed" list cited one of his own papers in JUAL in a later conference paper. It seems that the journal itself only has an h-index of about 1. Moreover, ISSN numbers and such are red herrings. For example, there's no barrier to securing an ISSN number – even "vanity-published" materials have these. As for the "Turning Points" book, I can't tell that this has even been published yet, although this trade group website (here, as well) says that a limited number of pre-publication copies are available. This again speaks more to WP:CRYSTAL than WP:N. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete As for the journal, Worldcat shows it in only 6 libraries. Ulrich's lists it, but gives no information about indexing. I DOAJ does have some minimal standards, but they're only that it has some academic content, peer-review or other quality control, and actually published more or less regularly. I do not think the journal notable. As for the other publications, I see only 5 articles in standard journals, and the book being relied on , Turning Points is not even in WorldCat at all. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Into The Silence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely will be notable when released, but does not meet WP:NALBUMS now. Lacks any detail, lacks 3rd party references. Contested prod RadioFan (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS. "Possible title" -> probable HAMMER! JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. "Possible title" says it all: it's an unsourced rumour. Once there are reliable sources, we can revisit, but no article until then. —C.Fred (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any reference to support this. --Moochocoogle (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polymash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable Neologism - Prod removed by anon editor noq (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NAD and WP:NFT. Created by an SPA editor to support new article on Chris Dooks (and I'm not sure that one meets WP:CREATIVE). JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per JohnCD. Joe Chill (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is new user MountOilphant, I am new to wikipedia but keen to see polymash remain, or come back with the correct protocol in place. Please advise how to do this, I've found wikipedia very difficult to use so far.

I'm afraid I cannot hold out any hope for this article, it violates too many of Wikipedia's policies. The reasons are well summarised in Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. I will reply in more detail on your talk page, but not for a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I quite like the expression, but it's not for Wikipedia. If it spreads and gets used, then Wiktionary would be the place for it. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see no need for a redirect, so I am not recommending a merger, but most of the content here seems to belong at Chris Dooks. Cnilep (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very obscure non-notable neologism. I agree with the above reason, that it might be worth a short mention at the Chris Dooks article, if it's not already there, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no deletes. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taco (musician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Insufficient evidence of notability. Unable to find reliable sources of information.~~ -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination for deletion Although "Puttin' on the Ritz" was indeed a hit, I wondered if a one-hit wonder actually make him worthy of an article? Google News returned 14 hits on "Taco Ockerse" - all of which are basically about this one hit he had. I like one of the returns on that search - Entertainment Weekly said "His tenuous claim to fame, the 1982 chart-topper Puttin' on the Ritz, is strictly for gringos". However, having re-read WP:BAND, that clearly states one of the criteria is "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart.", and as he has hada single hit, then he qualifies. I would suggest (as per B.s.n.R.N.) that this is moved to Taco Ockerse (but without the '(musician)', as there are no others on Wikipedia!) with Taco (musician) as a redirect. Could an admin please close this Afd? Thanks - and thanks to everyone who responded to this AfD. Part of what I like about Wikipedia is that you can be persuaded against deletion (even of an article you nominated yourself) through the discussion which arises. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page lacks cites which I'll attempt to add tommorrow. Quick google search finds many of details written in the article are true, which are notible. Believe article should be moved to Taco Ockerse (musician) with Taco (musician) as a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.s.n.R.N. (talk • contribs)
- It should be either Taco (musician) or Taco Ockerse; there are no other Taco Ockerses in Wikipedia that I know of, so either a qualifier or his surname should be sufficient to disambiguate him from the other tacos. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep search shows multiple sources that look reliable (including some that say he had "a No. 4 smash") and discogs shows multiple RCA albums. the page looks like a lot of OR so rewriting will be needed. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "Puttin' on the Ritz" seals it all. The song was a major hit in that year and the video is known as a classic. If I remember correctly there was a satirical reference to "a tribute to Falco" from Taco in The Simpsons (and I found it). A top five Billboard hit usually stamps notability in bright red. Nate • (chatter) 11:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Mrschimpf. Taco did indeed have a #4 hit on the Billboard Hot 100 which should be sufficient to qualify him under WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joplin ghost light

