Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:54, 5 December 2009

< 27 November	29 November >

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 delete. JForget 22:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States television series ended after 2001 season

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

Even though a few have existed for a while this and the following lists don't seem to have any more point to them than ones for 2011 even if much can be verified. Lists for the sake of lists, liscruft, call it what you may but such lists exist elsewhere already in 200X in American television making them redundant and redirects seem very far from suitable in this case.

These other related articles are included in this AfD for the same reasons as above:

As a note, I am aware of Television series cancelled or ended but isn't really an AfD candidate given it can be repurposed. treelo _radda 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no evidence of encyclopedic notability of such lists. Laudak (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep all.~~ While this information may be in the 200X in television articles, it is buried and not easily discernible. The reader has to sift through the "Television shows" section looking for end dates rather than being able to consult a concise list. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the lists in this AfD had dates they'd be partially useful but still redundant. I would venture that the only discernible difference lies in that one list is chronologically ordered whereas the other sorts by network, not the sort of information one couldn't add to the existing list and add sortable columns to. As for "buried and not easily discernable", take 2007 in television for example, I only had to click "Ending this year" in the TOC and got a list which whilst lengthy was discernible and needs some modifications to make it more accessible, not a spinout article which is equally as lengthy but also as complex to navigate if the end user isn't looking for networks. treelo _radda 10:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chaging my vote to delete all (redirect to the aforementioned 200X in television/American television). I previously missed the ending list. When I created the first article in this set, I did not realize I was duplicating information that was already well presented elsewhere on Wikipedia. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these lists are very much at the moment, and they were all created at the same time, so I can see two possibilities. The first was that this was all the article' originator intended, an indiscriminate list of names of TV shows. If that's as far as anyone wants to take this, then I'd say delete 'em all. The second possibility is that someone envisioned some context to go with the shows listed-- when the final original episode ran, whether there was a series finale or whether it was a cancellation that left the show's premise unresolved, that there would be more to it than this. I suspect that it's the former-- somebody bringing an article into the world to be left on Wikipedia's doorstep with a note pinned to the blanket. What does the "2001 season" mean? Is it the 2001-2002 TV season or the 2000-2001 season, or both? Most people don't think of a TV season (or a college basketball season) as occupying a single calendar year. A serious article of this nature should be worked on one page at a time, rather than creating them six at a time. Mandsford (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think all of these lists were created at the same time? As far as what the seasons mean, in most of the articles it is clearly defined: "The following is a list of U.S. television shows cancelled or ended between the beginning of the Fall 2006 television season and the beginning of the Fall 2007 season (roughly September 2006 to August 2007)." →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I see that 2001, 2002 and 2009 were all made this month, and the others were made at different times. They all follow the same format, which is not meant as a compliment. The topic is notable enough, and it's possible that any or all of these yawners can be made into interesting and useful articles, so I'm not voting to delete. Mandsford (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Essentially and unnecessarily duplicates "YEAR in television", which is already being further duplicated/disambiguated by "YEAR in COUNTRY television". Sarilox (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. What a mess. There doesn't seem to be any sense in organising series in this way. Fences&Windows 19:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fred characters

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

Merge to Fred Figglehorn. Zhang He (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This info would take up too much space on the Fred Figglehorn article. It's already sloppy as it is. NintendoNerd777 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a reasonable sub-article of a larger one. Wikipedia is not paper to put all in one chapter. Laudak (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article merged into the normal article would make it very long. Jeremjay 24 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dreaming

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

Declined A7 nominee. Asserted to fail general notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication or significance. I have no idea why CSD is so limited when some things seem so obvious. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't find any 3rd party RSes. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no delete The article is under development following a request at a Workshop held in Germany last week. John D. Croft (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, and I do not find the substantial independent comment required for notability. I also note from the solitary News hit that the article author is the inventor of this methodology, and his comment above makes this sound like an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise it. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Western Michigan University#Student life. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bronco bash

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

Declined A7 nominee. Asserted to be non-notable school event. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appear to be plenty of sources, though none of them great (that I found). A news search turns up some including this and a web search [1] this. This is a brief mention and this while a primary source, gives us plenty to write about. The news search turns up another 4-5 short articles. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Western Michigan University. This is just a specific name for the university's frosh week. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Whpq. Just an event that would easily fit in Western Michigan University#Student life. tedder (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it could fit elsewhere. However I think the local talk pages should figure that out. This meets our inclusion guidelines for a separate article and there is enough to write about... Hobit (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joazhino Arroé

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

Contested WP:PROD, youth team footballer for AC Siena with no first team appearances and no senior international appearances, fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a professional athlete, and hasn't competed at any high level. Yep, fails WP:ATHLETE. SMC (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate if & when either of these concerns are met in the future. Giant Snowman 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth footballer who fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-pro level yet. --Jimbo^[online] 14:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 07:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rootdown

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

If you came here because http://twitter.com/rootdownsound/statuses/6163514178 oder http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=191403506811&id=14511594763, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Band lacking in notability of musical groups. Don't be fooled by the bluelink on Paul Wright- it's a disambiguation. Google News does not turn up any in-depth reliable sources. tedder (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I thought this: "charted in the top fifteen of the Air 1 radio chart. ROOTDOWN also has other accomplishments from "Summer of Love" including rising to as high as number 6 on the ITunes top reggae albums chart." might help for notability, a) Air 1 is a local radio station and isn't a national chart as required per WP:BAND, and b) AFAIK iTunes doesn't count as a "national chart" (correct me if I'm wrong). Google searches turn up nothing particularly promising. SMC (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are the concerns that led me to tag it for notability earlier. Thank you, tedder and SMC, for looking into the details. ~YellowFives 02:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Air 1 Radio is a NATIONAL radio station aired nationwide and also internationally. It is a subsidiary of KLOVE. I am not sure what you found was wrong with the blue tag on Paul Wright as he founded the band, was signed on a major label and has been nominated for a Grammy in the past. spartannumber33 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2009

— spartannumber33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This band meets the notability because they have had a single chart on the radio in accordance to: 2) Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzvsbulls (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's silly to use Google News as a measure of coverage. Tons of people and organizations who deserve Wikipedia entries wouldn't show up on Google News on a particular day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doylesrader (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, if not news searches (for which Google News is the most vast), what do you think we should use as a "measure of coverage" for bands? There's nothing else on offer in the way of reputable third-party sources with which to establish notability and verifiability. SMC (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - assuming it can be proven, a National tour counts towards WP:BAND - "4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4]" - and if so, then I would favor a keep. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found some substantial local coverage[2][3][4] and one niche review.[5] Not sure if this is enough to meet the WP:GNG. I am unconvinced that the stated charting history meets the requirement in WP:BAND for charting in national charts, which doesn't mean genre or online charts. Fences&Windows 20:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per coverage found by Fences.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While no single element of WP:BAND is completely met, there are enough that are almost met to warrant keeping. Specifically, things like the articles found by Fences, the inclusion of a (instead of two) notable musician (Paul Wright, whose blue link is NOT just a disambiguation), a national tour, etc. Vulture19 (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily closed as original author reverted the page to the redirect that formerly existed at the title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy wilkins

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

Musician who doesn't quite meet notability at WP:MUSICBIO, specifically not a member of 2 notable bands. Primary article Billy Wilkins has been a redir to the notable band Third Day for several years. This alternative capitalization version was a redir as well, this content is newly posted. Recommend converting this back to a redir, or deleting. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta XML

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Joe. I just cannot see this subject being significant covered.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shadowjams (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Hunt

The result was WITHDRAWN non-admin closure by nominator Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

At the time of nomination, the complete text of the article is "Brad Hunt is an American actor born in Moberly, Missouri in 1964". Completely unsourced BLP, tagged as such since May 2009. Linked from List of male performers in gay porn films. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reviews I could find were about movies he was in and not covering him significantly (or even more than a mention).--TParis00ap (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis that I find reasonably significant porn films he has appeared in (including Baby it's you (1993), One Man's Poison (1994) and The Road to Hopeful(1994)), I would have thought a suitable porn actor biography page would be achievable. The films themselves count as reliable sources.—Ash (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look in the history, the article I ORIGINALLY created was for an actor that is certainly notable and "keepable." Someone has changed it to a porn actor. It needs to be changed back. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Classic cock-up due to someone deleting all the relevant material from the earlier version. There is also Brad Hunt at IMDb the porn star which the deletion may have been based on. What's the way forward, a disambiguation page? I suggest the AfD is now closed on this basis while the page is restored.—Ash (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Descent of Juan Carlos I from Pelagius

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

Genealogical article is based on erroneous descent. There is no scholarly consensus that Pelagius has any descendants, while the descent shown is based on the misidentification of two different people of the same name. The whole basis for the page is OR, POV, and just plain wrong.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wouldn't even matter if the descent of the current king of Spain from Pelagius were a sure thing: this would still be an unjustifiable article. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even if it is right, I do not think this is the best way of dealing with the matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced assertions. Bearian (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fader (song)

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

fails notabiloity, no context, no referances Alankc (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - According to this article, the single hasn't even been released yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:06, 21 November 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) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Seems WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V are issues here.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per above DRosin (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The reasons given by the editors favouring deleting were plausible and not contested by the editors favouring retention and vice versa. As such, I find no consensus in this discussion. Skomorokh 07:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain forever

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

Non-notable indie role-playing game Airplaneman ^talk 21:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable as far as context goes, no references. IShadowed ✰ 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. It isn't a role-playing game, more of a "Shooter", and it has won a "best game" award at China's first indie game festival. Several references have been added, more soon. Thank you for considering keeping it. Tell me if you have any other concerns. -Hurtz
weak keep won a new, but real award from a 3rd party. Only worth $2,500, but still. A news report of some sort about the award or a review of the game in a reliable source (in Chinese is fine) would help here. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. This better? Best I could get... Editinghurts (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While we don't have a policy specifically for computer games we do have WP:WEB point 3 (for websites), WP:BK point 2 (for books) and WP:NOTFILM point 3 (for films), all establishing that wining a major award is grounds for notability in those fields. I would contend that this shows a consensus that a major award is grounds for establishing notability in any similar field, which would include Computer Games. The IGF China 2009 Best Game Award qualifys as a major award in my opinion. --Elfwood (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you, Elfwood. Waiting for your approval, Airplaneman... Editinghurts (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry, I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete it or anything, just nominate. And Hurtz, I only called it an indie RPG because that is what the article said. I'm sticking to my nom as of now, though. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 23:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This game is quite notable in the indie community, and one of the most ground-breaking games to come along in a while. I quite willingly paid money for it. Tidegear (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the game is not particularly well known outside the independent games community, it won the highest award at IGF China and it is likely that it will only become more notable as future titles in the series are released.WikiSolved (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Mods, we would like to hear your opinion so we can get this tag removed and start expanding a bit more on the article! Thanks! Editinghurts (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no outside indications of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elfwood. Vulture19 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ah, after a second thought, it's better to close this and continue discussion elsewhere... Tone 22:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiron.net

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

This article fails WP:WEB. There are no awards and the last ref is a blog post. The first two refs are " (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or " which is an exception to #1 for notability of WP:WEB because it does not provide an independant review but rather a summary. The refs also do not support the sentences they are inline with. Even the 2 year old Hebrew version of the page cites the actual website and the company that owns it. There arn't even independant refs there. TParis00ap (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Possibly notable, however, few neutral references, if any. IShadowed ✰ 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Delete. it's notable in israel and hebrew websites. Mikimik (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That notability is not properly supported by the refs. Right now your reason is WP:ILIKEIT. The creator just added some more refs though so I'll look through those as well.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, now that notability IS properly supported by the refs. Tell me when to stop adding more of them. Thanks for caring. Eddau (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted those changes because the refs added did not even mention the subject. If you can find refs that cover the subject, please do. ~~English Wikipedia does not work the same as Herbrew Wikipedia.~~ Our articles must be verified with reliable sources that significantly cover the subject and demonstrate it's notability. Otherwise it is original research if you simply say the subject is notable. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they do. They all do. On some of them it is even the main topic. Are you sure you read any Hebew (בְּלִי נִיקוּד)? Eddau (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense at your claim here. You know nothing of the Hebrew wikipedia and its dealings, and yet you patronize and belittle it. In reality, our notability standards are significantly stricter than the English wikipedia, and we take pride in that. okedem (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you taken a look at the Shiron.net article on the Hebrew Wikipedia? There are no sources other than primary sources.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I can find hundreds of thousands of such source-less articles here in English Wikipedia. Don't assume what you see in a single article reflects the general standards of the entire Wikipedia. okedem (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, sorry then.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. okedem (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - what is the Hebrew for this website? The article claims 'שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט' but Eddau claims 'בְּלִי נִיקוּד' - clearly different characters. Giant Snowman 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט means Shiro according to Google translate.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
בְּלִי נִיקוּד means something about Hebrew writing technique. It means that in place of שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט you should write שירונט. Now copy the word שירונט, get to any of the ref I put, press Ctrl+F, and look for this word.

The meaning of the word שִירוֹ‏נֶ‏ט is shiron (lyric book)+ net. It is read "shironet". Thank you. Eddau (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word ניקוד means 'Niqqud', a term in Hebrew diacritics. (The hebrew bible, for instance, is written with Niqqud. The web texts are written without one, in usual). As Eddau said, try to search the word שירונט and not שִירוֹ‏נֵ‏ט. Danny-w (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, on the ref http://www.nrg.co.il/online/10/ART1/047/978.html, the word שירונט appears on the first line of the subtitle, in double quotes. On the ref http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3256121,00.html that word is underlined on the first line of the first paragraph. I hope you find it now. Thank you. Eddau (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Shiron" is the Hebrew word for "Songs". When Google Translate sees "Shiron" in Hebrew characters, it translates it to "Songs". Hence the confusion. Both references refer to the website in question. I make no comment on relevancy, etc. at this time. Singularity42 (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a useful lesson about why computer translation programs should not be used when trying to look up proper nouns and titles (such as the name of a website). They treat all nouns as common nouns, and make a literal translation. Singularity42 (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete as Miki advised, one of the 1st line web sites in the Hebrew lyrics field Damzow (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete Important site in Israeli culture. חובבשירה (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete The most important website for hebrew lyrics. Was founded a long time ago (don't remember exactly when, but many years), and contains a huge list of lyrics for hebrew songs of many kinds (from the 1930s till today, various styles, holidays songs, children songs, etc.). A well known source for Hebrew lyrics, with a special method of keeping the copyrights of the lyrics. טוסברהינדי (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Delete A leading site. Deror (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The above four !votes are WP:ILIKEIT. Can you support your reasons with policy?--TParis00ap (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! They did not say that they simply like the article. Eddau (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen I nominated it for Speedy Deletion in the first place, and I feel that it still doesn't meet the requirements for notability; specifically it fails WP:WEB whichever way you look at it. The fact that it has a page on the Hebrew-language wikipedia is irrelevant - it could be notable on he.wikipedia (debatable) without being notable here. Furthermore, it has no English language references (see Wikipedia:Foreign_sources#Non-English_sources), making it unverifiable to a non-Hebrew reader AND bringing into doubt its notability in English (see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence). Shem (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maariv and Ynet are very reliable sources. Eddau (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing their reliability - I'm disputing the fact that their reliability cannot be determined by an English-speaking editor. They would be relevant on the he.wikipedia article, but are not useful here. If you can't find English-language references at all, it is a good indication of a lack of notability on en.wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence. How would it be if I introduced a couple of Russian-language references here that stated categorically that Shiron.net was not notable? Shem (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what is on this page seems to be Wikipedia:ILIKEIT#Wikipedias_in_other_languages. I'm yet to hear any evidence that this foreign-language website is in any way notable on en.wikipedia.Shem (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! You are also blaming all Hebrew speakers as having a conflict of interest when discussing an article about Hebrew lyric site. You did not hear any evidence because you blocked your ears.Eddau (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly not accusing anyone of a conflict of interest. Please assume good faith. Shem (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Delete See the following google translation of an article from haaretz, January 2008 (the Hebrew original can be seen here). on the 17th paragraph you can read the sentence "Jade turned to Idan Tal, CEO of Songs, Great music site in Israel (25 thousand songs), and asked him permission to make links from the site of his poems of Jonathan Bshiront". The proper translation should be "Paz turned to Idan Tal, CEO of Shironet, Israel's largest music site (25 thousand songs), and asked his permission to make links from his site to Jonathan's poems on Shironet". (my emphasis). Further on along the text there are more references to Shironet (in some cases mistakenly translated to "Songs" or "shiront") as a major source of Hebrew song lyrics. Please show more trust to the Hebrew speakers that responded above and their credibility. Amnon s (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about not having faith in the Hebrew speakers. It is about verifying newly created articles. Every article creator is going to claim notability in thier subject whether they speak Hebrew or any language. Once Singularity stepped in, I saw the mistake of Google translations. Also, most of the opposes have been "This is a major site" rather than "This site's notability is supported by this, that, and these things." Although it seems Eddau has done a good job finding additional sources.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This article easily meets WP:WEB. It is discussed extensively and mentioned frequently in national newspapers in Israel. [6] Shironet is also included in contemporary Hebrew nonfiction books. [7] gidonb (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Now that I have had a chance to review all the references, I believe there is enough coverage by multiple, reliable sources to say that this website appears to be notable. However, my !vote is "weak", because I would have preferred sources that were directly about the website, rather than about a subject/event that the website is involved with. I'm sure they exist, and I would ask those familiar with the website to add those references. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the comments above:

The fact that it is on the Hebrew Wikipedia is indeed irrelevant to this discussion. Notablity cannot be inferred from other Wikipedias. In this case, my !vote is based on the references provided, not the Hebrew Wikipedia.
English language references are specifically not required. As per WP:NONENG: "However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." I would note that if this article is kept, the references section be cleaned up with footnotes that translate the relevant content into English, in order to allow verifying for English-speaking readers. However, just because that has not been done yet is not a good enough reason to delete the article. I would suggest that English translations of the article titles be used in the reference section, not the original Hebrew ones.
Notability is notablity. Although this is an English Wikipedia, it has articles on subjects that are not notable in English-language cultures. It is a global encyclopedia, that happens to be in the English language. If this website is notable in Israeli culture, then it is notable. Period. Singularity42 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking a at the greater Wikipedia picture, coverage of the Middle East suffers from a huge bias in the direction of conflict and violence. While these are part of life in the Middle East and should never be hidden, people also live in the Middle East, listen to music, read books, follow their idols, attend events, take joy in their families, in culture, and sports, to name just a few. It would be sad if our article about this website that easily meets WP:WEB and is used by so many people every day, without any connection to the conflicts and violence, gets deleted. It would only increase our bias. gidonb (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - a very well known website. The given sources in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Alexa gives good results. Broccoli (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put to much trust into the afore mentioned Alexa results. Especially when compared to lyrics.net's results. And, as you can see, there is no Article for lyrics.net. Alexa by itself is no indication of WP:Notability. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 23:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was already proven that there are references supporting the importance of the website reported in article for people who like Hebrew lyrics. So actually, if we keep on this discussion, we discuss the notability of all the articles dealing with Israeli culture.

I am not trying to tease anyone. Let’s really discuss whether a large encyclopedia, written in the international language should have articles about the culture of a state that in many other aspects is important. Should we write here only about subjects related to Israel that have a chance to help anyone, all over the world to design posters for demonstration, to plan a holiday in the Mediterranean, and to check linguistic issues in holy scripts? Or should we try to write things that that are important to those who want to know about other cultures just out of curiosity? What kind of subjects should be covered in an encyclopedia on a language that maximum 13 million out of the 7 billion people on earth speak, but should not be mentioned, even in short, on an international encyclopedia?