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: Unexplained not notable atmospheric phenomenon akin to a UFO sighting. Bladeofgrass (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: disorganized, weakly-sourced article. Alexius08 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erwann Ofouya

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I disagree with the removal as Namibia's league isn't fully pro. See this. Spiderone 08:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. GauchoDude (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Kiblawi

This article doesn't meet our guidelines for inclusion as set out in WP:BIO. In particular, while Kiblawi's works have been cited in reliable sources, Kiblawi himself has not been the subject of reliable third-party coverage. The sourcing here is also thin and problematic: one WSJ editorial (not a news article), Rabbishmuel.com (unknown reliability), a few mentions in a campus newspaper, one mention in Michigan Daily where Kiblawi's opinion is quoted but he is not the subject of the article. This isn't, and probably cannot be, a biography: at most it is a description of a handful of controversies that this individual has been involved in. Per WP:BLP we generally don't want to do this. If the article is to be kept, I would like to see at least one reliable source for which Kiblawi is actually the subject, not just someone who is cited or mentioned in passing. If we analyze Kiblawi as a scholar, the inclusion requirements of WP:PROF also don't seem to be met. *** Crotalus *** 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate testIt would be as inappropriate for you to require htat he be evaluated as a scholar as it was for you to cite him as one. He was a student activist. He organized a national conference. He wrote op-eds, he was interviewed, he got arrested, it was all in the newspapers. He was no scholar.Historicist (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the article because I ran into Kiblawi being quoted in a Wikipedia article Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend as an authoritative source on American history and Martin Luther King. As a Wikipedia user, I like being able to click and see who teh cited authority is. As a Wikipedia editor, I feel a responsibility to put up articles on people who are quoted as authoritative sources. the article needs improvement (true of most Wikipedia articles) this is not a reason to delete. However, pace User:Crotalus Kiblawi is not merely mentioned in passing in these articles. He is the subject of a series of articles in various publications about his activities as a student activist.Historicist (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment It turns out that the article where I first met Fadi Kiblawi was written by User:Crotalus horridus the article cites Fadi Kiblawi as an authoritative source - but Crotalus horridus does not think he is important enough to have a Wikipedia page - huh? I tagged the article and have been insisting that facts have to be sourced to WP:RS publications. User:Crotalus horridus had sourced primarily to three sources that are WP reliable only for matters of opinion, not for matters of fact: Electronic Intifada, Z magazine and Counterpunch. It is possible that User:Crotalus horridus resents being required to produce reliable sources for his assertions of fact. I am not, by the way, denying the fundamental truth of the article, But we have a responsibility to source articles WP:RS publications.Historicist (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because somebody is cited on Wikipedia does not mean they should have an article on Wikipedia. The rest of your last comment is irrelevant to this AfD. nableezy - 19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliability of sources has nothing to do with Wikipedia's biographical inclusion policies for the authors of those sources. See WP:RS and WP:PROF. All tenured professors have to produce peer-reviewed articles. Those articles are unquestionably reliable sources per our policies. But WP:PROF makes it clear that just because someone is an average tenured professor doesn't make them notable. I realize that this hypothetical doesn't apply 100% to the case here, but it makes my point: someone can be a WP:RS even if they don't, by themselves, merit a biographical article. Kiblawi was cited as a reliable source by Eric Sundquist, who wrote a book published by Harvard University Press that is itself clearly a RS. That doesn't mean that Kiblawi (or Sundquist for that matter) should have articles. We don't work that way. *** Crotalus *** 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not relevant to the AFD, only to Cortalus's degree of understanding of scholarship. Kiblawi was not cited by Sundquist as a reliable source. He was cited in a long footnote listing every published article that discussed the fake MLK letter.Historicist (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources used here are problematic to say the least. The Michigan Daily is a student run paper that may or may not be reliable, but it is focusing on the arrest of Sami Al-Arian and only brings up Kiblawi when quoting him for his thoughts on the arrest of Prof al-Arian (two lines in the article). The first source cited is from a sermon by one Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, I cannot imagine this could possibly be a RS for a BLP. The GW Hatchet, another student run paper, is used for an editorial written by Kiblawi, while that would be a RS for Kiblawi's views it does not establish notability among third party secondary sources. The WSJ source, as pointed out above, is also an editorial. There is not a single reliable secondary source focusing on Kiblawi, so even if this were not a BLP the result should be delete. As it is a BLP this is undoubtedly a delete. nableezy - 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