And how objective is it to write so many articles about some subjects related to the Middle East and delete all other articles related to it? Will it make Wikipedia a tourist souvenir shop like website?Eddau (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion might be better suited for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel. If you start it there and invite me, I'll be happy to participate.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tone had restarted it. I could do without this discussion.Eddau (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would close in favor of keeping and I agree that consensus was reached to keep. I dont see a need to relist.--v/r - T P 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too. That’s way when I found Tone disagrees with it, I had to start asking more fundamental questions, I’m trying to understand Tone’s point of view.Eddau (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected by nominator (non-admin closure by Intelligentsium at 00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nampally Railway Station

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

There already exists an article Hyderabad Deccan Station. Nampally Railway Station is officially called Hyderabad Deccan Station. So these two represent the same article. I request the deletion of the article Nampally Railway station as this article was created after the creation of the article Hyderabad Deccan Station. world8115 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Redirect Nampally Railway Station to Hyderabad Deccan Station. IShadowed ✰ 21:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyderabad Deccan Station and be done with it, the article exists and this is a legitimate alternate name/search string. -SpacemanSpiff 06:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per IShadowed and SpacemanSpiff. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep

Cullen Harper

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

Non-notable player who never even signed with a professional team. Fails WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Harper was a very notable two-year starting quarterback at Clemson. Media coverage from that time has to make him pass general notability guidelines.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources listed here (if you can't access the link tell me and I'll copy-paste some of the info).--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't access it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here you go: 1) College football SUNDAY: Late bloomer Cullen Harper has waited a long time to show what he can do at quarterback, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The (GA) - May 13, 2007 2) STATS OR STATUES?, BC'S MATT RYAN IS A HEISMAN CANDIDATE, BUT IS CLEMSON QB CULLEN HARPER HAVING THE BETTER SEASON?, State, The (Columbia, SC) - November 14, 2007 3) Fighting through difficult season QB Harper showing his toughness despite not living up to expectations, Anderson Independent-Mail (SC) - November 13, 2008 4) Harper for Heisman? Junior quarterback playing like candidate, Daily Journal-Messenger (Seneca, SC) - September 11, 2007 5) LOOKING TO MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF, QUARTERBACK HELD OFF TOP RECRUIT TO GET JOB, Charlotte Observer, The (NC) - September 29, 2007 6) College Football 2007: Cullen Harper ready for the spotlight, Anderson Independent-Mail (SC) - August 27, 2007 7) A bond in trust Friendship has Harper, Kelly off to a good start, Daily Journal-Messenger (Seneca, SC) - September 28, 2007 8) HARPER'S TIME With Will Proctor gone and Willy Korn not ready, junior QB Cullen Harper is the man in the spotlight, Post and Courier, The (Charleston, SC) - August 19, 2007 9) HARPER GETTING JOB DONE, CULLEN'S REVIVAL: CLEMSON QB HEALTHY; IMPROVED FOR SWINNEY, Herald-Journal (Spartanburg, SC) - November 7, 2008 10) Getting passing grades Sequoyah senior Cullen Harper has matured into a highly recruited quarterback, Cherokee Tribune (Canton, GA) - June 27, 2003 11) Harper is quietly saving his season, Post and Courier, The (Charleston, SC) - November 22, 2008 - and there's more.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Planets

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

Unremarkable video game. The article is almost a month old and no assertions of notability have been made. Airplaneman ^talk 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Airplaneman ^talk 03:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the article; we are talking about a Facebook game with almost 2 million users and almost 50,000 people who consider themselves "fans." [8] It's nothing compared to games like Mafia Wars, but we have articles on far less known subjects. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Facebook has zillions of games and applications. Most of them, such as this one, are not notable. The standard for inclusion at Wikipedia is substantial coverage in reliable sources, no matter how many people like it. Reyk _YO! 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are directing the WP:ILIKEIT link at me, your claim is invalid as I'm not saying I like it (I'd never heard of it until this discussion), nor am I saying that all of the app's 2 million users like it; I am saying that the app has 2 million users. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reyk. LotLE×talk 09:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of importance and is not notable. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is made by one of the largest Facebook game makers (who is now a studio owned by EA) with millions of players. The only mark against it was its information was not helpful or detailed and substantial improvement and detail has been added to the article. WildElf (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My vote still stands as keep (I'm an inclusionist), but I must point out that the game's maker does not make the game notable, kind of like how graduating from Harvard University or another notable institution does not, in itself, make one worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it lacks coverage by a vast amount of reliable secondary sources that prove its notability. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that the consensus here is delete. In my opinion, we should merge any useful content into Playfish rather than delete it entirely. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles are fairly in-depth: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Several trivial mentions in the news: [13], [14]. A trivial mention in an academic paper: [15]. There's also a ranking by "Casual Continent" (whoever they are) that places them in the top 10, as well as this one by "Inside Facebook". More links: The Vancouver Sun (Reuters?), Worlds in Motion (also on Gamasutra), The Independent, boingboing (is it a blog?), GamesRadar. SharkD Talk 04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like PCHS-NJROTC's idea of merging in to Playfish, along with the possible sources listed in the above post by SharkD. Airplaneman ^talk 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources identified by SharkD which I think are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to allow for further analysis of the sources provided by SharkD. NW (Talk) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This game is not popular enough there are other Playfish games that are more popular than Crazy Planets and they do not have their own article so why should Crazy Planets? JDOG555 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and Keep. Article needs slight cleanup and expansion, however, I find this article meets notability guidelines. IShadowed ✰ 21:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as usual, SharkD has found some great sources; 1Up is of course fine; Inside Social Games is a blog, but I believe Justin Smith qualifies for the exception given at WP:SPS. Marasmusine (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - Great argument has been presented by WildElf for Merge. The fact that it was made by a Notable GameHouse does not make the game notable. Is everything Playfish or EA does notable, no. The only information presented is a How to game guide. Trim the How-To and up-merge to Playfish, if you must, but it still turns out as a delete once the How-To is gone, because there will be nothing left. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've stripped out the gamecruft, and made a start on implementing the sources linked-to above. Better? Marasmusine (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks like a great candidate for merge, now there is absolutly no assertion of Notability. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly don't think that a full review by a major gaming website contributes at all towards notability?! Marasmusine (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just like a Movie review does not count towards the Notability of a movie, nor a book review count towards a books Notability. Paid Reviews of things are, of themselves, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Would a concert review make a band/group Notable, or even the event itself? Not a chance. The Subject of the Article must be Notable, in and of itself. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious - if you don't consider this kind of media coverage to be notability (though it exactly matches our general notability guideline), what kind of thing would you like to see to justify a seperate article? Marasmusine (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer the question your really driving at. IMHO Reviews are a Primary sources. specifically, I am referring to "observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments". How, in your opinion, does a review exactly match the GNG? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By being significant coverage (i.e. critical analysis lasting for at least a few paragraphs) in a reliable publication (magazines / websites with an editorial process) independent of the subject (not by the developer or publisher of the game; not a press release). These are not primary sources: Video games are not experiments, but if one was to use that analogy, reviewers are not part of the design or publication process of the game. Look a little further down in WP:PRIMARY and you'll see that the description of "secondary sources" is spot on. I admit I've never seen your interpretation of this before! Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a critical analysis ... hmmm. That's the question though, What type of review was it? This is an OLD argument, and one that has no consensus either way. In my opinion, Reviews by themselves don't count towards the WP:N of anything. fin. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it appears to be somewhat notable, however, the game guide stuff has to go. Mercilessly cut down on all the "you start with an x" and just paraphrase the entire thing; keep only what is relevant for WP and can be referenced. SMC (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - in my opinion, there is not enough significant third party, coverage to merit notability under WP:WEB. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article consists of 90% gamecruft, which has been re-inserted despite attempts to clean it up. SpinningSpark 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion is not an issue, after reading this debate. Could be renamed/merged/reworked or else but this can be disussed at the talkpage. Tone 23:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 White House gatecrash incident

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

This AFD is being ~~closed~~ (was closed but reopened by administrator Sarek of Vulcan) by the nominator as "Withdrawn". Someone said that I should only nominate something if I want it deleted. I am more interested in discussion, so the talk page might have been a better place to discuss. Sorry. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) This is can be covered in the Presidency of Barack Obama article. It should not be deleted if later the incident blows up into a terrorist plot, payroll checks issued by Osama bin Laden to the Salahis, shortwave radios in the Salahis basement purchased from the same lot as Osama bought, etc. Other information can be mentioned in the Salahis biographical article since it seems that they are becoming more famous than other Wikipedia biographies (such as Zoey Zane and Tim McLean) (What we really need is a comprehensive conference about what we want in Wikipedia. But, for the time being, this event is much less important than many other Presidential events covered in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, many of which do not have separate articles). [reply]

~~Also, sorry for my bad English. Others may translate below, if needed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep and expand: There have been more details that have surfaced about this incident, and a criminal investigation is underway. Sources:
- Horowitz, Jason; Roberts, Roxanne; Shear, Michael D. (November 28, 2009). "Secret Service apologizes for ticketless couple's access". The Washington Post.
- Vanden Brook, Tom (November 27, 2009). "State dinner crashers could face criminal charges". USA Today.
- "White House crashers named in 16 civil suits". CNN. November 26, 2009.

Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3rd source seems to support an article on the Salahis, not this article. But it is a conflicting set of rules in Wikipedia so I am not a diehard, must delete this article, person. I suspect the criminal investigation is just some Secret Service men who are afraid of getting fired and want to shift the blame to the Salahis. What there really needs to be is a comprehensive discussion about the M. Salahi, T. Salahi, 2009 gatecrash, and Presidency of Barack Obama articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Certainly, the community will come up with a less awkward title, and perhaps it can be part of another article, but making it a section of Presidency of Barack Obama is not the right approach. I appreciate that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. The usual outcome of these is that there will be a flood of "Keep" votes and a similar number of "Delete" votes, and well-thought out arguments and soul-searching and an exchange between two or more people filled with snide comments and calls for civility. After which we still won't know whether a tree falling in the forest makes a noise if nobody is around to hear it, and it will close as no consensus. Mandsford (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Not every security lapse regarding a head of state needs permanent coverage in encyclopedias. In brief: NOTHING HAPPENED except two celebutants wormed their way into a receiving line in a supposedly secure facility. Edison (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per User:Mandsford. Gage (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:NOTNEWS is there to prevent us from becoming a tabloid, not to prevent us from covering items in the news that are encyclopedic, and this event is certainly one for the metaphorical books. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable in the sense of WP:N, and the person's biographies should rather be merged in the article about the event per WP:BLP1E, which is the growing consensus at the two AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaele Salahi. I appreciate that WP:NOTNEWS can be a mitigating factor for Wikipedia-notability, but in this case the news coverage in neither 'routine' nor ephemeral. We evidently cannot evaluate the historical significance (as imprecise as it can be) at present - as for any recent event, which is why it's not explicitly requested for notability - but there are hints for a relative significance - as it questions the White House/US president security and efficiency of the secret services. Cenarium (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be co-listed with the two perpetrators? How can we have a constructive discussion on its coverage if we rigidly stick to the convention of listing separately? People will simply repeat their generic arguments three times, resulting in three sets of heated arguments, three no consensuses, three highly overlapping articles, the possible permanent loss of good contributors unhappy with wikipedia's approach to recentism, and a total of around 300KB of fruitless discussion. Instead we should consolidate the discussion, and attempt to reach consensus on how we should cover the incident as a whole. WFCforLife (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If not, merge some of the content to The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. and Presidency of Barack Obama. I made this same vote for the proposed AFDs at Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi. What a mess this one is going to be... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is an unnecessary article. The The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. article already covers it in depth. We cannot have articles duplicating each other. Tovojolo (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why should The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. cover this completely unrelated subject? The show is completely unaffiliated. Gage (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask that question on the Talk Page of The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. article. There is no need for this article when that article exists. Tovojolo (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information doesn't belong in the article in the first place. Merging this article, or deleting it entirely in favor of covering the event in the The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C. article is complete and utter nonsense. Gage (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles currently exist covering the Salahis, who are noteworthy for a variety of reasons. This article should go away in favor of those articles. // Internet Esquire (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See White_House_intruders if you doubt this sort of thing has lasting notability. It will be a footnote, to be sure, but there's no reason why Wikipedia can't cover historical footnotes as long as there's sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Regarding the bios, it's better to have an article about the event due to WP:BLP1E. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can revisit once the notability of the consequences have become clear.Cmholm (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders. I'm trying to apply the principles in the proposal WP:EVENT. For depth of coverage, the news coverage has gone beyond merely reporting the facts of the event as we're seeing analysis of their motives[16] and suggestions that they may face criminal charges.[17] For duration of coverage, it's held up 5 days after the event! It's likely to hold up better than the 'Barack Obama fly swatting incident', as it was an event with more real world consequences, but we can't predict what the media will do with it. Geographical scope: there's global coverage. Diversity of sources: tons, very diverse. Lasting effects: hard to say but probably nil, changes to protocols or laws on the basis of this event are unlikely. Routine coverage: not really the case. The reporting has touches of 'And Finally' to it, but the coverage goes well beyond that. I'd say this event is highly unlikely to have historical notability, and that the duration of coverage and lasting effect will probably be minimal, but we'd have been better able to judge this in a week or two. I'd suggest trimming all the biographical material, which is of little relevance to the event, and merging to White House intruders. Fences&Windows 16:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders per Fences. Changing my vote from keep to what I think is a more sensible compromise. Mandsford (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial and long-lasting coverage satisfies notability requirements. --Pink Bull 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable incident covered in multiple reliable sources. This article's topic is clearly not excluded by WP:NOTNEWS, which, in relevant part, says that "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." As for merging this, I believe it's better to let it develop as a separate topic while the story is developing and then reevaluate whether it should stand alone after the dust has settled, rather than to squash it into White House intruders now. The obvious effect of such a merger would be to make the current contents of the intruders article (just a short list) a mere hat note to the inevitably expanding content about this incident, which is being commented on extensively in the media. It should also be taken into account that there are currently AFDs on the individual Salahi articles, in which many contributors are requesting that those bios be merged to an article on the incident or using the incident article as justification for why the bios are unnecessary. We shouldn't predicate the deletion of two articles on the maintenance of another one, only to delete that one as well. The three articles should have been discussed in one AFD. Perhaps all three AFDs should be closed procedurally for a new, group consideration? postdlf (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provisionally while the other AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaele Salahi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tareq Salahi) take place, as it's quite likely they could end with results of 'Merge into this article'. In the longer term, this looks to me like a case of WP:NOTNEWS, and I'd support a Merge (by which I basically mean 'redirect') into White House intruders. Robofish (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this event has exposed the insecurity around the White House, contrary to popular belief, and has already contributed to reactions by the Secret Service. As a matter of fact, the couple who crashed the event could be prosecuted (see [18] and [19]) --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, merge to White House intruders. The perspective of time will eventually result in this, no doubt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a high profile incident that is the subject of several in-depth investigations by some major media organizations. Appears to be a major event within the Secret Service.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders. On its own, it falls into WP:NOTNEWS. But in a broader view of intruders at the White House, the subject fits in perfectly. Warrah (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand: per 67.187.92.105 and Scooteristi--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mege to White House intruders per Fences and windows. 71.105.242.242 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Postdlf, Cenarium, Mandsford. All the possible merge targets would deeply reduce the coverage of an incident well reported by RS. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply, this is not routine coverage but an event with international resonance. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard NOTNEWS issue. No objection to mergers per Good Olfactory and others. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Salahis into this article. The event is notable. Aside from this incident, they are not, per WP:BLP1E. WFCforLife (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable incident covered in multiple reliable sources. We can provide readers a high-quality encyclopedia article on this topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Multiple users have invoked WP:NOTNEWS without a clear explanation as to why they think that applies. It obviously does not provide for the deletion of all topics just because they are recent and covered in the news. Rather, it singles out trivial items that are the subject of "routine coverage" in the news, which clearly does not apply here. Beyond that, NOTNEWS just broadly states that a subject's coverage in the news does not automatically merit coverage in Wikipedia. It does not state that subjects covered in the news cannot be covered in Wikipedia, nor does it provide criteria for evaluating when news stories are notable. So I'm failing to see how NOTNEWS is a valid and relevant argument here, at least without elaboration. Anyone care to explain? postdlf (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important event of US Presidential Administration. Change the title, tho... it's a bit awkward. 5minutes (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge the articles for Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi into this one. This has been an important event of US President Obama's Administration, and will likely have an impact on the Secret Service, but separate articles violate WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely sufficient reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:N. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders. --Tocino 20:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons mentioned by the last two to say "Keep". If you don't keep it, the information should go somewhere.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge This is not a major event of the administration, it is a simple crashing of the party. At the least Michaele Salahi and Tareq Salahi should be merged here. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the White House intruders article, as argued previously. And under no circumstances should either of these two horribly vulgar people have their own Wiki article. Seduisant (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't an argument, just because they are jackasses does not mean that they shouldn't have a wiki article. Plus this article isn't even about them, it is about their intrusion and the Secret Service's failure.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now at least. I don't think creation of the article was necessarily advisable, but the AfD was even less so (this to me is a key idea found in the subsection WP:BREAKING of the proposed WP:EVENT guideline, and I think we need to start stressing this point heavily in AfDs and on article talk pages—i.e. wait awhile before creating a newsy article but don't then rush to AfD if one is created). Although it's hard to tell in the rush of events it seems to me that this incident has garnered sufficient coverage to warrant an article—i.e. it's passed the notability bar. A merge to a larger article could also be a good route to go, but in my view White House intruders is simply not an appropriate merge target. If editors want to argue that we should turn this into a redirect to that page that's one thing, but most above are arguing for a merge and right now that probably won't work. The WH intruders article is basically a list, and if we were to merge even a paragraph's worth of content from this incident the target article would develop WP:UNDUE problems (since none of the other incidents are discussed in detail). But if the incidents in White House intruders were fleshed out more a merge would probably be a good idea. Regardless any issues with this article can and should be decided by editing rather than outright deletion, and it's not necessary for us to figure out issues relating to merging and the like here. Additionally I believe the two articles on the Salahi's should be redirected to this article with any useful content merged (again at least for now—if they become more notable in the future we could split content off again). Finally it's unfortunate we are not considering all three articles together, and it might be advisable for one admin to close all three at once and give consideration to all of the arguments on all three of these AfDs as though they came from one central AfD. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't agree more with Bigtimepeace's last point; whoever considers this AFD should also be the one to consider the other two. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 06:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think this is a standalone incident. The incident has a unique identity. It may relate to other subjects or incidents, but only imperfectly. The fashion flair involved is startling. Bus stop (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If this were simply a case where intruders were caught and ejected, it would be a one-incident story not worth a separate article. But in this case, what merits a separate article is that the security system failed. So there is a Secret Service internal review going on, and Congressional concerns, and lots of questions about how it happened - in short, there will certainly be thousands more newspaper articles, covering new material, and the whole matter cannot be summarized in a paragraph or three as part of a large article somewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reductio ad absurdum of the deletionist position. This story has been in the news for days, is the subject of a major Secret Service investigation, and will reportedly be the subject of a Congressional hearing. Deleting it because we don't approve of publicity whoring would be the worst kind of POV editing. Binarybits (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements. Plenty of reliable sources are available. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like an important story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→
Keep - meets requirements of multiple reliable source coverage. Also led Secret Service to briefly investigate their own practices. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Binarybits, as stupid as this whole thing is, it passes through Wikipedia guidelines for notability and several sources, and is not a one event (i.e., Secret Services investigation, Congress is calling for people to testify, email records, saftey practices and protocols.). - Epson291 (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and consider revisiting the policy to try to delete the encyclopedia article about every high profile news item. It makes Wikipedia appear to be run by lunatics in my opinion. About half the time I come to get an encyclopedic account of an extremely notable news item I feel like I run into one of these discussions. Don't you understand it's a very big blemish for your site because the people coming here 1) know what Wikipedia is and 2) are looking for an encyclopedic account of the story in the news. In other words, your readers want this content yet you are trying to delete it? That's actually kind of insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.174.122 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that there are a lot of people who use Wikipedia like it were the Wikinews shouldn't influence our policy. It's still an encyclopedia that we are trying to write.Maziotis (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the event is certainly notable event. Certainly readers want an encyclopedic account of the story. It's being investiagated currently by the secret service. I'm not even going to comment on the huge mainstream media coverage it has received.VR _talk 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia. And this certainly isn't a showbiz blog. This is not even major news outside the USA, compared with more important events which don't have their own articles (because they didn't happen in the USA, presumably). Rapido (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But merge the biographies of the alleged crashers into this article. 71.62.125.23 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep and merging in biographies per WP:BLP1E and possibly low-profile individuals. WP shouldn't be contributing to the individuals' notability; however, crashing the White House is a big security breach that is worth retaining. A rewrite of the crashers' identities may be appropriate as well. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I personally think this event is getting way more attention than it deserves, nine days after it happened Google News still lists 8,500 articles related to it and keeps it in its top three stories. That does make it significant in its own right. Ertdredge (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Not News. Totally agree with Edison. Nothing of real importance happened. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- This should be treated like any other article on a particular current event. The Salahis themselves are of less than zero importance, and the article(s) about them should be deleted. But this incident bespeaks serious lapses in White House security, which (regardless of one's views of the current president) is essential to the security of the United States.Daqu (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's become so huge by now that it really ought to be kept. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable, tons of press coverage. Everyking (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --24.178.236.24 (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of Merging to White House intruders. Maybe in six months it will be the obvious choice. Abductive (reasoning) 05:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 4.248.216.247 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insipid tabloid idiocy, to put it mildly. The epitome of WP:NOTNEWS. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to White House intruders and Sahali articles, per established practice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. No notable aftermath, so NOTNEWS otherwise. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they didn't attempt to assassinate anybody. It was just another publicity stunt for Reality TV. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:NOTNEWS, with no large aftermath; a single news blip that quickly faded is exactly what NOTNEWS is for. Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Possibly merge with White House intruders Crafty (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to disagree with the NOTNEWS comments. Aside from the coverage that's come out of this, it's also apparently led (or is leading to) congressional hearings (as well as personnel actions being taken by the secret service). While I would agree that the congressional hearings are probably not going to yield anything ground-breaking (and may very well be a waste of time for all involved), it does make it somewhat hard to argue that this is a single news blip. While it may have been an unwise publicity stunt, I'd argue that if an event leads to sustained media coverage and congressional hearings, it's notable. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Tareq and Michaele Salahi, and merge their individual pages (and delete them) into this article as well. Make reference in White house intruders, Presidency of Barack Obama and [[The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C.. The couple is notorious for antics more than just crashing the White House party, and there may be even more antics to come. However, they are notable only as a couple and in the actions taken by the couple, not as individuals. They are kind of like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in this way. (Of course, I don't mean to imply that the Sahalis are communist terrorists, as the Rosenbergs were accused!) Me Three (talk to me) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because has all sorts of political implications and repercussions previous crashings did not have and getting far more coverage. Couple years down road if seen in another perspective, can change. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly highly notable and well-sourced. It's unlikely to disappear from the radar for a long time, if ever. Crum375 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be on the radar for ever? It will be this century's equivalent of A Stupendous Leg of Granite, Discovered Standing by Itself in the Deserts of Egypt? Blimey! -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please merge or delete. Let's try and be a little more adult than 24 hour cable news. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, Protonk, careful! Millions of right-thinking people appear to be under the impression that 24 hour cable news is the best news there is; and if you ask for something a little more adult, you're likely to be served the same thing with more cleavage. (Me, I get my high-impact teevee news from the Onion News Network.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then at least it would be entertaining. :) Protonk (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much as I dislike giving these people publicity and dislike even more that the media goes crazy over things like this, it's clearly a notable and important event. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down, merge bits of, and redirect the article on each half of the pair of gatecrashing nobodies into this article and keep the result; after all, it's on a non-event that made Wonkette. Obviously it's utterly unnotable and trivial, and as such it has loads of "notability" as the term has been redefined by Wikipedia and is just the kind of thing for which this work of reference continues to win the love and respect of millions. -- Hoary (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:V, WP:N, and can certainly be edited to pass WP:NPOV. Story of interest around the world that continues to receive enormous coverage and is now spilling over to widespread discussion of Executive Privilege, Separation of Power, and Presidential and Diplomatic Security. Any scholarly reader would expect a resource such as Wikipedia to include an article on this subject, and this article is useful, interesting and likely to expand. Everything we want here. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cavalier Air Force Station. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PARCS (radar)