news google has plenty of articles with which the article can be expanded.Historicist (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed plenty of stories mentioning him, but you need sources focused on him to meet the notability guidelines. nableezy - 23:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College papers are WP:RS for campus events. Anyone can run a quick news goodle search and establish that Kiblawi was a student leader whose activities drew a great deal of press coverage.Historicist (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point, there needs to be articles focusing on him, not just quoting him on some other topic. Third party secondary sources focusing on the subject of the article. That is what is needed, not some college paper quoting him on al-Arian's arrest. nableezy - 07:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News google and sources in the article demonstrate that major national news sources (CNN, Christian Science Monitor, etc.) interviewed Kiblawi at length, and published descritpions of him and information about his background in the context of his role as a student activist who, among other activities, led a major national conference of the Palestine Solidarity Movement while a student at U. Michigan, and continued to be active in the Movement while a law student at Georgetown, again journalistic attention.Historicist (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A genuinely marginal case, this one. Searching for Fadi Kiblawi yields sources like CNN and the New York Times, which at first glance looks like a "keep", but drilling down and reading the sources, it's questionable to what extent there's in depth coverage of Fadi Kiblawi (as opposed to coverage of things Fadi Kiblawi is involved in, of which there's quite a bit of coverage). So I can see both sides of it.
Checking this against the general notability guideline, I'm of the view that CNN and the New York Times are reliable sources and they're independent of the subject. I also see that the coverage is more than a trivial mention, but less than an in-depth analysis. So we really are in judgment call territory.
In my opinion it's rarely appropriate to delete reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia, so I shall give this material the benefit of the doubt and !vote weak keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have to say keep per the other keep sayers opinions. plus good sourcing.--Judo112 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax Closedmouth (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carried in Bags (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no such album. No ghits to verify the albums existence[40]. A probable WP:HOAX which fails WP:V and WP:RS. JD554 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I'm not finding any evidence this exists either. RadioFan (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I declined the first speedy on this article because it was initially tagged for CSD A9. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Grayson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined a CSD A7 request on this article but the subject doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. He may or may not meet WP:GNG. My initial google new search seems to show that it's borderline. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grayson appears to have received extensive non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. He therefore satisfies general notability standards. Examples found in a search of the NewsBank database include the following articles focused on Grayson as the principal subject: (1) UR's Grayson: receiving and giving, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, April 20, 2009; (2) Besides receiving, UR's Grayson gives Mentor to youth is part of service by football standout, Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 20, 2009; (3) Hot targets are hurting UR receivers Boston, Grayson expected to be dressed for final, Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 18, 2008; (4) Grayson's participation vs. JMU seems likely, Richmond Times-Dispatch, October 9, 2008; (5) Catch and carry: Spiders' receiver Grayson turns his routes into big-gain opportunities, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 16, 2008; (6) Grayson settles on plea deal: UR wideout receives suspended sentence, three-year probation, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, March 21, 2008; (7) Grayson returns to UR team, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, March 20, 2008; (8) UR's top receiver arrested: Grayson is suspended from football activity, faces fight-related charge, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, February 19, 2008; (9) Newcomers come up big for Spiders: Former Bird stars Grayson, McBride among contributors, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 9, 2007; (10) Grayson returns to boost Spiders: Receiver back from his injury; Hightower runs for 187 yards and a score, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 4, 2007; (11) Grayson smiling his way to the top: Bird graduate makes sure he has fun with UR's offense, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, October 5, 2007; and (12) REGION SPOTLIGHT SHINES DON'T GET CONFUSED BY STATISTICS: SKYHAWKS' GRAYSON'S A GOOD CATCH, Richmond Times-Dispatch, November 25, 2005. Cbl62 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by Cbl62 show significant and non-trivial coverage in third-party sources thus he passes WP:GNG.--Giants 27(c|s) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dj rounsley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. No sources to back up claims. Also as a way of question does being a dj nec. give you notability on a plate? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a bucket says, "Also as a way of question does being a dj nec. give you notability on a plate?"

Well, first, he's NOT a DJ - thats his NAME. He works in talk radio and by that standard, Howard Stern has a page, Colin Cowherd has a page, Russ Martin has a page, Mike O'Meara has a page, Don Imus, Mike Gallagher, Tom Leykis The list goes on...Why can't DJ?

If you need more references, I'll see what I can do to get them...What all do I need references for so I can build a page that meets you high standards? - Kpwg7411

Not my standards..... wp:rs Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No Gnews hits and little in the way of Ghits; I can't find any secondary sources indicating this person is in any way notable. Note that "someone else has a page" is not a valid argument, plus those people DO have secondary source coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found nothing else but links to social networking sites, Wikipedia and some false positives. Alexius08 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy E. Edwards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Noteable COI Jordan Payne ^T /_C 14:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUTHOR fail. Sorry. –Moondyne 16:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet the notability criteria just yet. Recreate if and when he does. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: G3 as a hoax. Sadly, not even a funny one... --Kinu ^t/_c 02:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Achi Bedem Badem Bee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a hoax, especially as most links seem to link to Pokémon. Grahame (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G3 Delete - blatant hoax. Misleading links, other photo, mention of classmates. Not for stuff made up one afternoon at school.The-Pope (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This one's definitely a hoax - the Pokemon thing's a dead giveaway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. JUJUTACULAR | (TALK) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squeez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no reliable source coverage. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:43, 5 September 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) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I can't find significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Them From Space 03:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Failing WP:V would be a compelling reason for deletion, but the one source cited, [41], a gerontologists' newsletter, is not obviously unreliable. Sandstein 06:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Darcourt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources can be found. Fails WP:BIO. Darcourt is already listed in List of oldest people by year of birth, which includes basically as much information as this article contains. Neptune5000 (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a typical Wikipedia problem: this article serves as a place to keep/collect information on Pierre Darcourt, including the titles at the bottom of his article. I doubt all that is going to be preserved or merged into the "list of" articles. Ryoung122 04:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryoung122. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, non-trivial sources in reliable publications to establish notability. As noted by nominator, right now all the information is more appropriate for list format. Cheers, CP 16:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest - retain this article; this man was the oldest human ever, for a good number of years (based on present knowledge, which is fallible and incomplete). I propose retaining this article, at least until his age is proven incorrect - and exaggerated; or until there is proof of an earlier person older than he. As the 'oldest ever' he will be one of a very small number - possibly fewer than a dozen - Plante, Darcourt, Peters (or D'Evergroote and Boomgard), Filkins, Graham, Izumi - or Williams (and White), and Calment. Eleven in all, some not totally convincingly verified - but Darcourt was! Keep this article. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first documented human over the age of 108 is probably notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids Rebirth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This toy line does not assert notability, and the bulk of the content is just a trivial list of the toys. The reception reference is just a forum post, so it is not reliable. TTN (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Zoids. One of the plethora of Zoids articles up for AfD. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:04, 9 September 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) 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limited merge or redirect. Nothing here indicates separate notability. Hard to say whether there is anything here worth merging. I guess a little of it could be if it can be referenced properly. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; procedural nomination with no one in favor of deletion after four days: no reason to keep this open any longer. Chick Bowen 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability); in my view, the membership of notable musicians in the band constitutes an assertion of notability. I have no opinion on the larger question of whether the article meets the notability guideline; thus I am bringing it here as a courtesy for further discussion. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 01:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article claims only 1 album was created called Lincoln, however, the Lincoln_(album) was created by band They_Might_Be_Giants which included the 2 notable artists in that article. I can't believe they would make the same album in both bands so I question the accuracy of the article.