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

Very little links to it, badly rewritten and entirely unsourced. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Possibly notable, but unsourced and few internal links. IShadowed ✰ 21:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This google search produced a few hits, some of which might be able to be used as sources if someone was keen to try to improve the article. Some of them are just wiki pages, but others might be useable. Neutral on keep or delete. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject of the article appears to have sufficient coverage to meet notability. That being said, the article needs great improvement, least it be merged into Cavalier Air Force Station. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CAFS until there's enough content for a separate article - no prejudice on recreation when it's expanded. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cavalier Air Force Station but not delete. Materialscientist (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @137 · 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi this week

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

No sources can be found on the internet, and the description doesn't make it sound as if this magazine is notable. Pantherskin (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article never asserts notability for its subject. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything either DRosin (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @137 · 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curmudgeon

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

With the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon myself, this article is little more than a WP:DICTDEF and list of people to whom this characterization is attributed, largely without references, so a it's an obvious WP:BLP issue. Pcap ping 17:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I agree that the article as it stands fails to qualify under both of the criteria cited above. However, I believe the article could be saved with rewriting, adding more information and links, along the lines of the final paragraph.

I doubt that. I could cite a source saying that Lou Dobbs is a curmudgeon (Jon Stewart in The Daily Show), but that kind of info is going to have serious POV issues even if sourced. Pcap ping 18:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, you can't say anything about curmudgeons, all you can do is make a list of so-called curmudgeons. Polarpanda (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition is already covered at Wiktionary. The WP:OR list tacked on the end doesn't make this an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't got any better since mid 2008 when it was created to replace a redirect to a Nirvana album,[20] and it never will. It's just a word, not a concept or topic. Fences&Windows 21:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnkaSearch

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

Promotion for non-notable software product; article by SPA. I was unable to find any significant third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I see a number of sites that allow download of this software, I do not see any coverage of this software or anything else signifying notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Gosling

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

inadequately sourced BLP that unfortunately does not meet CSD but is sourced to unreliable information and is superficial in any event. The research cited appears to be her undergradulate thesis. fails multiple policies and does not meet inclusion criteria Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to meet either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR Nancy ^talk 17:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – references all seem to be from Oregon University and Oregon State University websites for undergraduate work, not meeting WP:PROF (hence my original speedy tag). Author seems likely to be subject of the article, article seems to be a vanity page. Gilo ö 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's apparently just an undergraduate student (not a "veterinary student" as the article states, although veterinary medicine may be her ultimate career goal). As for being a "published author", I think that's not even her undergraduate thesis. It seems to be more along the lines of a term paper; it's from "A Collection of Undergraduate Essays Written for Courses in the Program in Comparative Literature", but she is a biology major. Bottom line, she is not anywhere close to notable yet. However, I would encourage her to study hard and publish some real research, and she might qualify later. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she may be a very bright student who will go on to do great things. Then would be the time for an article, and not now. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:PROF; its creation also appears to be a Conflict of interest: note that the article's creator is User:Goslinga (A[llyson]. Gosling, methinks?). The "published author" bit is in a collection of undergraduate essays written for a comparative literature course--hardly notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-Force 2

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

I have been unsuccessful about finding anything about this supposed film sequel. If such a thing were going to be released next year, I think it would be easy to find something about it. As such, I conclude this is possibly a hoax, or (at best) non-notable. LadyofShalott 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to confirm a sequel is planned, much less coming out next year. Thus fails WP:NFF. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GeForce 2 Series, perhaps? Otherwise delete. Movies like this don't appear out of nowhere - if Disney was actually working on it, there would be plenty of information available. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 12:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxy DRosin (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3. This is a big hoax. December21st2012Freak (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HOAX. Just as with the tons of hoax movie articles that invariably are deleted. If it were coming out next year, there would be something out there. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Little Mountain 5 01:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Kirkpatrick

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

I propose delete. She is not notable, as much as her fans want her to be. Please note that I voted for her in the Fan Favourite poll as well, and I love her, but the sad fact that besides participating in a show watched by 4 million people (a tiny fraction of the US TV market), being on a show being lambasted as "thrash" and an "insult" to the modeling world, she has done nothing to be noted. I understand the winners getting pages but unless they do something great or are a reality TV first, (like Elyse, Toccara, Isis, Heather), we should delete it before more fan favourites start getting their own pages. ZephyrWind (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I indicated on the talk page, this article was at first an uncited stub that wasthe subject of an RFD discussion, where the result was delete. I started working on this page after that discussion, and I created a comprehensive, cited page that vastly improved on the old stub. I created the new pageonly after I ran it by the administrator who oversaw the old RFD, and he condoned the creation of the new page. This article should be kept for a number of reasons. It includes information from reliable, verifiable, secondary sources, satisfying WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. It also satisfies WP:Notability. She is the runner-up for the season, which alone almost makes her notable enough for an entry. However, in this case there are other things that make her notable. She won the fan favorite poll (run by the show, not a fansite). She has a continued modeling career after the series (as indicated by her offer from Bankable Productions). Her official blog is featured on the website of the Kentucky newspaper, The Advocate-Messenger, which makes her a writer with a state-wide and nation-wide platform. Couple that with the pre-show and post-show info already in the article, this satisfied WP:Notability and WP:Oneevent and more than solidifies that an article for Laura Kirkpatrick is appropriate. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nominator incomplete the article nomination. It is listed now. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think being the runner up, and winning the official fan-favourite competiton represents notability, and the page should grow if she had a modelling career, though I also think that if this page is deleted, several other Top Model contestant pages need to be seriously relooked at too. (Eg Bre Scullark, Kahlen Rondot, Allison Harvard, Celia Ammerman etc) (Kyleofark (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- For the record, I also made the Celia Ammerman page, and that article went through an AFD, where the result was keep. The same arguments I made there I would also apply here, except that I think Kirkpatrick is arguably more notable. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe I voted to keep the Celia article, and would still vote to keep it now.. Im just saying that if Laura is losing her article, then the likes of Celia, Bre, Allison, Kahlen, Samantha, Lisa D'Amato probably shouldnt have them either. I actually think wikipedia is no worse off having these articles at all. Its not like these girls were first out and vanished, they all did well in the competiton :) (Kyleofark (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    - I understand what you are saying, and I agree. As I stated at the Celia AFD, I would argue Wikipedia is better off, not worse off, for having them. This is a comprehensive, paperless encyclopedia, and if somebody wants to search for Celia Ammerman and Laura Kirkpatrick, we are all the better for having information on them. I feel I could invoke ignore all rules if I had to for that reason, although I don't think I do in this case, because I think notability is already established... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has gained some media attention (mostly local I know but still) and being voted as a fan favourite is a first ever, so I guess that's a notable feat. And by the way, Celia has been featured in some press work, Kahlen has been honored by Oklahoma State Senate and got her very own nude pic scandal, Bre has been on TMZ for an arrest andd hosted a show, Allison is a well known online artist and Lisa d'Amato has been on muliple shows and gossip sites, which kinda makes them de facto notable (just like Heather and Mercedes for their spokesperson work and Joanie, Kim and Toccara for their hosting duties or Cassandra and Yaya for their acting). I wouldn't mind seeing Samantha, Eugena and Chantal deleted though. I'm on the fence about Shannon, Fatima and Anya--Whadaheck (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes our notability criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The arguments seem fine to me. Let's keep it then. And as some others have said before me, I agree that Samantha and Chantal should actually be discussed for deletion as well. Shannon is fine since she is a pageant winner. ZephyrWind (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Samantha in particular is one that should be discussed. She left Top Model a year ago, and I havent heard a single word about her since. Maybe ive just stumbled accross her more often than I should, but ive seen a lot more of Chantal than many other contestants, though that could just be randomly lucky. But then, thats not for here :) (90.210.242.223 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep User:Hunter Kahn thinks that is right. Does meet notability guidelines. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "Hunter Kahn thinks that is right." — Hunter Kahn _(c) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Let's remove the AFD tag soon. ZephyrWind (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ZephyrWind reversed herself, so the AFD should be withdrawn.

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diactic

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

A neologism coined by one Teruaki Georges Sumioka, a name that I'd not heard of till minutes ago, but apparently a theorist who's also donated "Spiral Up Structure" to the long-suffering English language, and probably "Action line" too. "Diactic" is clearly the distillation of some very Deep Thought indeed, and perhaps my inability to make head or tail of it merely reflects my inexcusable lack of a PhD in Continental Philosophy. On the other hand, it's just possible that it's mere obscurantism. (Not that my reason for nomination is that I don't like it, mind you. Far from it: I'm entranced by its aroma.) Now, "diactic" does manage to get a small number of ghits, but they're not obviously related and they often seem to be mere typos for "didactic". T. G. Sumioka is welcome to coin as many words and phrases as he wishes, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary of hopeful neologisms. And because these neologisms are failed or unused, there's no point redirecting the articles on them.

I am also nominating the following related pages because what's written above applies to them too:

(I also wonder when the redlink to Sumioka's "T Grand Structure" within the labored article "Implied author" will turn blue.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC) .... slightly reworded Hoary (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom --Brunnian (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even making allowances for translation, it is hard to perceive even nuggets of encyclopaedic content in these articles. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here that the third party coverage establishes the notability of this topic. Closing without prejudice against a merge. Skomorokh 07:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Henry Curtiss

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

Not notable, no coverage except upon the death of her two husbands and her own brief obit. Seems to have received only known media articles because she was wife of well known New York figure, August Hecksher. However, notability is not gained by marriage or relationship, per WP:BIO. There was no media coverage apart from these death-related Times articles, nothing upon which to build an article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a stub, and non notable as above. Basically clutter. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Keep When your obituary is in the New York Times, you are notable by Wikipedia standards. The nominator wrote: "no coverage except upon the death of her two husbands" which is inaccurate, the first reference is her own obituary which describes her as a philanthropist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite wrong on a Times obituary being the arbiter of Wikipedia notability, because evidently the Times provided obits of the spouses of prominent people, and in Wikipedia one does not become notable on the basis of relationships. You are quite right that she had a Times obit, and I will correct. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires a claim of notability, which is philanthropist. And it requires reliable sources. Both are covered. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was the widow of a wealthy man many years her senior, and headed his foundation after her death. She received no coverage in reliable sources during her lifetime except when her husbands died. The sum total of the reliable sourcing are those brief Times articles. She doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BIO. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are engaging in original research when you determine why or why not the New York Times publishes an obituary and makes a claim of notability for any individual. All we can go by is that they did publish one, and made a claim of notability in it. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples of non-notable people with non-paid obituaries in the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject provided in the article establish notability. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. If the New York Times said she was notable, she is. Dream Focus 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia rule calls for any such thing. having a NYT obituary does not grant automatic WP article. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the references verify details of her life like birth and marriage, there needs to be significant coverage of her doing/contributing to something notable. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia rule calls for any such thing. Only significant coverage of her. The obituary already provides her claim to notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

again that is purely your opinion. AfDs attempt to obtain consensus on notability. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, once again, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and this isn't a vote. Wikipedia notability says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, one individual user is not the arbiter of notability on WP. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to yourself, yes, I agree. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no definitely you. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the "newspaper of record" the most popular and well known newspaper in the United States finds that this philanthropist was notable, why do volunteer non-journalist wikipedians second guess this?
She also has an entry in the Yearbook of the Encyclopedia Americana‎ - (Page 345), and was listed three times in the Dictionary of American biography‎[21] Ikip (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I think the Wall Street Journal is the most popular newspaper. The New York Times is number two and USA Today sank to third place. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Seems to be the subject of significant, third-party coverage, thus qualifying for inclusion. This article should be expanded. Ikip's mention of additional sources only confirms my intended keep !vote. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited; the only coverage of her is in the context of her husbands aside from her obit, and obits are poor indicators of notability. The only news sources are the NYT, and we want to see coverage from more than one source. The mentions in the books are fleeting and in the context of her husband, they are not significant coverage. By the way, why are we linking to copyright-breaching material on Richard Arthur Norton's Flickr stream? (ref 1) Fences&Windows 20:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituaries in major publications such as The New York Times are amongst the very best indicators of notability. The whole thrust of our guidelines is that we judge notability by whether such independent reliable publications consider subjects notable enough to write about, and an obituary means that the publication has judged that the subject's whole life is worth writing about, rather than just the specific incidents that might appear in news reports. Or have I missed the guideline that says that married women should only be considered to be adjuncts of their husbands? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's a notable organisation according to the volume of news coverage. Fences&Windows 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Evac Lifeteam

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

Delete, Seems to be non notable. Nothing seperates this Air life from the many more like it. Attempted Prod it was removed so opening this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Received plenty of news coverage, is a multi-state organization and also has it's fair share of mentions in Google books. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above-described coverage meeting WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - operates over 100 aircraft in 23 states, provides most rural EMS in those ares.Very Notable--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Actually 14 states, but whose counting?--71.246.30.208 (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- For reasons stated above.--Kevinharte (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't seem to be a notable surname. Fences&Windows 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grufferty

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

unreferenced article about surname with no assertion of notability whatsoever. WuhWuzDat 14:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Article mentions a good geographic spread of the name. ~~Article should just be tagged for references not deleted.~~ LadyofShalott 15:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to find some reliable sources about the name, and have not so far. LadyofShalott 16:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation at a later date if suitable references can be found in reliable sources. This may be a notable name, but there is so evidence of that so fa, or for any of the facts asserted in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This confirms the abundance of the name in Mayo. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Not a "keep" because the opinions by Panthera germanicus and Ret.Prof are unpersuasive for the reasons given by Haakon. Sandstein 07:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poweresim

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

Highly specialised piece of software with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and from SPA with possible COI. Haakon (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Chinese language source is independent, detailed at length, and about the subject software (but it is only one source, it is linked twice). From what I can tell, the source magazine is written for hobbyists, it is not an industry trade rag. The other sources show it being used, multiple times, in industry demonstrations and papers. English speaking sources also show it being used academically at Chinese universities. I don't think the industry conferences and academic use show notability - however, based on them I think their are Chinese language sources we are missing. The user spent quite some time with the article in userspace before submitting it and attempted to address concerns over a month long period. I think they've done their duty even if they are an SPA. Miami33139 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is serious and the software certainly exists and fulfils a useful purpose. I find an increasingly strong tendency on the part of many editors here to define notability more as whether an article is of personal interest than whether it fulfils the wikipedia definition. I, at least, found the article of sufficient value as to discuss it with my mechatronics students this coming week.Panthera germanicus (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But notability is not about whether the subject exists, or the article is written in a serious tone, or the subject having a purpose, or someone finding the article useful. Wikipedia is not simply a repository of information; it tries to be an encyclopedia which covers stuff of notability. Haakon (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- From the references listed in the article: Leakage Inductance Calculation... establishes some notability: not enough to carry the article on its own, but I can't evaluate the Chinese-language cites. Ergo I AGF, and assume that there is sufficient coverage in academic literature. I also don't find flamboyant peacockage or other indicators of COI in the article. Certainly the article could use a clean-up, but it is by no means worthy of deletion. — æk ^Talk 06:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 潘毅傑 is the founder of the company making PowerEsim. The other source cited has two pages in total, and I can't find any mentions of the software on the first page, other than the title and the abstract. (Don't have access to the second.) Tim Song (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A useful article and the software certainly exists. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is invalid; you may find the article useful and the software does of course exist, but what we're discussing is whether the subject fulfuls the general notability guideline, which is required for it to be covered by an encylcopedia. Haakon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Redirect fits to all votes, as none of them gave any reasons against it. The keep vote states "Thailand renamed from Siam in the 1930s, thousands of encyclopedias (World Book, Colliers, Comptons and Britannica) used the word in Asia articles.", but that is, if at all, a reason for "Siam", not for "Siam Empire". Some people voted merge, but that was opposed with the argument that "All the facts are already in other articles". The information is not lost; editors who find something worthwile can still retrieve it from the history. — Sebastian 02:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siam Empire

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

Unreferenced and confusingly narrated article which duplicates most of its content from other Thai history articles.The title is misleading, since Siam was not known as an empire, nor did the name refer to a single modern nation-state with distinct borders the way the Infobox ridiculously seems to suggest. Siam previously redirected to History of Thailand, which should host most of what is currently in this article. See also prior discussion regarding the poor prospects of the article at Talk:Siam Empire#What is this?. Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any content that isn't already present there into History of Thailand. LotLE×talk 08:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per history in Thailand. Thailand renamed from Siam in the 1930s, thousands of encyclopedias (World Book, Colliers, Comptons and Britannica) used the word in Asia articles. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Siam and Thailand are interchangeable, maybe a larger etymology is needed to clarify the name "Siam" in the article Thailand. But "Siam Empire" must go; the name itself is wrong, no such state has ever existed. It is historically incorrect and unsourced. Sodacan (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quote myself from earlier on the talk page: This the worst article on the english wikipedia concerning Thailand, it needs to be deleted. All the facts are already in other articles and there is absolutely no need for this article's existence at all. It should be deleted as soon as possible. As a Thai the name 'Siam Empire' itself is ridiculous no such nation state ever existed. The people in the area and the land itself is called Siamese and Siam respectively, in turn they were ruled by various centers of power which ever one is more dominant militarily at the time- but never a concept of a single state, only of successive states which copy the traditions of others before it. In Thai itself no self respecting historians would describe the various 'Krungs' (e.g. Krung Sukhothai, Krung Si Ayutthaya, Krung Thonburi, Krung Rattanakosin) as an 'Empire' only as 'Kingdoms'. Please delete this article as soon as possible it is completely historically incorrect and unnecessary. Sodacan (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Sodacan (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge history content to History of Thailand. But we can have the article about etymology of the word "Siam" and it should be describe how this name was notable. --Octra Bond (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Thailand as a plausible search term for some historic version of Thailand. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep:~~ Redirect not notable Look carefully and see Xiengyod. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as follow reason:
- Texts are duplicated with many article of the history of Thailand and no reliable reference sources are referred to this article.
- Although some books mentioned Siam as Empire, it has just appeared on 18th century. This should be meaning for the Rattanakosin Kingdom only. Meanwhile, many books in same age preferred to describe Siam as Kingdom (compare with 46 search result for "Siam Empire" and see Xiengyod> 1338 search result for "Kingdom of Siam" in Google Books), at least in 16th century, reign of King Narai of Ayuddhaya (but the name "Siam" appeared in history before that time long ago). I have read a voyage diary of Henry Mouhot (English version), I saw he also used these two words to describe Siam!
- The name "Siam" is not a name of an unique kingdom. It was used to describe many kingdoms which situated at the central of the modren state of Thailand. Timeline of some kingdoms such as Sukhothai and Ayuddhaya is dupilcated. This name came to be formal country name of Siamese people in the reign of king Rama IV of Rattanakosin Kingdom. (see discussion in Thai Wikipedia, th:พูดคุย:สยาม)
- Siam never called herself officialy as "empire" but "kingdom".
- Main article should be named as "Siam" only, neither "Kingdom of Siam" nor "Siam Empire," to describe the etymology and usage of this name.

--Xiengyod (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only source cited calls it a "stale proposal"; article can be reintroduced if it is ever revived. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His Highness Sheikh Hasher Tower

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

Fails to be notable with a few dozen google hits. Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but couldn't you have just let my prod run its course? 208.59.120.194 (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could of, but I always do AFD's just to confirm that the article is not notable to be on wikipedia, however some articles have PROD's and are notable, but then no one does any action after a week, it gets deleted, then some people in the community get pissed.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 17:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your always doubling the workload of AFD when a process is already in place to lighten that workload ??? Don't bother to answer. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Number of ghits is one of the classic non-reasons for deletion. 62 stories is enough to be notable. our usual cutoff for large cities is 40 & there are dozen of articles for Dubai buildings that size and over. If it is going to be challenged, AfD is the place, (I found it there already) for this is not going to be uncontroversial. When many other articles for exactly comparable things exist, prod is usually not a good idea. Prod is for cases where similar deletions are generally accepted, & can therefore not be assumed to be uncontroversial. I would have removed the prod had Pookeo9 not done so, but we should not attempt to destroy the usefulness of prod when it does apply. I and several others routinely check all prodded articles, so it is by no means automatic that any good one will be deleted. If anything, I think its less common than at speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's 62 stories of air right now, DGG. Glittering Pillars (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only being a proposal is not in itself a reason for deletion. Astronaut (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a proposal might have reached a point where it is seriously notable even if it never gets any further. I don't think this one has reached that stage. It hasn't even had planning approval. - Pointillist (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference (external links: Sheikh Hasher Tower on SkyscraperPage.com) lists the project status as: "stale proposal", so I can't see any harm in deleting the article. There is a risk—I'm not saying it has happened in this case—that property developers will try to use Wikipedia to promote projects that are still at a very early stage. Without reliable sources there is too much scope for misinformation, anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice to recreation once construction has begun. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is no longer flagged with {{AfDM}} - is there any reason for this? Jimmy Slade (talk · contribs) has removed the template and deprodded a load of other proposed Dubai towers. Was this agreed somewhere else? - Pointillist (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a confused person trying to save the economy of Dubai by editing Wikipedia. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Untagged for under two hours. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amazing race 17

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

Contested PROD. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete A3. WP:CRYSTAL. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The correct name for this article would be The Amazing Race 17, anyway (capitalization). Airplaneman ^talk 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who's to say this will actually happen? Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic zone

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

This topic seems to be already covered by a number of pages, in particular Pelagic zone but also the pages it links to. I don't know if there's anything in it worth merging: the existing pages look comprehensive enough but I'm not an oceanographer. JohnBlackburne (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pelagic zone. I'm no expert either, but it seems this topic is already covered by the aforementioned article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may have been a bit hasty proposing it for deletion. Looking at Ocean, specifically here, the Pelagic and Oceanic zones are not the same thing. Oceanic zone is linked to from here, a link that wasn't just added. It may be it just needs better integrating into the other articles: remove duplicate information, add it here, maybe copy this image to a few more places so it's clearer how the zones fit together (I read a lot of articles but it only clicked for me when I saw that image). Definitely could do with some expert help on this. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, upon closer examination I see the oceanic zone is a part of the pelagic zone, along with the neritic zone (at least according to ocean). However, neritic zone seems to indicate that the neritic zone is not part of the pelagic zone. Expert attention is definitely needed here, but I think it's clear oceanic zone should not be deleted at this point. Therefore, I recommend you withdraw your nomination; I'll tag both articles as being in need of expert attention. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. OK, consider it withdrawn. I've updated the page and added a comment on the talk page. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Basically a poor version of Age of consent Fences&Windows 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Consent

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

Originally tried to copy-edit this article, but later realized the article does not actually talk about the subject "Sexual Content" as it is titled, it talks about the Age of consent which already has its own article. Furthermore, the information is already available in that article. The page was originally a redirect to Age of consent but, as discussed on that page's talk page that was determined inadvisable and thus, a few months later, this page was created to replace the redirect. However, because this article does not actually talk about its subject, we now essentially have a duplicate Age of consent article, which is worse than a redirect. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch, if it is to be written at all. Mpdelbuono (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - the article is just a content fork; it adds nothing beyond what is already covered in Age of consent. Rami R 13:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to salvage here. ~YellowFives 15:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not redirect. I also tried to fix the page and quickly found it to be a duplicate of Age of Consent. There is no unique content or sources to merge, so deletion is a better solution. There should not be a redirect, because there are other meanings for the term "sexual consent". There could be a page about the psychological meaning of the term "sexual consent", but there is nothing about that on this page. If that separate topic is developed at some point, it should start over from a blank page to avoid any possible confusion that could result from a page history that includes a different topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case anyone wants to have a go at tackling the broader topic, this review article might be useful. Requires a subscription to the International Journal of Sexual Health, but I can provide a copy if anyone wants. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Nancy ^talk 15:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Orlando

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

Autobiography with no evidence of notability

Speedy Delete per A7. No credible claims of notability or importance. DarkAudit (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into 1999 WNBA Championship. — Sebastian 04:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Famous Shot in WNBA History

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

I don't think this article would satisfy the criteria if it was the most notable football touchdown, soccer/football goal, or baseball homerun. It's entirely subjective, and even if it's not that, it's immensely narrow, being limited to the WNBA. The article itself has 0 references and 0 external links [at the time of this nom]. Shadowjams (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We do have Ball of the Century concerning Shane Warne's famous delivery to Mike Gatting, which is thoroughly referenced. I know next to nothing about WNBA but this article could serve as a guide: if the title can be justified to the same degree and adequately referenced from reliable sources, then the article is OK. If not, then it should be deleted. Those who wish to save the article should go looking for sources. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly too this game is going to have coverage, like every other professional sporting event, and the shot will probably be discussed too. The important part though is that those sources indicate its notability. The Shot below is another good example of what is required to make it notable. Shadowjams (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful content into 1999 WNBA Championship if references can be found and if the content fits, ~~otherwise delete per WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOTOPINION or WP:NOT#FAQ (take your pick)~~. SMC (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that last bit. This came up when I did a Google news search via the AFD. It isn't much but it does mean it's gotten coverage from at least the championship organisation (i.e. not just someone's OR/opinion about the "most famous shot"). So, merge (paraphrase it would be better) into 1999 WNBA Championship, for real this time! SMC (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 1999 WNBA Championship per SMC. This doesn't deserve its own article. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the equivalent of The Shot for the NBA. I don't really see the problem. This WNBA shot is still viewed as the most famous shot in WNBA history (over ten years later). Nickv1025 (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would take more external sources to make it the equivalent of The Shot, comparing the two leagues is comparing apples and oranges. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doc. "The Shot" has acquired its own name whereas "The Most Famous Shot in...History" almost indicates by its own terms that the shot is not independently recognizable. Shadowjams (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least Merge. This shot is discussed by a fair few news sources, often years after the event and often as "The Shot".[22][23][24][25][26] Fences&Windows 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showmode Interactive

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

Promotion for unremarkable, non-notable company with less than 10 Google hits currently. Article by new SPA. Haakon (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. The product the creating editor has banged on about in the article is nothing special; the devices are manufactured by several companies. I've used these "audience response systems" (clickers) at my uni, and in my book there's no need for a company producing them to have an article, particularly if that's their only "claim to fame". SMC (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: as per WP:ORG

trakesht (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus judges this to be an indiscriminate list. Lists linking items by only their name are not encyclopedic, and this isn't a disambiguation page. Fences&Windows 21:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of things described as painted

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

indiscriminate list, along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied‎ JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as nom as a partial title match list. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also:

--JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the word may be used in natural history, i think the use is too general, unlike, say "rufous" which is a particular color. i love the movies. im sure film buffs have described these movies as "painted", ie, they opened up the film cases and felt the physical film itself appeared "painted" in character. this is a search term turned into an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete per nom. This is an indiscriminate list based on a keyword - specifically not a disambiguation page according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep to avoid a snowball from cries for speedy delete. WP:SPEEDY lists what qualifies as a speedy delete, and if this matches any of the situations with the letter "G", then someone refers to that as well. It is not a synonym for "strong delete". That said, I think that there is room in Wikipedia for an article about "painted" as a term used in when applied to flora and fauna in the sense of natural color. At the moment, painted is a "re-DUH-rect" to paint, and if any of the article contributors wanted to take this down for retooling as an article called "Painted", I'll have no compaints. Not much more than a weak keep, because this is, as some have pointed out, cobbled together from articles that have the word "painted" in them. I appreciate that someone has taken the time to add discriminating information, but even though it's not an indiscriminate list, it's not a disambiguation page either. Mandsford (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this list is not indiscriminate, then no lists are indiscriminate. An article could not be written about the term "painted" as used in the names of flora and fauna because there aren't any sources that make a connection between the individual uses of the term. Both precedence and guidelines agree that this is not an appropriate page for inclusion on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I agree that this article is slightly more useful than some of the other related AfDs, but it's still not enough for inclusion. Sorry. I realise a lot of time went into this, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We seem to agree that this would need a full rewrite even should the subject be notable after all. Sandstein 07:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puttana Venkatramana Raju

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

fails WP:BIO by a long shot. As far as I can see - nice chap, did service in the army, worked as an engineer, died. That's it. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds - you dont seem to have read through the page - as is evident from your statement "did service in the army" nowhere in the page was this mentioned and Puttana Venkatramana Raju never served in the army. In fact, Puttana Venkatramana Raju was a pre-eminent Engineer who built several major projects under adverse conditions in Pre-independant and Independant India. The projects he worked upon during construction or maintenance phases like the Dowleswaram Barrage and the Prakasam Barrage and exist even today and are considered mega projects in Civil Engineering. The page was worked upon and external references were added, dates of birth and death were recorded, assertions of notability were added to the first few lines in the lead section, other sites like All Experts which contained details of Puttana Venkataraman Raju were linked and a few helpful editors tried to improve grammar and presentation of the page. With all these changes made, the page would now meet the criterion and I request that the All Expert references be allowed to continue as they clearly show details relating to the honorific Rao Bahadur, and to Hindu High school where Puttana Venkataraman Raju studied initially. Puttana Venkatramana Raju was awarded the Rao Bahadur by the Govt. of India (this is similar to the British Govt. award of OBE) and he was also an elected Fellow of the Institution of Engineers. He contibuted towards Social upliftment and excellence and this page captures relevant aspects of his life. Unfortunately there have twice been removals of the All Experts site links (reason for this deletion was given as "mirror site" but plese note- All Experts is not in anyway connected to Wiki) which refer to the award of the honorific Rao Bahadur, and to Hindu High school where Puttana Venkataraman Raju studied initially.Rajendrarajun (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I was under the impression that "Indian Service of Engineers" was similar to our REME (the British Army's dedicated engineering unit). Allexperts is indeed a mirror; they copy our content. The fact that they aren't officially linked with us is irrelevant. The way the references are formatted makes it difficult; we cannot say how much of the content is about Raju, and how much is irrelevant. The Rao Bahadur is a claim to notability, but it must be backed up with reliable, independent, third-party sources. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't blame Ironholds for being confused. The article is almost unreadable in its present form. It is very difficult to comb out facts from spin, POV, OR, and unstinting praise. Bad writing is not a reason to delete, but in this case the article would need to be stubbified and I'm not sure what would go into a stub.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did see this only after answering on the talks page. To be more specific: One original is now at The Hindu Higher Secondary School. The other is not so obvious as Prominent Rajus had been deleted and converted into a redirect. In any case that needs to be backed up by references. which seem to be difficult to find. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources listed under "References" are print-only, and I do not have the background knowledge to evaluate them. For the notability of recipients of the Rao Bahadur, see Rao Bahadur. For the notability of a fellowship of Institution of Engineers, consider the notability of a fellowship in comparable organizations in other countries. I am not clear how common a fellowship of the Institution of Engineers is. I cannot find "Puttana Venkatramana Raju" at the site http://www.ieindia.org , but confirmation of the fellowship should be available in a printed publicatrion of the Institution of Engineers. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Puttana Venkataramana Raju was worked upon to improve it to Wiki standards and the following were done:

+References were provided from published sources-(1)1922 Kavyathirtha Shri Janamanchi Seshadri Sharma has translated 'Brahmanda Purana'in poetical form of Andhra language ref the 11th line of page 774 in the ultimate part of the 5th sub-chapter of 'Upodhata Pada'(2)1966 1st edition of Sri Muktarishi vamshodbhava Sri Soma Vamsha Arya Kshatriya Purana mentioning the 32 Gothras and Vamshavalli, and subsequent editions with authentication by Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya mahasamsthanam Sharada Peetham Sringeri ref 9111/76 camp Begaluru date 10.11.1976 & research by Vidwan S R Krishna Shastri Nivriddha Samskrita Adhyapakuru Arya Vidya Shala High School, Begaluru - Published by Sri B N SrinivasaRaju, Grandhakartha Panaganti Gopala Raju(3)1972 1st edition of Sri Soma Vamsha Puranam Rendo Bhagam Rendo Adhyayam- Published by Sri B N SrinivasaRaju, Grandhakartha Panaganti Gopala Raju(4)Avadi Township, Avadi Municipal Office, Madras 54, D Extract Year 1975 Month July Page 8 Annual No.50 Monthly No.1

+External links were provided for (1)Hindu High School Triplicane Madras(2)College of Engineering Guindy Madras (3)Indian Service of Engineers (4)Institution of Engineers(India)

+Date maintenance and general fixes were done by several Wiki editors

+parameters cleanup, grammar edit, to improve and wikify were done by several Wiki editors

+Categorisation was done by several Wiki editors

+citation and notability references were provided in the lead

The page is factual and inspirational, it is notable and should be restored to full Wiki status. My thanks to those Wiki editors who tried to improve it. Rajendrarajun (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsalvageable in present form, and notability impossible to determine from present version, without prejudice to re-creating as an actual article. This article is its own worst enemy because of its testimonial writing style, its padding, its POV. Read the guidelines and start from scratch, keeping in mind WP:NONENG. I'm very dubious about someone with an obvious connection to the subject writing an article based entirely on non-English sources. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there could be something salvaged out of this article- though by the time it is encyclopediac, it will be 1/10th of its present size

trakesht (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - 1) This is a vanity article sourced from caste publications (where they exaggerate and list caste members "achievements"). The first three references are caste group publications, the fourth one is a Govt annual record in Avadi municipal office for Avadi township, which would mention everyone who worked in that office/project for that particular year. This sounds like an attempt by a family member trying to publicize him 2) He was a PWD engineer who was "involved" in a few big projects. Nothing notable about it. he was not the architect or the prime backer. He was just involved in a project where hundreds (even thousands) of Public Works Department personnel were also involved in construction and maintenance. 3)A winner of College of Engineering Guindy gold medal (every department awards one every year and there would have been 4 or 5 depts when he studied there) or a member of Indian Engineering Service isn't notable in itself. The IES employs thousands. And Rao Bahdur's were handed out in hundreds every year by the British Raj 4) If he was notable in the projects he would have been mentioned in Govt Gazettes most of which are available in Gbooks. He is not. --Sodabottle (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the above response and it makes sweeping generalisations without going into the details, I will now tell you what I mean here "caste publication where they exaggerate" - did you read the said reference material? It has no exaggeration as suggested by you. "Rao Bahadurs were handed out in hundreds" well this one was earned on merit and so are the deserving many of those awards even today as Padma awards in India. "Every department awards one(a Gold medal) every year" well for your information the Gold Medal is awarded by the University to the Academic topper among all the students in its colleges at the end of the entire period of 5 years of the B.E. degree, Your inferences about Avadi are laughable - you havent the faintest idea of the difference between what it referred to and your generalisation there. Therefore I would say that you are criticising without trying to go through the merits. Further there are pages in Wiki on Rao Bahadur awards (should that page exist if your criticism is about all those who earned those awards-then what about other awards like the Padma awards...?), there is a page about College of Engineering Guindy Madras, there are pages in Wiki about many ethnic groups/communities (would you group them into "caste" pages that exaggerate?). I note that you have written as Sodabottle about Pandyans, a biography of an Indian Civil Servant, a biography of a Chettiar- what about all those- they are OK to continue are they?). I write to clarify that the article I've written is about a person who defied convention, went against his family and chose his vocation and excelled in it under adverse conditions while creating infrastructure for a developing India- The projects he worked upon during construction or maintenance phases like the Dowleswaram Barrage and the Prakasam Barrage and Madras Airport exist even today and are considered mega projects in Civil Engineering. This is also my first Wiki article which commenced in November and I find that certain editors(who sometimes dont even write using their own names) take opportunities to speedily delete rather than develop new articles, if you go through the history of the article you will see how I've tried to constantly add references, external links... but there seems to be very little patience to see it develop and instead this is the second time that the article is fighting to continue. However I will continue in my efforts to improve the article and add references as I locate them - as required from various published sources and look forward to helpful input from those editors who have contributed to improving the article.