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's the same album; it just has the same title. At least, the allmusic.com listing has a completely different tracklist from the well-known TMBG album. Chick Bowen 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I clarified that with this edit. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Positive that TMBG and Lincoln are two bands. TMBG album is from 1988, Lincoln (band) album is from 1997, both can be found on allmusic or stores like Amazon. (User:wniehues (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Patriot Ledger, Entertainment Weekly, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel all have written about this band non-trivially. I've added those citations just now. There's enough for the subject to meet the general notability guideline, or WP:BAND criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Paul. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cleanup already completed, now nothing wrong with article. ceranthor 01:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Paul Erik. Meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie (LazyTown)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article consisting of trivia about a non-notable fictional character. SummerPhD (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing how this character is "non-notable" as she is covered rather extensively on Google News as well as Google Books. In addition the previews and reviews that discuss her in an out of universe context, she is outright analyzed in a scholarly manner. I will add some of these sources now, but clearly we have sources for analysis and development of a character who has been showcased in a titular mnanner as well. Please reconsider this nomination. Thank you! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources exist. I added a few slight ones. If this article gets an editor who knows how to research in Icelandic, it could probably be a GA. I've never heard of her or her show, but apparently it's a big enough deal to warrant a page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I say leave it alone. The Sportacus article is up and he's a main character and so is Stephanie. A Nobody and Peregrine Fisher added some great sources. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 01:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to LazyTown - article is now referenced reasonably well and the removal of some excess non-notable trivia has improved it; given the show airs in over 100 countries and a dozen languages I think it classifies as notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fancruft taken out, sources added. The nominator's concerns have been addressed and there are no issues in the rewritten form of the article. Nate • (chatter) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has improved markedly since the AfD nomination, including well-referenced out-of-universe information, and trivia removed. --Canley (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Article is now referenced and fancruft is gone. (BTW, no, I don't think we'll want the list of outfits back...) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bassem Rizk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. There is one outside reference, but it is not clear how reliable that is. The prize mention is unreferenced. The article's creator has repeated removed problem tags without significant changes. Clubmarx (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google translation of the reference in the article doesn't appear to have any mention of the article subject. I'm not linguistically qualified to offer any opinion as to whether any of these Google News results indicates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reference doesn't support notability Rirunmot (talk) 02:30, 12 September 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) 01:43, 12 September 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 00:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One CD. No indication of how successful. Nothing in Allmusic. Somewhat promotional in tone. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. No prejudice against a merge. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don't Deserve

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don't Deserve

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book, advert. Fremte (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is probably notable enough to deserve an article. It has 137 citations in Google Scholar and Google News shows it being mentioned by RS newspapers. I don't think it is an advert as there is hardly anything there at all, although the claim that it is an "ethical work" could be misunderstood in that way. I will change that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:11, 13 September 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) 00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now to author's article, which also needs work although he seems to be notable. If more info comes up then his individual books could have articles. Generally a book which doesn't generate criticism will not be worth writing an article about. Borock (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sooda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:37, 12 September 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) 00:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other things and people of the same name making it harder to search for, but even trying to filter those out I can't see RS coverage. It is only a one line stub anyway so we are not losing much content. If it gains more coverage later then somebody can make a new article then. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was likewise unable to find significant coverage of the software. JUJUTACULAR | (TALK) 22:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sachs & Associates