Rajendrarajun (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)Sources: All i am asking for are Reliable sources. [27]. a) Three of the references you have provided are caste genealogies. ("'Brahmanda Purana'", "Sri Muktarishi vamshodbhava Sri Soma Vamsha Arya Kshatriya Purana", and "Sri Soma Vamsha Puranam Rendo Bhagam Rendo Adhyayam"). Caste genealogies/biographies published by the same caste organisations are as i said "prone to exaggeration". b) The Avadi Township Annual is a Local Government record, it would naturally record all civil servants that worked there/involved in projects. The question is of notability and not of existence. If the engineer's name is present in a Govt gazette explaining his involvement in the Prakasam Barrage, i will withdraw my objection.
2)Regarding the Gold medal. I am a alumnus of College of Engineering Guindy (CEG) -batch of 2002. So i know how many gold medals get awarded. When Raju was at CEG (early 20th century) there would have been at least three departments (civil, mechanical and electrical schools). Every year a batch graduates from CEG. Every batch of every department has a topper. Currently there are nearly 20 departments in CEG and 20 Gold medalists pass out every year. (For the non Indians, it means he was the Valedictorion of the Civil Engineering Class of 19xx). IMO this is not significant by itself.
3)Regarding Rao Bahadur Awards. I was pointing out, getting a Rao Bahadur alone is not notable by itself, because as i pointed out it was a political title awarded the British Govt. Hundreds were given the award each year. Some people who got it were notable, some were not. Again IMO a person does not become notable just by getting Rao Bahadur awards.
4)My Articles. All of the articles i have either created (pandyan kings etc) meet [28] guidelines. I have myself refrained from creating many biographies i wanted to create, because they did not meet the guidelines. Further the articles i have worked on are sourced with easily verifiable RS. My choosing not to reveal my real name is not an issue here. If my articles violate guidelines, they should be(and have been) modified. For perspective, lets see ones you have listed - a) Pandyans are Kings of Pandyan Empire, b) the civil servant is a Tamil Film historian with multiple books and citations in Gbooks and Gscholar c) the chettiar is a member of the first Indian Parliament and one of the framers of the indian constitution.
5)Dowleswaram Barrage and the Prakasam Barrage and Madras Airport: My earlier point stands - there were probably thousands of civil servants, engineers and other workers involved in these projects. If Raju was a senior bureaucrat/architect involved in those projects, his name will be in Government Gazettes. Please look for it and provide the references. I always assume good faith. If you provide them, i will withdraw my objection
6)a person who defied convention, went against his family and chose his vocation and excelled in it under adverse conditions. This is not again enough to warrant a separate article.
7) To summarize : From what i read, Raju was a Engineer, a honors student, a civil servant (not a high ranking one), was awarded Rao Bahadur, and was involved in many Government projects. IMO i dont think this is notable enough. Also i believe your sources (caste genealogies) are not reliable sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fine gentleman, but not notable per our guidelines. I've spent some extra time searching for sources on this one, and am unable to find any, not even passing mentions in any significant journal or book. As Sodabottle has already mentioned, the Rao Bahadur title does not confer notability. It's an honor for the recipient, but just like we don't provide blanket notability for Silver Star recipients, and this title isn't as significant as the SS. College gold medals are good, but not significant in showing notability. Fellow of the Institution of Engineers (India) is not like a Fellow of IEEE etc, it's more like a CPA status, with additional qualifiers. The references within the article are sub-local in nature and can at best be taken as evidence of existence. -SpacemanSpiff 05:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any reliable sources on the subject, and have no idea what the "publications" listed in the Reference section are, how they relate to the subject, and what they are being used to cite. Even if all the details inthe article could be verified, notability would be borderline. Barring the availability of such sources, this article is more suited to a family history website. Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability hasn't been shown, and even if notability was likely the article would need entirely rewriting as it suffers from excessive POV and promotional tone. There's no sign of mentions in reliable sources. I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Fences&Windows 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulipparambil

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

No assertion of notability— Preceding unsigned comment added by Topbanana (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this family. Joe Chill (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage to show that this passes our notability guidelines. -SpacemanSpiff 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Salih (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above DRosin (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Sodabottle (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacies of Faith: The Catholic Churches of Stearns County

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

Book does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. A couple of mentions in local newspapers are offered, but nothing to suggest more than minor local interest. ~YellowFives 11:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable self-published book. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (Canada)

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

WP:HOAX material, not blatant enough to qualify for G3. Also included is another article which quickly popped up after the first was tagged

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure it's a hoax, but the brevity of this article makes it impossible to determine its genuineness or notability. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per WP:HOAX. There are no reliable sources about this alleged network. Both (poorly worded at that) articles proclaim that this network will replace Teletoon, but a Google News search for Teletoon brings up nothing about the demise of the network and its replacement with this alleged "Cartoon Network Canada". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete hoax, total bollocks, and believe you me, there would be plenty of sources if this were true, because the amount of "Yet another Canadian network gives up their identity to the Americans, how dare they?" articles would blow up Google. Here though, it's a fake, and poorly written at that. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Wait until he's got significant coverage. Fences&Windows 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Keyes

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

Another article on an bit-part actor largely culled from IMDb listings and Facebook profile due to lack of any other content regarding them. Right now, their body of work fails WP:ENT and given this has been created and speedied three times this year for lack of notability I doubt this'd turn out different. Salt if necessary. treelo _radda 10:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He has one major role in a notable movie which is Ben 10: Alien Swarm. I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. Fails ~~WP:CREATIVE~~ WP:ENT. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct guideline would be WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to fix that--edit conflict. Fails that too. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prjudice toward recreation. He may not quite meet WP:ENT, and is just pushing toward meeting WP:GNG [29], but as written the article is a mass of unsourced information that fails WP:BLP. Despite past speedies, salting is not required as the issue of WP:GNG sourcing appears that past problems may soon be quite fixable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The article needs a significant rewrite, but I believe he is notable. Michaelh2001 (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Johnny and Joe. Cynof Gavuf 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officerresource.com

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

Fails WP:WEB. No independent sources to indicate notability or independently verify the content and no indication in the article or from Google why this should satisfy WP:WEB for any other reasons. Also, the creator has a conflict of interest. So, delete per WP:WEB primarily. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I came close to speedy deleting this per CSD A7 as there's nothing that really asserts notability. Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redir to group article on the X Factor finalists. Disruptive nomination, raised by author of the article as one of many where generally the objective has been to establish a keep result rather than redirect (inappropriate as AfD is for deletion). In this case, however, the author has proposed deletion and this can be speedily addressed (category G7). Redir is appropriate as a biography already exists. Non admin closure. I42 (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Frank

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

Non-notable girl group, known only for their appearance on a talent show. They have finished in 10th place, but Simon Cowell (the show's creator) could give them a record deal after the show. However, WP:MUSIC requires a charted single or album, not just a record deal. Hassaan19 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems to be a notable process and not spam. Fences&Windows 21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flat honing

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

Note: I'm submitting this in good faith for the following IP. tedder (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable metalworking process thats just the same as honing only sold by one company. Only real contributor is user:flathone which is a bad username and COI anyway. (later, posted the following)

This is just company spam from user:flathone and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.168.11 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The notability has been asserted with multiple references. The process is legit and offered by more than company. There isn't any spam in the article. Wizard191 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be adequately sourced. I'd think it should be shorter and merged elsewhere, but that's for those that know more about the subject than I. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has about ten pages of coverage in this book and plenty more in others found by the Google Books search linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is not its role to provide a platform for election candidates or to make up for any deficiencies of the press in that respect. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark State (Toronto politician)

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

Appears to be non-notable with trivial coverage in sources, even if he is running for mayor now. He got "a total of 194 votes compared to the incumbent's 300,000" in the 2006 election; Google News brings up an irrelevant Detroit Times article, and Google itself appears to only have primary or trivial sources —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article itself attests to the subject's irrelevance. This smacks more of someone attempting to abuse Wikipedia in order to further their political campaign. DarkAudit (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fringe candidate with no notability who clearly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. For all its length, I just don't see a claim of notability that's even close to what our guidelines require, as the article is admittedly about a fringe candidate with no real coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The giant smacking sound of Wikipedia abuse is also present in DarkAudit's entry, which happily ignores that under his criterion, Wiki abuse has occurred millions of times and continues to plague the site every day. Self-promotion is the hallmark of a huge percentage of Wiki pages, either for the contributor, the subject or both. Better to delete the vanity pages of those wishing to star in their own reality series than a page devoted to a Canadian politician (whose municipal issues website cited on the Wiki page makes no mention of his candidacy) which observes proper Wiki protocols for footnoting and external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezbollatte (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC) — Hezbollatte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Gentlemen:

This page, Mark State (Toronto Politician) was created on my behalf, so I believe that I may weigh in as a commentator in this discussion.

First, thank you all for caring that Wikipedia retain its encyclopedic nature, and being watchful that this remains the case.

I believe I can reply to most of the comments in a way that will satisfy their authors.

First of all, the citing of Google as a resource. When I typed in the same key words, I also found the story about the Detroit Mayor, and nothing --certainly nothing immediate-- about myself. However, in using other search terms, such as my name, my website, and so-on, I found on Google 9 articles or contributions by me dating back a number of years, 4 articles about me, and two pointers to some ecademy contribution I had made. I am aware of at least three other publications that have my contributions in them, that had I spent a great deal of time searching, I might have found.

So, rest assured, Googling me can produce satisfactory results.

Within Wikipedia, I have been mentioned both as a former political contender for Board Of Education Trustee and Mayor...the latter received an entire paragraph of information.

In November 2010, there will be another civic election, in which I have indicated I INTEND to run for the Mayor's office. As no candidate is permitted to campaign before the registration date of January 4th, 2010, I am only permitted before that time to indicate my potential candidacy, as are other persons who have followed the same course as I by posting an article in here so that Torontonians may read about the person who will eventually show up --should they follow through and actually run-- in a reliable resource. The article contains biographical information and concerns that I may raise when I actually enter the race.

Before the race begins, however, there will be a fair amount of media publicity surrounding those who have said they intend to run. It's only fair that people who read about these potential candidates have an opportunity to find out something about them. Telling them about me and my ideas regarding the Mayor's job is not intended to be campaigning . Your ideas re modifying the article so as to better fit your concept of what should be there are invited in this discussion. However, deletion is not on the table.

I thank you all for your contributions.

Mark M. State MarkTheHandyman comment added by User:Mark State (talk 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)</small[reply]

"Deletion is not on the table?" That's what you think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the case for deletion has been made even stronger. Despite your claims that you're "not campaigning", you are in fact doing just that. It is obvious that neither you nor your proxy have taken the time to read the relevant guidelines on notability and politicians. A candidate that receives less than a tenth of a percentage point of the total vote is not even a marginal candidate, let alone a major candidate. (0.05% of the winner's total) People will claim the red herring of "coverage", but they forget that Wikipedia is not a news source. An event such as a political campaign may generate a good amount of press at the time, but in the long run it does not amount to very much. DarkAudit (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violations of policy & guidelines need counting on fingers and toes. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--From Mark State:

Two arguments stemming from discussion with those opposition members who have taken the trouble to explain their positions strike me as fair and reasonable.

First, the piece does, upon reading it, seem in need of editing to remove its strong candidacy flavour.

Second, and sadly, it seems (with the exception of history books) to be up to the popular media to determine who is notable enough to merit positioning in the Wikipedia. That a person may be a candidate for Mayor in one of the world’s major cities and has lived a life of some contribution and/or accomplishment are not criteria for notability; and again sadly, there is no sub-category in the rules of acceptance entitled “temporary notability”. This elimination of notability possibility includes a past candidate labeled as ‘fringe’ because he/she has not been chosen as a ‘front runner’ by public media; and/or by some of you who believe that by dint of not receiving a lot of votes during an election, a candidacy then labelled as fringe becomes irrelevant regardless of its content simply because of the number of votes cast for him/her during an election in which they stepped forward as citizens to run for office. In the 2006 elections for Toronto’s Mayor, there were 38 candidates (some of whom stepped forward out of anticipation of having a chance to win due to an unpopular incumbent); and as it happens, you conclusively showed in your postings’ references to the current Wikipedia rules as you have interpreted them that in Toronto in 2006, only the three media-favoured contenders were 'noteworthy' due to having been a media topic. Neither the quality of their candidacy, its importance, or its relevance were used as criteria to post those candidates on Wikipedia: merely their quantity of media appearances. It would seem that the media’s well-known propensity for hijacking elections, as I'll illustrate below, is a determinant both as to which former candidates were worthy of the public’s cast ballots through deliberate shunning of the rest; and --as has been tacitly seconded by those defending the criteria for the category of ‘notability’-- a criterion as to whom to admit for selection in this regard.

“Temporary notability” might include posting in a forum similar in composition to the Wikipedia Toronto 2006 post-election coverage that would at least be accessible to the public; and through which they could (at least during the course of the election) examine the favourable or unfavourable aspects of those potential or actual candidates in their elections about whom they would like more information from a factual source, and without depending solely on news stories --or the lack thereof. Going to Wikipedia for bio and/or platform information seems a reasonable course of action.

I had asked the objectors to postulate some sort of assistance in formulating a forum in which to deal with matters of this kind, but was only met with inflexibility and unimaginative repetition of the current ruling.

In the 2006 election, only Wikipedia through its careful research discovered and highlighted the platforms of all the candidates; and then only after the conclusion of the election. Of the three candidates presented to the public by the Toronto media as those for whom they should vote, all were selected from having been in public life prior to the election. They were notables. Of those three, only the incumbent was a regularly featured media darling. One of the others was a standing city alderman --a minor notable whose Wiki page was added for the 2006 election's informational purposes and earned 32 per cent of the popular vote as a runner-up-- who, as it turned out during the election, had prepared no cogent platform at all; but apparently only wanted to replace a mayor she disliked enough to run against him and try to formulate a platform on the fly. Eventually, the media stopped covering her candidacy. The other had little or no previous media exposure prior to 2002, but had been the president of a political party from 1998 to 2004 --another minor notable who earned 1.3 per cent of the popular vote, but came in at third place. His Wiki article was posted in the year following the 2006 civic election in 2007 at the moment he was hired by a local talk radio station as a show host. His frequent public remonstrations made to the press during the election that he had no intention of actually wanting to become mayor and that he was only in the race to put down the incumbent’s competency, and his obdurate refusal to offer any platforms during the campaigning process also resulted in their dropping him from their election-hijacking list of whom the citizenry should vote for. In both cases, the number of votes (actually, due to having been dropped as favourites by the local media, fewer than their candidacies might have otherwise earned) received was not a relevant factor. Only the attention of a great deal of press during the period of the election (see my article re the shunning of all thirty five shunned candidates in press coverage) actually created a NOTABLE figure worthy of entry in Wikipedia. By your current criteria, therefore, Wiki notables are chosen by the press.

I'm not a notable by this criterion. I have entered municipal politics on two separate previous occasions, always as a reformer; but after speech-making tours, fund-raisers, campaign literature, and stumping, each of my previous candidacies were low-profile --media-wise-- and not successful, rendering me a non-notable. This included a published video of a speech I made on YouTube outlining my candidacy-in-brief during an all-candidates' forum in the 2006 contest.

I'm not a notable by life contribution criteria. I have authored numerous articles on a number of topics --albeit either as a contributor or a commentator in other persons' web opinion columns, either by choice or invitation-- in various media via the internet. In the non-commentator article list, my invention and opinions on local transit matters have their own web pages in addition to my running a political commentary with a growing readership via my home URL; and various internet pages published by others, including Wikipedia (in its review of the last civic election) make mention of me. I have also been a media person: news director at a CBC network affiliate station; and occupied a number of volunteer positions including the first ever visiting hospital clown at the venerable old Toronto General Hospital and a year as marketing director for the Toronto Distress Centers. As a school teacher, my curricula were considered remarkable enough to merit a personal invitation to join the graduate faculty of Environmental Studies at York, during which years the Ontario Ministry of Education requested me to give a curriculum development summer course to graduating-year teacher librarians. In architectural practice, I spoke on behalf of petitioning clients to various committees of adjustment, and never lost a case. As a Marine Engineer I designed new aeration systems for a wild fish hatchery in Ontario, was requested by a local automobile hubcap manufacturer to suggest a new design for their cooling systems, and offered a critique to a city committee regarding its waste-disposal systems while employed as a VP of engineering and marketing with a Brampton firm, and shortly thereafter authored the major invention currently in process before the USPTO of a new variety of electrical generating station. While being worthwhile and publicly-oriented, none of these activities meets the criteria of being 'notable' because it did not impress the media reportage enough to run sufficient stories about it to make me newsworthy and hence notable to the protectors of Wikintegrity.

As an potential candidate for Mayor in the world's 48th largest city, and the fifth largest in North America, (and running for the second time in an identifiable category as a pragmatist reform candidate) I am not a notable. I will not fit the criteria that protectors of Wikipedia posit as the landmarks for entry so long as they rest upon my gaining a greater percentage of a vote taken four years ago [I'm "fringe"], or a more frequent appearance in the popular press, or especially being chosen as a leading candidate by media during an election in their usual attempt to hijack the race.

These are the same critera of 'notability' exercised in the choice of offered candidates being held by those wishing this article deleted. In other words, those critera do not give me enough 'notability' to cover me due to my past activities; although they may in future ones if the press likes me.

It’s my conclusion, therefore, that I have to temporarily withdraw the article at this time and re-enter it at a later date after the published and/or broadcast media have endorsed my presence and made it thusly acceptable to the objectors. While it's off, I shall request its contributing editor to rewrite it so as to make it read a little less like campaign literature while containing the same information under the same common Wikipedia heading format.

And also while it's off, I would again ask each deletion requestor to postulate a criterion process that allows an avenue for a mayoralty candidate in a major city to post information about him/her self in Wikipedia without first waiting for press coverage; which suggestion I realize contains a dangerous component of posting someone like myself who is non-notable in the Wikipedia site. Perhaps a separate section under political candidates for their specific elections could be established, timed to self-erase after the election has concluded, or some such.

Just sitting in defense of a dogma isn't as challenging as thinking of other ways to make it viable in justifiable circumstances. Especially since the dogma needs bolstering in this area in order to help maintain Wikipedia's relevance...not as a news purveyor, but as a bona fide, up-to-date, and relevant information source.

All the best,

Mark Mañuel State MarkTheHandyman comment added by User:Mark State (User talk:MarkTheHandyman 00:44, 01 December 2009 (UTC)</small[reply]

I have been over the article myself. Before being posted after I become 'notable', it will undergo editorial changes from its contributing editor Hezbollatte. But in the meantime, the content of the page has been altered to (hopefully) remove all 'campaigning' content and just report accurate situational and referenced information.

However, there is still a possibility that objections may be raised in this area. I would truly appreciate it if, should those kinds of objections come up, they be made with specific references so that corrections can be made. When I next post this article, I would like to have it in as presentable and acceptable a form as possible.

Thanks for any constructive advice you are willing to offer from experience and expertise. It will all be taken into consideration.

All the best,

Mark Mañuel State MarkTheHandyman comment added by User:Mark State (User talk:MarkTheHandyman 00:44, 02 December 2009 (UTC)</small[reply]

"Perhaps a separate section under political candidates for their specific elections could be established, timed to self-erase after the election has concluded, or some such." ... By all means, please do set up your own Wiki with this option. However, This Wiki already has a set of guidelines and policies that its Editors try to abide by. (Un)fortunately, this wiki does not have a category for "possible candidates in future elections". That all falls under the policy located at WP:Crystal. Please prior to making an Article about yourself, read what this Wiki does have in Category:Politicians in Ontario. If you can show WP:Notability on that level in your Article (along with the required References from Reliable sources for a Biographical Article), it would be more likely to remain. But as your current political situation hardly compares, neither can the Article about you. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Wizzard

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

Apparently non-notable band, won a few non-notable awards, no references exist except those to the bands record label or to its own myspace/official website, etc. There's a little youtube video as well, but no apparent reliable sources which show this to be anything that comes close to the criteria spelled out at WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Jayron32 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also including:

Over the Top (White Wizzard album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a non-notable album by the above non-notable band.

White Wizzard actually does comply with the notability criteria, as stated by rule number 5:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)."