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aaron Sachs & Associates

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable small firm of local trial lawyers. Only Google New Archive search is an expired item, apparently a routine announcement of the firm's founding. Nothing in their website gives any indication of possible notability. Speedy was declined. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article suggests notability; searches find only listing-type mentions. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy that coverage be "non-routine"--possibly to avoid endless bickering about how to apply such a subjective criterion. The problem with the Google news item DGG refers to is not that it's "routine" but that it is, apparently, a press release. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that was the meaning of "routine announcement" I intended. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for my misunderstanding. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 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) 00:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have ever seen DGG nominate something for deletion before; this firm doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP so I will go for delete. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable law firm; spammish article. I've never heard of them, I can't find any news items at all about them by standard searches, and a quick review of Ghits reveals lots of blogs, spam, and similar self-edited sources. If DGG nominates it for deletion, it should be. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of or to notability. Abductive (reasoning) 05:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 19:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hecuba (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources or demonstration of notability. Has this band ever charted? Durova³¹⁸ 16:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're a signed act, have supported some famous bands and their music is available on music facilities like Spotify. It follows that plenty of people may want to find out more about them (I did, hence finding the article). There are much worther candidates for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.6.51 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 September 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having an agent doesn't fulfill any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Fronting other bands in a concert doesn't. Having music available doesn't. What criteria of WP:MUSIC do any Keep proponents claim this band fulfills? RGTraynor 10:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several sources just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But none of the sources demonstrate fulfillment of WP:MUSIC. Durova³¹⁹ 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm putting forward the possibility that they meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Giving this another look, that's all non-trivial coverage. Even if one or two of the sources might be open to challenge, LA Weekly is certainly adequate. Nomination withdrawn. Good work. Durova³¹⁹ 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that the nomination will remain open for the time being as there remains a delete !vote outstanding. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sourced content to merge, but feel free to request undeletion for that purpose. Skomorokh 00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cdpe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Title given by a private company to real estate professionals who graduate from its courses. The title is trademarked (big red flag), and there seems to be nothing on it on Google that would not qualify as a primary source. The original version of the article was actually spam for the course curriculum. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Real estate broker. 1) Apparently the CDPE certification is gaining some currency as shown by this Re/Max press release. 2) I am troubled by this article and the addition of www.cdpe.com as an external link on Short sale (real estate). 3) Article created by SPA. 4) I don't understand how one could set up a link to a disamb page that does not exist. Racepacket (talk) 15:41, 12 September 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) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not clear this is notable enough to be merged or mentioned in Wikipedia at all. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TACS Partnership

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP. declined speedy. looks like an ad, hardly any coverage [42]. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 06:15, 16 September 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) 00:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find anything to show that it meets WP:GNG. Mostly 'press release' type ghits. JUJUTACULAR | (TALK) 22:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Anthony

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This murderer fails WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Location (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As is, the article is severely lacking in citations and references; however, there has been some national coverage of this from when the murders were committed in 2001[43], to when the bodies were found in 2005[44][45], to when the conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered in 2008.[46][47] Still, there are not as many sources as I would expect. Location (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't get him out of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BLP1E refers to low-profile individuals and it must be balanced with the perp section in WP:N/CA which refers to persistent coverage. Persistent coverage outside of the local area suggests that he has some notability (i.e. not low-profile). I would agree with you that there are not an overwhelming number of sources in the national news, hence the "weak" prefix. Location (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This murderer is low profile. The only coverage that he got was coverage about the murder and stuff that followed it which is still a part of one event because every murderer will have more happen to them than the murder they committed. Joe Chill (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just cause Im the author so of course I wont vote for it to b deleted! Antonio The Caesar Martin (Dime aqui!) 08:12, 12 September 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) 00:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor wire service coverage does not a notable alleged murderer make. Just because it is on the AP wire does not mean it got "national media attention."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Severely lack reliable sources as well as notability. South Bay (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The key hinge of WP:BLP1E has been whether the event was significant. This wasn't; it was a murder, no more or less noteworthy than any other. (And, by the bye, would the article's author care to proffer any policy basis upon which to keep?) Ravenswing 09:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard case of WP:ONEEVENT. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGT and Stifle. JUJUTACULAR | (TALK) 22:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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