White Wizzard has released 2 EP's/mini-albums and has an album (which has had artwork and tracklist released) on Earache Records, which DOES have a roster of notable artists including Bolt Thrower, Evile, Entombed, Godflesh, At the Gates, Bring Me the Horizon, Morbid Angel and Napalm Death. User talk:A7xandquantumtheory 01:31, 28 November 2009

Delete Not enough reliable references to verify notability included in the article in question. IShadowed ✰ 06:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criterion 4 of WP:BAND with coverage of this national tour; plus significant coverage here and here. I will incorporate it all into the article shortly. J04n(talk page) 22:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: The above mentioned sources have been incorporated into the article. J04n(talk page) 02:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per J04n's good work. Gongshow ^Talk 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only way this band comes close to meeting any of the criteria in WP:BAND is through criterion 4. Even then, the tour has not yet been undertaken and a mere press release through "Hot Indie News" is arguably not non-trivial coverage. Ultimately, the satisfaction of one or more of the criteria of WP:BAND only may lead to notability. Overall, this band is not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice work, Jo4n.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. White Wizzard are touring alongside Korpiklaani, Tyr and Swashbuckle, all of which are notable. Also, they've been included on Earache's compilation album Heavy Metal Killers (Criterion 10). They've released two albums (or EP's, depending on how long you define an EP) and have a third one coming up, all on Earache, which is definitely a notable record label (Criterion 5). --A7xandquantumtheory (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (GMT)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zumba

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

Procedural nomination. Article has been repeatedly tagged for speedy deletion and repeatedly requested that it be restored. Let the community decide. I have no opinion one way or the other. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This old revision: [30] shows a list of sources which should more than satisfy WP:GNG. The article is stubby, and need supervision to avoid becoming advertisal in tone, but there is enough to justify keeping this one around. --Jayron32 06:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That version is a copyright violation and spam - it contains near-verbatim marketing copy from a promotional web site. You can find hundreds if not thousands of copies of that text on the web, it looks like that text is either part of a spamming campaign or the product is marketed by many independent marketers. The article's first edit suffers a similar problem. Talk:Zumba/Archives/2012#Past edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First, I did not create this article. Second, in no way should this article be nominated for deletion. This aerobics dance craze is literally sweeping the nation and there are tons of reliable sources to prove it. That being said, I am really not in the mood to work on this article. Just because some idiot editors made it sound like an advertisement doesn't mean it should be deleted.ShamWow (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them an "idiot editor". Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As embarrassing as this workout is, it seems very popular. Article needs attention. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen oder Start over with a deletion review for quality, copyright, and promotional tone required before allowing any draft back into mainspace, but without prejudice to a decent article that clearly follows Wikipedia's policies. I am specifically not taking a stand at this time whether the subject meets WP:Notability requirements, but any draft article would have to clearly show that the subject is notable before being moved into article space. A well-written stub article with enough evidence that the topic is notable would suffice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To those wanting to keep: Please consider creating a user-space draft that 1) establishes WP:N to a level that it's AFD-resistant at least on notability grounds, 2) is devoid of copyright violations, and 3) is strongly resistant to claims that it is spammy or promotional. If we can get a good draft before this AFD goes away, the solution may be to copy your draft over this version, or to delete this version and move your draft over it as a fresh start. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no objections to a WP:Speedy keep/WP:SNOW closure. However, it would be nice if this AFD were kept open at least 24 hours. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.29 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, based on web hits and media coverage such as [31]. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per IronMaidenRocks and JohnnyB256. This seems to be, erm, a notable fitness craze now. The article obviously needs work. GreenGourd (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- clearly notable - have added material sourced from Daily Telegraph. PamD (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it would be useful to keep it open for at least a couple days to allow for plenty of participation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People have jumped right in and spruced the article up, there's no reason for a delete now. AcroX 23:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added CNN reference Zumba zooms to the top of the exercise world Glen 06:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The previously-deleted talk page versions are restored. Its content as of October 31, 2009 is merged in now as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 06:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be improved, but Zumba is participated in worldwide and a legitimate fitness class at many gyms. 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Price

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

Little evidence of independent, reliable sources to support any claims of notability as defined by WP:BIO. Heavily edited by two obviously related accounts with serious WP:COI issues. All sources in the article are either short, trivial mentions, or are published by the subject themselves OR by her employers, thus lack any indepence. Otherwise, this person does not appear to meet the minimum inclusion criteria as spelled out at WP:GNG. Jayron32 05:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references aren't that bad. The Word Magazine reference is brief, but not trivial. Airplay Monitors or Airplay Monitor may be defunct (I think it was merged into another magazine which in turn was merged into Billboard, which is notable), but appears to be a reliable source, since it was published by VNU. The position of program director of a major market radio station is like that of a newspaper or magazine editor - not inherently notable, but quite possibly notable. – Eastmain (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable references to support claims. IShadowed ✰ 06:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable sourcing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:29, 28 November 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, 5 December 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) 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources given do not seem notable and the apparent main point of notability of Price - her having "launched Toronto's first commercial, 24-hour R&B radio" - seems to have too little a scope. Having "launched" (what does it mean, by the way? is she the owner? the producer? did she do the advertisement for it?) a radio station of a particular genre in a particular city is an achievement for one's professional life, I suppose, but not from a global point of view. It is a bit like having published a book: for the author it is a great success, but it does not make him automatically notable. Goochelaar (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sourcing. Dlabtot (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Depth of coverage not enough to support article. ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted A1 - No redirect, the actual character name is "Fireheart" not "Fire heart" IMO the redirect would be R3. Also, nothing to merge. Skier Dude (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fire heart the warrior cat

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

Good faith, but he's not notable enough to have his own article being just a character in a book. He's already listed here. Possibly we could redirect this to that article. Airplaneman ^talk 04:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect any worthwhile information as per Airplaneman above. Leaving a redirect is preferrable as it discourages recreation. This character is otherwise unremarkable enough that they do not seem to merit an independent article. --Jayron32 05:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No context. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary (page created). Black Kite 16:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nosocomephobia

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

A nonnotable disease. No reliable sources beyond dictionary definitions. There are no hits on google Scholar, hence it is clinically nonnotable. One may coin a "phobia" word from any greek or latin or even english noun. Mukadderat (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please notiy me next time before nominating an article I created. Nosocomephobia is a legitimate psychological condition (which I myself suffer from) and is not just a dictionary definition. Per ~~this health article~~ this webpage something that causes people to have heart palpitations, Hyperventilation, Breathlessness and Rapid Heartbeat seems like a notable encyclopedic article to me. And my sources do meet WP:RS as reliable and independent of the subject. As proof that this is a legitimate medical condition this source says, "Like all phobias, a fear of hospitals can be cured, by therapy, medication, hypnosis, or a combination." just like you would take care of any other disease or condition. -Marcusmax(speak) 04:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those web pages is a reliable source. The same web site includes listings for a number of obvious "joke" phobias such as arachibutyrophobia (the fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of your mouth), keraunothnetophobia (the "fear of fall of satellites"), and, of course, triskaidekaphobia. (It also describes them all in the exact same terms -- a clear sign that they're just generating cookie-cutter content for search engines.) Can you find a scholarly source which describes this fear in detail? Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well we aren't commenting on an AfD that has anything to do with those phobias, which no matter how weird they might seem are actually legitimate phobias as well. My sources all come from Google books, or medical sites and for you to say that they are all unreliable is far from the truth. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not every book on Google Books is a reliable source. The two books currently linked from the article (Oxford handbook of psychiatry and Phobias revealed and explained) are not reliable sources for this article, as the former only mentions nosocomephobia in passing, and the latter is a picture book depicting phobias. What medical sites have you consulted? (As per below, PubMed finds no mention of nosocomephobia in medical journals.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you kidding me? Oxford University is not a reliable source? It establishes that this word was not just made up by some blogger but is instead recognized by one of the world's leading educational bodies. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It established that the word exists, but you have no information about the phobia itself or about cases of this phobia Laudak (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequately sourced, and per above. It's definitely notable enough for inclusion. Airplaneman ^talk 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate article on notable disease. IShadowed ✰ 06:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google is not the repository of all knowledge. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. PubMed finds no mention of "nosocomephobia" in the medical literature. Per our very own article List of phobias, "a large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other". While the fear of hospitals is no doubt real for some people, the condition does not appear to be documented in any WP:RS. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So Oxford amongst others are just going to make this term up? I can understand if it was just some blogger, or one or two books but my sources clearly demonstrate using significant coverage that this is not just some fake internet term. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. No reputable references (with the exception of content spamming websites described in List of phobias article) which describe this phobia in reasonable detail. The cited book "Phobias revealed" is one big joke of source: it is a "phobia list" snatched from internet and embellished with pictures. Laudak (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how do you know it was "snatched from the internet", where is your proof? -Marcusmax(speak) 15:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It exists. That said, unless there is significant coverage of this phobia in a reliable source, a line in List of phobias is all it merits. — æk ^Talk 07:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I do love the fact that the word can be proven to exist by this book. Until such time as it appears in something more RS-like (al la PubMed) I would have to go with a Delete for now. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposition - I would like to thank you all for your overwhelmingly strong opinions. I think you can all agree the word does exist, but for those advocating delete maybe transwiki to wikitionary would be a better option? --Marcusmax(speak) 23:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The references in the WP article are more than enough for the Wiktionary inclusion criteria. — æk ^Talk 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to fear of hospitals. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because this word appears in some lists of phobias doesn't mean we should have an article about it. There's no hits to articles on PubMed or Google Scholar, showing that this has no real notability. Wikipedia isn't a repository of quirky words. I don't suggest transwiki as this isn't formatted at all like what Wiktionary want, and I am not sure the permanently archived sources exist to attest to the use of this term according to their criteria. Fences&Windows 21:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a condensed version into Hospital. It exists and is referenced, but doesn't really require a separate article. SMC (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qayyum Rana

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

Claims of notability are simply not born out by Google. Significantly, Google Scholar shows virtually no trace of him. His books do not appear to be cited. While it is hoped that he chooses to remain involved in WP in his area of expertise, he does not meet WP:BIO at this time. Or am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable; no second party sources and publications are not of note: though called books they are informational booklets, likely self published.Novangelis (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Please see related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Parkinson's Education Program and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Aid to Neuro-ophthalmology. 05:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I think this is very well-meaning subject, but he simply does not appear to be notable. If the clinic and/or program is notable, then he might gain notability from being the director, but they do not appear notable either. Singularity42 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few references IShadowed ✰ 06:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.* If Rana and his projects acquire notability at a later time, editors other than coi spas (see talk page) may write encyclopedic articles about them. — Athaenara ✉ 20:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Nine pages found. Seven in mainspace: An Aid to Neuro-ophthalmology (AfD), World Parkinson's Education Program (AfD), A Synopsis of Neurological Emergencies, Frequently Asked Questions About Parkinson's Disease, Parkinson Clinic of Eastern Toronto and Movement Disorders Center, Abdul Qayyum Rana, Dr. Abdul Qayyum Rana. Two in userspace: User:Irfanjamal/Dr. Abdul Qayyum Rana, User:Ranaaq/Frequently Asked Questions about Parkinson's Disease. — Athaenara ✉ 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The list of related articles has been expanded at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Abdul Qayyum Rana. Novangelis (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the talk page is just raising the history, and that there are related articles up for deletion. There are currently three AfDs going on: this one, one regarding the subject's publications, and one regarding the subject's program and clinic. Singularity42 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This guy seems like a wonderful person but I can't find anything to suggest he meets notability. Shame though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily delete as promotional. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Chan

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

Not very notable, if notable at all, individual whose article looks more like a listed resume of places he's been on the 'net and various forgettable stages in various forgettable theatres in various forgettable places. No reliably sourced references, no 3rd party substantiation of claims made. gHits is flogging a dead horse due to the entirely forgettable name. Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JakeZ (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a CV intended to promote a commercial web site, not an encyclopedia article. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucca Brazzi

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

Simply not notable per WP:MUSIC; tagged since 2008; both references given are no longer online and not notable enough anyway Phil153 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of independent third-party sources and does not meet notability. JakeZ (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough information and sources. --MWOAP (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @183 · 03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not only does this candidate meet notability standards, the article is also poorly referenced. IShadowed ✰ 06:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as an obviously disruptive, bad faith nomination. Whatever issues this article may have, to allow THIS particular discussion to continue any further would be a discredit to the project. The nominator started this discussion on his third edit, and there is strong evidence that the delete !=votes are socks of the nominator. Accordingly, the nominator and all socks are blocked indefinitely. Blueboy 96 03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banjee

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

(no credible claims of notability whatsoever).

"The 1999 play Banjee, written by playwright A.B. Lugo, presented at the Milagro Theater/Clemente Soto Vélez Cultural and Educational Center (and in another NYC venue in 2004), is "the story of Angel (played by Indio Meléndez), a straight homeboy, and Tony (played by Will Sierra), an admittedly bi banjee, who've known each other since childhood."

Banjee is used in the gay lifestyle but I noticed that there is a bit of self promotion. I have heard of the film Paris is Burning and the term Banjee was used but a play by the same name does not exist. I searched the internet broadway database and no such play exists. It's sounds as if it were an amateur production or a high school production somewhere. The actors in the production are not even listed as professional actors nor is the playwrite AB Lugo listed as a professional playwrite anywhere. It says that this play premiered at another NYC venue. Which one? I think this is a vandal who is self promoting and does not qualify as having nobility. Therefore, I nominate this entry to be deleted and the page should be adjusted. (Beetleguice (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)— Beetleguice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Malformed listing fixed; afd tag added to article. I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article should be edited. Why the word Banjee? The bit about the 1999 play Banjee seems like self promotion. Ultimately violates wikipedias notability factor. Delete immediately. There shouldn't be any articles that include self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penumbraborealis (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC) — Penumbraborealis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CommentWhat's notable about a play at a community center that has no stars or real actors or by a published playright attached. I can't find anything about the show, play, nothing. This appears to be a hoax. Should be deleted and blocked. Overdarainbow (Overdarainbow (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC))— Overdarainbow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CommentArticle should be edited not deleted entirely. The self promotion bit should be deleted. The playright and actors are not notable. Neither is the performance space. Seems like a one act produced as a showcase somewhere. Delete. Gorrillasindamist (Gorrillasindamist (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC))— Gorrillasindamist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Seems like there is a bit of a feud going on between users: 151.205.96.44, Ronald Backardy, Tainotalisman, Tainotalisman8, Benjiboi and 71.125.156.56. I suspect that there is sockpuppetry going on with 151.205.96.44, Ronald Backardy, Tainotalisman. Wikipedia shouldn't allow this nonsense to continue and all involved should be blocked indefinitely. I do agree that the play Banjee with its playright and actors are not notable enough to be included in wikipedias encyclopedia. I can see if this were a broadway or a union production but it seems as if no play exists other than for the purpose of self promotion. Delete at once and block all parties immediately involved in this nonsense. THE END!! (User:Donaldhennessey) (Donaldhennessey (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC))— Donaldhennessey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Unfortunately, there is a feud going on, but it is not on my end. I have been cyberharassed by an Azayas4reel on Wikipedia. He has been banned under that name (as well as under two other sock puppets). I have not spoken to this man in months, but he continues to harass me and vandalize Wikipedia. For the record, the play Banjee was done off-off-Broadway (in 1999 and in 2004). It merited a review in the Village Voice (which is noted in the Wikipedia article). I did not put that information in the article. If one checks the history, it was done by someone else. I also suspect that Azayas4reel is also Penumbraborealis, Overdarainbow, Gorrillasindamist and Donaldhennessey [sic]. Since understanding Wikipedia's terms of use, I have been an editor who has not broken the rules. It is unfortunate that Azayas4reel feels the need to continue this nonsense. I have not spoken to him at all and yet he continues on his end. I just want the harassment to cease and I have e-mailed several administrators to hopefully put an end to this mess. Ronald Backardy (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy[reply]
Speedy Keep and a liberal application of the blockhammer. Crafty (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as advertising. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Pennine Orienteering Club

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

Obvious blatant advertising is obvious. ☆Pickbothmanlol☆ 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason given by the nominator is not a reason for deletion. It might well be advertising. The question is whether there are sources that can be used to justify notability and convert this to an article that is not advertising. Is it notable? It gets a lot of google hits that show that it is mentioned frequently by other parts of the orienteering community in the UK. It also gets some newspaper mentions, but I am not sure whether they are notable. A successful orienteering club could well be notable. Maybe this article just needs work by someone who knows more about orienteering than I do. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:26, 22 November 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) 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Júlí Heiðar

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

Can't find evidence this singer has released anything except for youtube videos, or met any requirement of WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Taking to AfD rather than prod because most mentions are not in English and google translate may be misleading me. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - is there any evidence of International tours? (Island itself is too small to rate as a "national tour" per WP:MUSIC.) Bearian (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see any in the gsearch, but again, google wasn't doing a great job with translation. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:23, 24 November 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) 01:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for speedy deletion per CSD A7. - RoyalFool (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Malcolm Edge

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

Can find nothing about the man, the alleged murder or the television show online. Unreferenced biography. Probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about the radio show, the television show, nothing. This appears to be a hoax. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:59, 21 November 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) 01:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searching finds nada. JakeZ (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: ...although I have to admit it was good for a laugh. The Walter Edge Gospel Hour on PBS? Yeah, right. "One of the most watched television shows on PBS"? Yeah, right. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Parker Edge

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

Can find nothing about the woman, the alleged murder or the television show online. Unreferenced biography. Probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about the radio show, the television show, the Christian Radio Network that it says she was the president of. This appears to be a hoax. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:57, 21 November 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) 01:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searching finds nada. JakeZ (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Obvious hoax. Not even as funny as her "husband's". --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion seems not to be the case here. Discuss possible merge on the talkpage. Tone 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Now

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

very little content, can be merged with main article. Just because a song charted somewhere doesn't constitute it having it's own page. Alan - talk 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable song. Texas were big enough at the time that the single would have been reviewed in many print sources, so sources will exist even though a Google search may not find them.--Michig (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable song by a famous band. It charted! I spent time expanding this article too. Wikipedia should be expansive and this article should remain.--Davidkt 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkt (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:31, 22 November 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) 01:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge proposal can be done per wp:merge if that's a better way to handle the content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Media Player per Teacher

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

A google search reveals only blog like references; and google news, scholar and books have a grand total of zero hits. Is being edited under COI and looks to be a bit of an advert to boot. Fails verifiability, reliable sources, encyclopedic notability and add a dash of conflict of interest and advertising into it as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment From the guide to deletion: "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." You could at least link the numerous alphabet soup terms used in the nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've edited Spartaz's post expanding the acronyms to their meanings and linking them - hope that's okay taz. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-21t21:53z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-21t21:57z
Note my keyboard doesnt have an accessible | character on is so wikimarkup like that is a pain. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I did the prod before. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-21t21:53z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JakeZ (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chosen (Jerome Karabel)

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

Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:34, 21 November 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) 01:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [32], [33], [34], [35],[36], [37], [38], and [39]. Joe Chill (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill. I do think the article creator should have fleshed it out more, as this is obviously a significant book. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not yet a notable concept, as no secondary sources have picked it up. Counting Google hits or waiting for coverage isn't what we do. Fences&Windows 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location Based Trust

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

No assertion of notability. Many google hits, but most are false positives. The concept was first "presented" to the public on 24 October of this year, so the chances of finding any sources are unlikely. I myself can find nothing but the title from the seminar it was unveiled at. Ironholds (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. More sources may be available soon that may make it noteable in the future, especially if it has many Google hits. A8 UDI 20:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As said, most of the google hits are unrelated and false positives - no evidence of notability. "It might be important in the future" is not a valid argument. Ironholds (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A new concept coined by someone, but has not yet received coverage to show notability. Basically, at the moment it is one guys opinion. If there is sufficient coverage in the future to justify an article then it could be created when the information is there, but we should not have articles on the expectance of future coverage. Quantpole (talk) 21:32, 21 November 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) 01:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No external sources that make it notable. Cynof Gavuf 08:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly

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

No assertion of notability. There is no evidence that the case has set any kind of precedence, or of coverage by reliable sources to allow it to pass WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a notorious hoax with extensive Internet coverage, to the point where the official law library of the Minnesota court system has had to set up a special web page dealing with it [40]. The decision was quickly thrown out, and the "winning" lawyer disbarred (apparently the "judge" who issued it was both his client and was not even allowed to hear the case) and later sentenced to a long prison term on tax charges. There's enough of web presence to make it a plausible search term in various forms. The existing version is garbage, and an accurate version will be hard to maintain, but that's not a reason for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See Talk:Fiat money#Jerome Daly. It was (apparently) decided that the case wasn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in the Fiat money article, which is its natural home. However, consensus can change. Tevildo (talk) 21:23, 22 November 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) 01:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per the Talk:Fiat money discussion. No changes have been made to the article since nomination. It's precedent, by the way, not precedence or "prejudicate". Tevildo (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mistyping; I am a law student ;P. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerest apologies for any offence. My comment was directed more at the article author. :) Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this isn't notable as anti-tax lore? This case seems to get mentioned or alluded to a lot: [41]. The sources tend to be very skewed politically, but still, that so many mention him and this case seems notable. There's no actual requirement that the Fiat money article mention him before we keep an article on this case, fiat money is a very general topic that needs to be written from a global perspective. Wikipedia can still cover topics too obscure to make it into the top level article. Of course, this version of the article doesn't seem to have much worth keeping, I admit. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are many lawsuits launched or defended by people who don't want to meet their financial obligations, whether it's tax or (as in this case) mortgage repayments. This one is only really notable because it was decided the wrong way at first instance, not because Mr Daly's case had any intrinsic merit. However, if we can find significant mention of it in reliable sources - and I assume tax-denial blogs don't count as "reliable" - it can stay. I still think that it would be better as part of the Fiat money article, though, in default of an article on judicial bias or something more appropriate, rather than just standing alone. Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite heavily. The article as it exists is semi-illiterate, and it's impossible to tell what really happened. The information and sources mentioned here should be added to the article, so that people who look this up can tell what is really going on. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Melanie[reply]
- If this rewrite isn't done though, I think the decision should clearly be ~~delete~~. The article needs a total rewrite, right now it just quasi-coherently tells the story in a way that attempts to bolster a crackpot point of view on taxation. Keeping that around is not a good idea. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep based on the rewrite, now we actually have something worth keeping. Also I want to keep it based on the number of times this gets referred to in books and websites... often incorrectly. It seems notable. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just went and did a total rewrite, based on the sources cited here and in the article. Look at it again and see if you think it now qualifies for a Keep. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Weak Keep. The evidence of notability is still rather limited, but the Minnesota State Law Library article at least indicates that people are _interested_ in it; considering the vastly improved quality of the article, I now think it should stay. Tevildo (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the rewritten version. Edward321 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apistogramma (album)

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

No mention of this album on Allmusic and no Google books, news, or scholar matches. Fails notability guidelines for music. The artist is notable, but this particular album is not. Neelix (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Official album release by a notable band. Everything in the article is verifiable via reliable sources. There's no reason to delete this, and a merge to the band's article wouldn't make sense, so leave it as it is. This would certainly have received print coverage at the time (1998), even though Google might not know about it.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll just add that Trumans Water as a band has achieved notability so their album articles should at least start out with assumption of associated notability. The band has many album articles and a whole slew of them were recently proposed for deletion. Many of the others have survived review, probably for the same reasons. Also, the album articles, including this one currently under discussion, certainly need work (especially references) and should be categorized as stubs. But that does not automatically mean that they are non-notable. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - There is no such thing as "associated notability." Many artists are notable who have produced albums which are not. No scholarly reviews of this album have been found thus far. The only reference on the article at all is one stating what production company produced the album. This reference is not sufficient to establish the notability of the album. Neelix (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix, please read WP:NALBUMS, which 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." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:59, 28 November 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) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not conflict with notability guidelines for music. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:NALBUMS, as the artist is notable. The album also meets WP:V. I agree that it's bizarre that this isn't listed on Allmusic. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users are saying that this album is notable but they are not demonstrating how. A Stop at Willoughby has quoted WP:NALBUMS, stating that "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." This guideline must be read in context. The preceding sentence in the guideline states that all albums must have "significant coverage in reliable sources." This album does not. Neelix (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~delete~~ userfy. Fails WP:GNG: Three times, Google results were used as evidence, but nobody found any (independent) source in them that would meet even the first criterion "Significant coverage". The article itself does not contain any such source, either. What gave me pause was that the article does say "it is the largest online directory in the world for surplus capital equipment", but that is referenced to Alexa Internet, which is not a reliable source for business evaluation. What they are reliable for, their statistics[42], show a traffic rank of 235,099, which does not support the claim of high notability for an online directory. — Sebastian 04:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I overlooked one source, a reference to the Chicago Sun-Times story about the company that said "The Surplus Record is known as the bible of the used and surplus capital equipment industry." Since ChildofMidnight expressed the wish for it to be userfied, I will do that instead. — Sebastian 05:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus Record Machinery & Equipment Directory

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

Random catalogue; fails WP:N. I like the inclusion of Category:United States, and the assumption that Thomas P. Scanlan will be 89 forever—nice touches. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:27, 22 November 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) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Definitely notable [43] ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look again, please. The hits for "Surplus Record Machinery & Equipment Directory" stop after about page 2, and most of those are obituaries for Scanlan. I don't see the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The company has a very long history, and both it and its founder are notable. This article covers both. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can say to each other "it's notable!" or "it's not notable!" ad nauseam; the test of that is WP:GNG: has the directory "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? No, not really. This fairly weak treatment is as close as I can find to coverage at any depth beyond trivial, but if the directory were actually that notable, there'd be far more available about an 80-odd year-old company. There isn't, and that leads me to believe we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first article (and there are many listed) on Google News is very substantial coverage entirely about this subject (1280 words). It says:

"Tom Scanlan recalls shaking his head at a revolving door of well-educated, inexperienced hot shots who've offered to make a strategic alliance with his 77-year-old surplus capital equipment publishing company.

The visits started in May 1999, one month after Scanlan's Chicago-based company, the Surplus Record, started its own online auction.

The Surplus Record is known as the bible of the used and surplus capital equipment industry. Its 832-page November issue..." ref: SANDRA GUY Date: November 16, 2000 Publication: Chicago Sun-Times Page: 6

The subject of this article is very notable and there's plenty of coverage. It's not a close call. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks notable enough. Composition errors do not warrant deletion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I say that? "Fails WP:N" sounds like a policy-based deletion rationale to me. Oh, sure, I added a humorous aside, which you're free to ignore, but the actual rationale was that the thing fails WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said it "looks notable enough" to keep. I merely meant that your comment was arbitrary and incites predilection. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I reserve the right to direct gentle mockery at the edits of promotional single-purpose accounts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes it does fail WP:N, by a country mile. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Care to point out more specific instances of significant coverage? I see only passing mentions, advertisements and the like. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's character premiere outlet

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

Delete. Non-notable shop. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable~~, previous speedy deletion~~. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Pointless article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable store. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan. Also, it should be noted that the speedy mentioned by Eagles247 was declined. ArcAngel (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dranoff International Two Piano Foundation

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

Written like an news release and overly promotional tone. ☆Pickbothmanlol☆ 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 November 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) 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks salvagable. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever, and is indeed blatant advertising. It is correctly listed as an AfD, but is incorrectly put on a "miscellaneous for deletion form," if that matters. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopewell Museum

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

No evidence of notability for this museum.

I am also nominating the related page Hopewell Public Library for the same reason.

Artw (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a little confusing as the Hopewell Museum and the Hopewell Public Library seem to be the same entity. Anyway, this museum is the subject of secondary sources [44][45] and even a piece in the New York Times. [46] I don't know about merging the two articles. --Oakshade (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same, a library and museum were chartered at the same time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 November 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) 01:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and not covered sufficiently. Times "piece" is an event listing from 1961, and the two other book mentions cited are insufficient to create an article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable and verifiable sources about the subject in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm seeing the generic entry in the generic local guide as possibly useful in establishing WP:N, but not a lot else. The self-published second link certainly isn't any help, and as JohnnyB256 points out the times peice does not help either. Artw (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Publishing publications are not self published. Nor are they associated in any way with the museum. Please argue with facts and not speculation. Please double check your spelling too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second link. Work on your counting skills. Artw (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a notable location if it appears in Google news search 144 times. Dream Focus 09:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is abundant evidence of notability. I have added a citation to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. Lee

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

I didn't speedy this because of the book, but co-authoring a single non-notable book doesn't qualify for notability per WP:AUTHOR. JaGa^talk 00:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't seem to find any notability about this Thomas Lee, needs sources. South Bay (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 15:12, 21 November 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) 01:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajalon Printing and Design

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

This is just a moderately successful local business, like millions of others. There's no evidence whatever that it is in any way notable. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:24, 21 November 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) 01:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Rikat (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victory FM

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

Delete: Unreferenced article about non-notable radio station. Cannot find significant coverage from independent sources. Even if kept, needs total rewrite. Other article, Kevin Huffer, by same author also at AFD. Wknight94 ^talk 16:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke and start over A fully licensed radio station is generally considered notable, but this article needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt from scratch. Subject yay, this article a big fat nay. DarkAudit (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 22 November 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) 01:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Article is a diary and best left scribbled on the authors note paper. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry learned W'pedia people - I seem to have been miss out of the loop on the decission do remove my topic from it's own page. I know not what your understanding or refference is so I can't challenge it. I guessing that it is probably zero (sorry to be blunt) I'm sure that you would have constructed it better, that I can relate to but I'm just someone in posesson of the information, the formating withing the rules here are something I will need assistance with.

Is it possible for the article to have a get out of jail card please.

If you care to state you understanding, participation, relavant background to this I'm happy to talk further and I'd bedelighted to recieve what ever halp you can offer interms of format presentation.

Making the comments that you have, so bluntly, I guess if the norm here, so may I offer one comment as a blunt ending. To start the ball rolling, please state your knowledge base or reistate the article. ... and stop having little power moments behind closed doors it's rther like the article was guilty with out a fair trial.

Aside from that please keep up the good work you are no doubt doing for little thanks.

Wiki is just brilliant. Thus I wanted to do my little but too on a topic I think I'm probably defacto on. I know - I ain't no schoolar! Fair cop.

Mark

(Avictorian (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (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. Tone 19:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Huffer

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

Delete: Unreferenced article about non-notable radio executive/presenter. No significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Other article, Victory FM, by same author also at AFD. Wknight94 ^talk 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 November 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) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Green Bunny. Notability not established. — Sebastian 05:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advancer Tina

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

Non-notable pornographic anime with no coverage by reliable third party sources. Article was originally prodded back in February, then redirected to the studio, restored by and IP without any explanation, redirected back to the studio, then restored again by the same IP. —Farix (t | c) 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was released in the U.S. in volume 1 of a collection of titles from Kitty Media called "The Best of Kitty", so coverage might be under the name of the collection, and not the name of this individual anime. I found one review [47], and even though it isn't just about this anime but all three in that volume of Best of Kitty, I think it is enough coverage to count as non-trivial for the purpose of establishing notability. If someone can find another good source, then I would say keep. Otherwise, redirect back to the studio, since I don't see any problem with the redirect . . . the only problem is that someone keeps undoing it. Calathan (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the standard format of other anime and manga reviews by Mania.com, formally AnimeOnDVD.com, that one appears to be extremely trivial and would fail WP:NOTE. Also, past precedents has required at least two separate reviews when establishing notability. —Farix (t | c) 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is trival coverage. I'm not sure what you are saying about the standard format of their reviews . . . if you mean that their reviews are longer now than they were back when this one was written, then that is true, but I still think this is just long enough to count as non-trivial. That the site has improved the quality of their reviews since this one was written doesn't mean that this review is insufficient to pass WP:NOTE. And also I know that two reviews are usually required when establishing notability - that is exactly why I suggested another source is needed before I would vote to keep the article. Calathan (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three sentences, which is what the actual review ammounts to, is hardly what I would call a non-trivial review. In fact, three sentences is very trivial. —Farix (t | c) 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are only 3 sentances saying whether he liked or didn't like this anime, but there are a total of 8 paragraphs about either this anime or the release in general. I don't see how you can say that the paragraphs about the disk in general don't count as part of the review. I'm sure you would consider comments about the video quality, playback problems, etc. as part of the review for any title releases by itself. Just because those comments apply to two other anime released on the same disk doesn't mean they do not apply to this anime. Calathan (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a comment about the the anime itself, then it's doesn't count towards the amount of coverage the anime has received. Beyond the basic plot description, only three sentences were about the anime. Everything else is inconsequential. —Farix (t | c) 19:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the anime's release is coverage of the anime. Would you really argue that coverage of a DVD being a best seller, or being banned in a country, or anything like that aren't coverage for proving notability because they aren't about the content of the film? Just because this particular work has far more boring information about it (e.g. it didn't play in several video players), doesn't mean that isn't coverage. I really don't see how you can argue that coverage of the DVD the film was released on isn't coverage of the anime, at least not for a work like this where it is one of the main things on the disk. Regardless, the point is moot unless someone finds at least one more good source, as I don't think anyone would argue that the article should be kept based on this one review. The more important issue is whether the article should be deleted outright as opposed to redirected again. Calathan (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If memory serves, this was originally released on VHS by itself, not as part of a collection, back in the early-to-mid 90s. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google has over 115,000 hits in English, and five thousand more in Japanese. It has been translated into Spanish, and Italian as well. Are there any sites out there where animated pornography is reviewed, which are considered reliable sites? Are we going to wipe out every single hentai article we come across? Dream Focus 11:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found one hentai review site that should be considered notable. Editorial process, only select reviewers there, not something just anyone can edit. Dream Focus 11:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of WP:GHITS is irrelevant and does not denote notability. You've been told this a thousand time. Also Animetric.com has been discussed by the project and listed as an unreliable source. —Farix (t | c) 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that animetric.com was discussed (and I haven't been bringing it up in AfD discussions for that reason), but personally I would have said that Rowena Lim Lei's reviews from the site should be considered reliable sources. I visited the site regularly when she owned it, and I know its reviews were often cited by anime companies in press releases or on packaging of titles. ANN has press releases by three different companies citing animetric's reviews [48], [49], [50]. Also, at least according to Rowena on the site itself, she was regularly sent anime to review by anime companies. While I don't think she had any experience in the anime industry, I would have said being sent anime to review and being cited by anime companies makes someone a reliable source for reviews. She is at least a professional writer according to her blog [51], though that writing has nothing to do with anime.

On the other hand, the current owner of animetric.com is clearly not a reliable source. He bought the site from Rowena after she no longer wanted to run it, and due to the site going through a long hiatus before she could find a buyer, no anime company seems to have paid any attention to it since it was bought (or at least I haven't seen its reviews cited anywhere since then). Also, I think the current owner accepts user submitted reviews, which clearly shouldn't be considered reliable. Older reviews not by Rowena also shouldn't be accepted, as she initially accepted user reviews when she started the site, but switched to only publishing her own reviews after a little while. I would think the site at least deserves a wider discussion. I would hardly consider a discussion where one person thought the site should be considered reliable and three thought it shouldn't to be definitive. Calathan (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is can your argumentation be convincing enough for any Good Article reviewer?

Another point is one review isn't enough to assert notability due partly to POV & weight issue. You just can't write something balanced with just one opinion. --KrebMarkt 07:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of a Good Article reviewer have nothing to do with whether an article should exist or not. Most of Wikipedia doesn't have the Good Article stat, nor do most people know what it is, or could care less about it. Whether something is balanced or not, is not a reason to delete an article either. It was notable enough to be reviewed in what was then a reliable source. Same as being mentioned in a newspaper, even if that newspaper later was sold to someone who destroyed its credibility. It counts as legitimate coverage. Dream Focus 12:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animetric.com is so weak in term of credibility that any thoughtful inquiry may end with its reviews removed from articles. Why should be given weight to Animetric reviews? Why should we given room for that website reviews in articles reception section? --KrebMarkt 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published websites are a dime a dozen. WP:V#SELF gives a bases as to when it is appropriate to use a self published source. First is to establish if the the author is a expert on the topic. This is accomplished by looking to see if his or her work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The problem with press releases is that they are promotional in nature and their reliability is questionable. Companies have been known to select the most favorable quotes for their product or even twist quotes to make the more positive. The reliability and expertise of the reviewer isn't their concern beyond the reviewer's recognizably. See the discussion ANNCast podcast at approximately 52:40 about how companies have misused reviewer quotes in their promotional material. Because of these reasons, WP:ANIME decided that quotations used for the purposes of advertisement does not adhere to the "previously been published by reliable third-party publications" standard set by WP:V#SELF. —Farix (t | c) 14:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely understand that arguement. However, I don't really see how the reviews from animetric.com are any different than those from AnimeOnDVD.com before it was bought by Mania. My understanding was that Chris Beveridge is considered an expert solely because he made a successful site reviewing anime, though maybe I am mistaken about that. Before AnimeOnDVD.com was bought by Mania, were its reviews not considered a reliable source? Calathan (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether AnimeOnDVD was a self-published website, and did it have any editorial controls over its content are non sequiturs to this debate. —Farix (t | c) 15:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this discussion of the reliability of animetric.com is tangental to this AfD discussion, I don't see how the arguement that AnimeOnDVD being considered reliable when it was a similar (though more successful) website to animetric.com is inappropriate for a discussion of animetric's reliability. Calathan (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least AnimeOnDVD has this, that and more. Comparatively search for Animetric return 4 hits in news category and not once it's the subject of the said news. On one news ANN mentions AnimeOnDVD's staff as "Our colleagues at AnimeOnDVD.com" that is a recognition as equal. --KrebMarkt 07:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. AnimeOnDVD is clearly a reliable source now. Even for the reviews that Chris Beveridge wrote years ago (such as the one I linked to above in this AfD), I would consider those reliable as they are now backed by Mania.com (even though I'm doubtful that an editor went through and read all of the old reviews). I was asking if AnimeOnDVD would have been considered a reliable source several years ago, with the point being that I think most people would have said yes, even though it had self-published reviews. My arguement is that having self-published reviews doesn't necessarily make a site unreliable. However, I understand that animetric is a significantly less notworthy site even than the AnimeOnDVD of several years ago (for example, Animefringe named AnimeOnDVD the top anime website back in 2003). I was just trying to counter TheFarix's arguement that animetric should necessarily be considered unreliable since it is self-published. If there is consensus that animetric isn't reliable, I won't keep argueing the issue (though I still feel like your original discussion didn't get much participation). Calathan (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether AnimeOnDVD would have passed WP:SPS in the past is completely irrelevant to whether Animetric passes WP:SPS in the present. So I don't see why you keep bring up this non sequitur arguement. —Farix (t | c) 01:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, now I think you are just being rude. All I was trying to do there was clarify for KrebMarkt that I didn't doubt AnimeOnDVD's reliability, since I got the impression that he thought I did doubt it. Of course I had to restate what I had written before in order to try to make what I meant more clear to him, but that wasn't a further attempt to try to sway anyone to my arguments, merely an attempt to correct a misunderstanding I thought had occurred. If you reread what I just wrote, I was actually conceding the point and saying that I wouldn't argue anymore for animetric to be considered a reliable source. I was already kind of insulted when you called my argument a non sequitor the first time . . . I could understand if you said it was an unconvincing argument, but I don't see how comparing a potential source to another, more established source is out of place in this discussion. However, I figured maybe you just didn't see where I was going with my argument. This time, however, I can't think of any reasonable explanation for your comments, and find them quite rude. Calathan (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who keeps trying to connect AnimeOnDVD's standing as a reliability source with Animetric. Two simply aren't related. —Farix (t | c) 20:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single reliable source that reviews hentai? If not, are you going to try to mass delete all of the hentai articles? The guidelines are suggestions on how to improve the Wikipedia, not an excuse to mass destroy large portions of it. Dream Focus 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeOnDVD/Mania.com is definitely a reliable source, and they review a lot of hentai. Calathan (talk) 15:07, 26 November 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) 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: Looking at Google Books, I noticed that this series appears in an Italian dictionary of cartoon animation. Page 8 - Il Dizionario dei Cartoni Animati by Daniel Valentin Simion. ISBN 9791234567896 - I don't know if this helps the notability case, but I thought I would mention what I found about this.

It is also mentioned in Facets Movie Lover's Video Guide (1998), but I cannot find exactly what this says about Advancer Tina.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still think that changing this back to a redirect to the studio is appropriate, since it seems like a valid search term and that seems like a reasonable target for a redirect. I don't think it is necessary to delete the article first in order to keep the redirect from being undone. Calathan (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall there seems to be sufficient consensus that the company is notable. The article has been apparently cleaned up, as it no longer appears to be promotional in nature. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostfire Games

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

Short article on video game company of very questionable notability. COI by original page author is strongly suspected. WuhWuzDat 13:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I said in WP:UFAA, the games might be notable but the company itself isn't. Pickbothmanlol 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search seems to bring up some decent coverage of the company. TJ Spyke 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the possible conflict of interest when I am trying to provide matter of fact information about the company.

The company is the producer of a notable video game.

Also, it stands to reason that wikipedia users will click on "ghostfire games" from the other 2 links helix (video game) and Rage of the Gladiator and wonder why there is no wikipedia entry. I am in favor of inclusion.

I request other opinions on the validity and notability of the article. If the community of editors believes it is not notable, then I am not one to argue as I am new to wikipedia. However it does not logically make sense to me why this article would not be notable and should not be included for my reasons above. Thanks! GhostfireScott (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)— GhostfireScott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Conflict of Interest is that you work for the company, and for that matter, have listed yourself as one of their "key people". WuhWuzDat 17:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, I am a key person, but that is a matter of fact. If however this is a problem, I am not averse to removing my name, and have done so. GhostfireScott (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to attempt to answer your questions.

A conflict of interest is assumed if you own or are employed by the company in question. It does not necessarily mean the information you are adding is bad, but tends to be a sign to other editors that you may tend to write material that is more promotional in nature than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. People are generally discouraged, but are not banned, from writing about articles with whose subjects they have close connections.
If there is no article on the subject, then the links in the articles about the video games will be red, and anyone familiar enough with Wikipedia style will recognize that means there is not an article about the company. Alternatively, the links could be removed. If the conclusion of this discussion is that the article about the company should be deleted, then the links in the game articles probably should be removed. They do not in and of themselves mean an article should exist.
To understand notability as used by Wikipedia, you should read the policy at WP:N. It is rather a jargon term here, with a specialized meaning. (Note that I am specifically not expressing an opinion on whether this subject meets our notability standards, just pointing you to the relevant policy.)

I hope all this helps. LadyofShalott 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

I now understand the issue of conflict of interest, and have removed myself from the article in question.

Yes, if it is decided that the article should be deleted than it stands to reason the links to said article should be removed. However,

I have read WP:N as WuhWuzDat was kind enough to initially direct me to, and am of opinion that the subject of said article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. However it is up to you folks to decide that, not me :) GhostfireScott (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We very much would appreciate additional sources to confirm Wikipedia-Notability, more than a pair of directory listings and three articles that don't mention the company in question at all. Nifboy (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to procure additional sources. GhostfireScott (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to come up with two more sites: http://www.jigsaw.com/id2733383/ghostfire_games_company.xhtml and http://sites.google.com/site/austingamecompanies/ GhostfireScott (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, both of those links show only the existence of the company (which is not in dispute), and do nothing to help prove notability. WuhWuzDat 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however for the moment this may be the best I can come up with you may have to make your decision based on the current evidence. Thank you for your time. GhostfireScott (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a non-notable company, they sure are giving a lot of interviews: Interview with CEO, interview with CEO, interview with CEO, interview with CEO, interview with someone, interview with CEO. SharkD Talk 04:13, 27 November 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) 01:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable (agreeing with the two keeps above). IShadowed ✰ 07:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems somewhat notable. 'Company History' section seems like pointless self-promotion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per findings by SharkD above. MuZemike 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as the article does not contain any significant coverage about the company, let alone any verifable evidence that it might be notable in any way. Given its overwhealmingly prompotional focus on the company's CEO and his book, clearly this article is a candidate for speedy deletion as it is pure spam. The press releases highlighted by SharkD are not evidence of notability for the same reason, as they are just promotional. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STONE and Digital Dave

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

The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 13:39, 21 November 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) 01:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 28 November 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 02:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find anything reliable or solid on them either. Probably fails WP:V, and article would probably need to be rewritten anyway, as it's not really in an encyclopaedic tone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources cited and no reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wolfe Tones. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Byrne (musician)

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

This article was previously a short stub that was changed, sensibly, to a redirect. An editor today has chosen to remove the redirect and change it back to a single sentence stub without making any attempt to expand or establish notability.Rather than get into a pointless edit war with that user, who already reverted my changes back to a rediect, I would like to propose here and get consensus that the article should be deleted and changed back to a redirect to Wolfe Tones Biker Biker (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:21, 21 November 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) 01:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect back into Wolfe Tones. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Google News archives I could not find any evidence of notability independent of Wolfe Tones, so let's redirect back there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allama Habibur Rahman Kandhalvi

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —LotLE×talk 09:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —LotLE×talk 09:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{db-a1}} tag from this article because the context is clear: this individual is a scholar.

However, I have been unable to find reliable sources about this individual. A Google News Archive search (with the search term: "Habibur Rahman Kandhalvi") returns no results. There may be sources in Urdu, so I have brought this article to AfD. If sources are found, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the books are all in Urdu makes it difficult for me, as a non-Urdu reader, to evaluate notability, or even find sources. However, even in English, some books, especially Age of Aisha, seem to appear with reasonable frequency in a Google search. The opinion of someone with relevant background (in Islamic scholarship and/or Urdu) would be really useful. LotLE×talk 08:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? per Worldcat listing which shows he passes WP:Author 4d. However, there's still nothing about him that I could find to create a stub, but that's more likely due to the multiple spelling variations and the lack of coverage in the western media. But the article ought to be moved to Ḥabīburraḥmān Ṣiddīqī Kāndhalvī oder Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqi Kandhalvi as that appears to be the name under which he's published, "Allama" is a title.-SpacemanSpiff 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please perform the move to the title that makes most sense. That will redirect the current title. Creating a manual redirect from the other name variant should be done as well. LotLE×talk 23:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather do it after the AfD closes to avoid having to fix the AfD links etc. Besides, I'm not sure which of the two titles is preferred. -SpacemanSpiff 23:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK. I'll make manual redirects from the two spellings you suggest back to the current Anglicized version. I just don't have any insight into Urdu orthography to make a judgement myself. For now, the primary name can be the current spelling. LotLE×talk 23:40, 21 November 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) 01:04, 28 November 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) 19:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He did write the books, and we have RS for that; there seems nobody here able to give an opinion on how important they are. We thus have no clear reason to delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussions about merging, etc. can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 07:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dugout (smoking)

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

This article seems to consist of someone's personal research. Unreferencable other than vendors. Questionable encyclopedic value.Mjpresson (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Rubbersocks (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a suitable reference. Of course the article still needs a lot of work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a law enforcement officer I found the article helpful for the research I was doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.114.102 (talk)

That's funny but this isn't a joke. Rubbersocks (talk) 17:39, 25 November 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) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking merge to Chillum (pipe). The "bat" is essentially a small, stylized chillum pipe. Most of this article is WP:OR, I think it could be trimmed into a new section in the rather brief article on the chillum. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with an expanded article, One-hitter (pipe). The generic concept of "one-hitter", having a crater-diameter narrow enough for single tokes at low temperature, is more relevant for most readers than the amusing but trivial brandnamed container, "dug-out". Grouping this information under "chillum" would not be as good because not all chillums are one-hitters (though they should be).

The article should express that (1)having a screen in the one-hitter permits using sifted (uniform particle size) herb without "shooters" clogging the channel, and thereby achieving a lower burning temperature with health-related benefit; (2) adding on a flexible long drawtube, such as furnished on hookahs, makes it easier to see and light up more moderately; also gives smoke more time to cool down before inhalation, another health advantage.

Citations for these directives have been hard to find because researchers feared repercussions if their findings indicated there is any better, safer way to "break the law".) Editors should note that Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO nowhere forbids use of a wikiHow article as a reference, as three individuals have alleged. Rather such referencing actually helps prevent using WP as a how-to guide. Several wikiHow articles are now available to serve as sources on how to make, screen and use one-hitters, convert existing chillums to one-hitters, etc.-- including diagrams, which are themselves vital evidence that the low-dosage option exists (as an alternative to hot-burning "joints"). If those articles leave anything to be desired, Wikipedia editors are free to sign in on wikiHow, select a user-name, and edit and improve such articles to meet encyclopedic standards.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got my merge argument backwards. "Not all chillums are one hitters" = true. "All one hitters are chillums" =true. This could be a sub-section of the chillum article. Most of the rest of what you are proposing to add is original research. You may be right about the reason there are few if any reliable sources, but unfortunately that does not change the fact that they aren't there. Although I had a real problem searching for this, most of the article I got were about baseball dugouts. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Something Tokerdesigner is neglecting to mention is that he writes those WikiHow edits himself, and then uses his wikihow entry as a reference when none were available to support his original research on Wikipedia, which is quite extensive. He admitted this on my talk page. It keeps the cleaner-uppers busy and it's a good argument to absolutely disallow wikiHow's as references! Mjpresson (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Nacional Meteorologia y Hidrologia

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

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every country's weather service is notable. This one is from Ecuador. For the previous group AfD for this article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secreteria Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia – Eastmain (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. It could definitely be improved, but meets notability almost inherently. LotLE×talk 09:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD is one of a batch nominated at the same time by the same nominator (and created, I believe, by the same editor). All of them concern Ecuadoran government agencies, and all are admittedly written in rather rough English. Commentators on this AfD might be interested in looking up those others. LotLE×talk 20:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to the hostile nomination statement, it appears to be a notable scientific institution for the nation that it serves. Warrah (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article has been moved to its proper title.Synchronism (talk) 07:52, 24 November 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) 01:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: relisted to allow for consideration together with sever other related AfDs, also relisted due to insufficient participation. Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep; rewritten so the poor English offends the nominator less. Notable scientific agency (national weather agencies are notable; we list down to the state level for the U.S.) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note moved to Instituto Nacional Meteorologia e Hidrologia (Equador) as it seems that Venezuela's and possibly other countries weather services are called the same thing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the one in the heading, renominate for the others -- there is no reason to think the notability will be similar -- they are every one of them a different organization and must be judged individually, ` DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the list of other articles - this is actually not a group nomination. The listed articles were nominated separately; each of the nominations has been relisted due to insufficient participation and are currently listed in Nov 28's log. Tim Song (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per phoebe's work, and the somewhat inherent notability of the subject, especially given that this is a maritime country's meteorological service.Synchronism (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centro de Levantamientos Integrados de Recursos Naturales por Sensores Remotos

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

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker. But concerns a government agency that is inherently notable. LotLE×talk 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies — not ministries, but agencies — automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with Biruitorul here... I have a serious problem with the idea that all governmental agencies are notable. In fact, I have a problem with the entire concept of inherent notablility. Every article should establish that the specific subject is notable. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 28 November 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 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more or less per LotLE. I would't go so far as saying all national govt agencies are inherently notable, but I think they're presumptively notable and there's no substantive argument here in opposition. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no consensus after 2 weeks JForget 22:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Research and Technology Development in Ecuador

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

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker. But concerns a government agency that is inherently notable. LotLE×talk 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies — not ministries, but agencies — automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Not all government agencies are notable, especially not small free standing research institutes. I see no evidence at all for this one, as the link given produces a 404 error. The G search is essentially negative, but might be positive if run under the Spanish title, but Ido not see even that. On what basis are these articles being written.? DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 28 November 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 02:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus to delete, and the arguments against a merge or redirect are also persuasive enough to discount that outcome. Kevin (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post closure note: when closing this I did take into account, but failed to note that several editors made the same argument twice, or offered a modified argument after the relist. As I have weighed the totality of arguments rather than vote counting, this did not had any impact on the outcome. Kevin (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christy twins

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

Biography of "twin brothers who were gay pornographic actors". Tagged as unsourced since July 2007. Fails WP:PORN and general notability guideline. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic actors, no references. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline; no indication of potential for article expansion beyond stub. Even lacks reliable sources for basic identity claims.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of male performers in gay porn films; I've been sourcing the list including cataloging who won what award and when. Although I have little doubt there is at least a handful of reliable sources, I do question if any good article can be made here unless one or both becomes notable for other career(s), and even then these are likely stage names so those connections also have to be made. The list article can house a few sentences on these two. Another possibility is an article on twin actors which would still mean this article is merged/redirected. In any case deletion is not needed here. -- Banjeboi 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: relisted to obtain more comments on the merge suggestion. Tim Song (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Please note that the article which Benjiboi proposed merging this one into above is presently also being considered for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That list won't be deleted. -- Banjeboi 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per BLP utterly unreferenced biography.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens do not merge redirect - since then we'd be associating someone with porn with no reference - that's the worst possible outcome.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- These guys are known for gay porn, need a ref? Here's a couple. There BLP concern addressed, no fuss no muss. -- Banjeboi 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article needs the ref, not me. Unreferenced porn articles need deleted. --Scott Mac (Doc) 21:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there a reason why the ref provided is insufficient? Tim Song (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What ref? I see no references on the article. An unreferenced article claiming that someone is a gay porn star ought to be speedy deleted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You asked for refs, Benjiboi gave you refs. Instead of adding them to the article, you instead shout "BLP speedy delete" because refs that are right in front of you were not added to the article. Very well, then. I added them. Not much, but enough to prove that "Christy twins" were indeed gay porn actors during the relevant time period. I can't find an RS giving their names, so I took them out. Problem solved. Tim Song (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I opined speedy delete because the article was unreferenced. I wasn't looking for someone to "give me refs" but to put references in the article, if the references are in the article, then my objection becomes moot, and as you say that problem is solved. You rightly have removed unsourced information form the article - all I was saying is the same principle applies to all the material in the article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You may be a bit confused how AfD works. We don't delete something unless the article is fixed, instead we determine if the problems are fixable. Your statement was calling for a speedy and I showed that your reasoning - while perhaps sincere - was misplaced because we can ref they have indeed done gay porn. -- Banjeboi 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. BLP trumps that. Unreferenced negative bios get speedy deleted under the CSD G10. That says noting about "fixable" it is just a question of whether it has been sourced or not.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying that being a gay porn star is a negative? The article doesn't have much else. Is being a garbage man negative? A lawyer? Hobit (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen as nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG guidelines. Why was this relisted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Yes, for the purposes of BLP is is certainly negative. For BLP negative is anything that, if untrue, would be damaging or embarrassing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nom we assume your opening statement is for deletion, thus this is a duplicate !vote. -- Banjeboi 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said in my relisting comment above, "relisted to obtain more comments on the merge suggestion". Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my original !vote. Merging inadequately sourced content which does not sufficiently demonstrate the notability of its subject resolves nothing satisfactorily. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - glad to see the referencing now fixed - but not convinced this meets notability.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge It's a clearly useful navigational aid and per WP:PRESERVE there is no reason to delete when a redirect will do. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What basis is there in policy for maintaining redirects for otherwise unnotable subjects, or for including them in lists that are supposedly limited to notable subjects? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll turn that around. Is there a policy that states that we delete redirects because the topic isn't notable? Redirects are navigational aids and not bound by WP:N as far as I'm aware. Hobit (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On looking, the policy is here: [52]. Which supports having a "redirect to a 'list of minor entities'-type article which is a collection of brief descriptions for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles."

But this isn't a redirect to a "list of minor entities-type article." Besides, the related discussion on the proposed target article has shown a consensus for limiting that list to notable, well-sourced subjects. And the justification/"reason" for the redirect in the guideline is "too short for own article," which is very different from "not notable." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Tecnologico Superior Aeronautico

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

Horridly unintelligible crap about a seemingly minor agency, the notability of which is not established through multiple, independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Badly written, presumably by non-native speaker. But concerns a government run university that is inherently notable. LotLE×talk 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know the mantra: "all government agencies are notable". But why? You're making a rather substantial claim there, that all the world's thousands of government agencies — not ministries, but agencies — automatically deserve articles here, WP:GNG and even WP:V notwithstanding. Colour me sceptical. If someone wants to restart them once they're gone from proper sources - which will have to be done regardless - fine, but as of now, there is no evidence of notability beyond the mantra. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewriter. It's a government sponsored technical college, and notable as such , like all other institutes of higher education I am not quite sure of the equivalent level--I think a US junior college. . But quite a bit of it is promotional, not suprising since a good deal is a crude translation of its website [53]. Just calling it a "govenment agency" shows a certain amount of unfamiliarity with the article and the link. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jason Derülo. I think a redirect is a reasonable outcome here Kevin (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Derülo (album)

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

Delete. WP:HAMMERTIME, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS are the main concerns here – there’s no release date, no tracklist and, according to the article, the recording process hasn’t finished yet. Dale 01:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources at all, which just adds to this album's lack of notability. I would normally suggest redirecting this to Jason Derülo, but with no references, there's no proof that this will be eponymous. 75.137.124.97 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Artist has a #1 hit on the Billboard Hot 100-since such hit will be on the album, then the album is automatically notable. Tom Danson (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jason Derülo until more information is known. Self-titled or not, it's a likely search term. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen Since he has a #1 hit, this album will absolutely be notable...when pertinent information is released. Right now, this unsourced article fails WP:CRYSTAL. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The logic is quite simple. A #1 single may make the singer notable, but it does not follow that every one of his albums automatically is notable. And given that the album has not even been released yet, it cannot be notable unless you haave a very powerful crystal ball. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Henry Ward Beecher. Black Kite 16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Presbyterian Church (Indianapolis, IN)

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

no credible claims of notability whatsoever. WuhWuzDat 17:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Many primary sources but havent found much in terms of secondary sourcing establishing notability. Im leaning towards delete but would like to see if any sources are availabe. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historical notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having skimmed these, which article in paticular contributes a substantial degree of coverage of the church to establish notability? The Historical notability may be there, but how and what is historically notable about the church is important and perhaps a focal point of what this article needs. One of the early notable pastors to me at least repreasents a degree of notability, but in that case theres a whole article already about him, would a merge into his article be appropriate? Something more about the church is still missing I believe (at least from my perspective). Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its claim to notability was based on Henry Ward Beecher, but I have to agree that until someone wants to make an article about the church itself, redirect to the Beecher article. Mandsford (talk) 22:24, 15 November 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) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly closely identified with Beecher. [54] , [55] [56] etc. in the New York Times clearly are secondary sources establishing notability. And over six hundred mentions in books. But having the founding pastor be Beecher ought be enough. Collect (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. At this point the article can be deleted. I have some sources about the church and will recreate the article when notability can be shown other than just connection to Beecher. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Beecher article. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please just delete instead. That would be an inappropriate redirect because the church is just something related to Beecher, but not part of him. That's almost like redirecting the organization Southern Christian Leadership Conference to its founder Martin Luther King, Jr. There would be nothing to merge anyway. Reywas92 ^Talk 04:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as notability can be established beyond Beecher, per Reywas92. SMC (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was rename to adult non-pornographic website and cleanup.

In this case, consensus can be better assessed by examining individual points. The following have not been refuted:

The term “adult documentary” is a neologism.
The term “documentary” is not usually used for websites.
The article is insufficiently sourced.
The main author caused some problems by copying and pasting, but apologized for them and is obviously well intended.

Merge to sex education was briefly mentioned, but didn't find support.

Some editors wrote “Delete, original research and not encyclopedic.” This is a valid concern, and I considered the following pertinent points:

The article contains some original research.
Its references are not primary sources.
There are some links to this article from other articles that add value to those articles.
The problems can be fixed.
The text itself is not controversial. Most of it, especially the lead, is obvious or common sense.
There seems to be no harm in keeping this article until the problems have been addressed.

After weighing these points, I felt the way to address as many concerns as possible was to

Give the article some time so that the reference issues can be addressed. If the problems persist 3 months from now, we can reconsider deletion.
Rename the article. The only alternative offered, “adult non-pornographic websites”, while not perfect, addresses at least concern #2. However, we need to use the singular form per WP:NAME#Article title format. — Sebastian 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adult documentary

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

Procedural nom. This was previously deleted via WP:PROD. This version is identical in every important respect to the previously deleted version. It seems a full debate is in order. PROD reasoning was: "Not notable. No secondary sources, "adult documentary" + website produces no relevant hits on google news archive or google books." Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PROD reasoning. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV 13 ^{other crap} 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit and Keep One of the main points in the article discusses how categorization is difficult in mainstream areas. In other words, it would not be expected to be found in google news or google books. Nevertheless, Adult Documentaries are part of many people's Internet experience. They may not be a part of your Internet experience, but they are relevant to millions of other people in the world. Also, the number of these types of sites is increasing. An interesting example is http://www.caitlainscorner.com/ (Please see the list of most popular articles on right hand side of the home page.) The problem, as described in the Adult Documentary article, is that so many people would see it's about sex/masturbation and consider it "Adult". Meanwhile, so many others claim it is a "Documentary" format. Some say reading the pages on this type of site will eventually cause sexual arousal, but others claim it also provides serious information. This is the reality of the "Adult Documentary". I agree that the article needs work and maybe needs more verifiable research, but it is definitely encyclopedia-worthy. 173.17.150.77 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)— 173.17.150.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Edit and Keep. Clean up of reference(s) and external links should help. Overall I find this notable. IShadowed ✰ 07:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while i agree that the subject of documentary films about mature subjects, such as sexuality, that are shot in a nonpornographic manner, possibly without nudity, is notable, i dont think the name of the article works. it doesnt seem to have that common usage. heres a film which would qualify, [57] and the category terms IMDB uses dont match (i know imdb is not a RS, but this would show common use if anything would). i would prefer to have a section in the Documentary film article that discusses this topic, and the problems associated with it, with another mention in Pornographic film, linking to the doc film section. any good references here could be moved to that article, with a few sentences added there as a start to a larger section. This article is just too horrible to try to salvage any of it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afaik there are no secondary sources about this subject (non-pornographic websites about sex), under this name or any other. If there are, maybe add the content to Sex education. The references in the current version of the article are too garbled to tell what they are, but the references in the version that was deleted were useless. Fails WP:N.Prezbo (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is clearly a recreation of an old article via cut-and-paste. Note that that article included sources. I'd ask that A) the old article be undeleted and put in it's place for now and B) if A isn't done and this is kept, we need to do that for licensing reasons. No real opinion on the article itself. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I was the one who did the cut and paste copy that others are talking about here. I am sorry for doing that, and I now realize how it can cause problems. I could not find the most current version of the article. It was like it just vanished. Regarding the article itself, I think we should keep it. When I was an editor for the Open Directory Project, we had a discussion just like this. The other ODP editors referred to certain types of web sites as "Adult Documentaries". Everyone knew the meaning of it, and they used the term without question. Some people who study human sexuality at a college level often use the term. (I know that from first hand experience.) I can see how it would be difficult to find places where the term is used openly on the Web, but a lot of people use the term to describe web sites which have content that falls somewhere in between porn and education. I remember one site we discussed was Raw Psych -- They use the term "Adult Documentaries" in the first paragraph on the first page. Other sites use the term also, but I can't remember them off hand. I would suspect they may not be listed in the regular Google searches. The term also might not be used in the exact form as we have it here. I am interested in human sexuality and taxonomy, which is why I have a such a strong opinion about the article. Other pages on WikiPedia have linked to the article, so it has some type of notability. The article needs work and more verifiable explanations, but I don't think the reasons for wanting to fully delete the article should be the standards we use. There were a lot of other people who contributed and edited the article, so it must have meaning to at least some people. The article has been there for a couple of years, and it is not an orphan article. It belongs in the WikiPedia encyclopedia. I realize it is controversial, but the term "Adult Documentary" should definitely not be the reason to fully delete the article. APatcher (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It makes sense to me. Thanks, AOCynstamps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.96.174 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. why does this have links, and our article doesnt? was it cut and pasted from here? whoever did that needs to restore the links. by the way, im searching, and i cannot find, so far, more than 1 use of this term anywhere, including the external links provided. the links in this article are to sites that are of this nature, but none of them, except 1, refer to themselves as "adult documentary" and the one that does doesnt appear to be notable. i ill check the links in this mirror, to see if its mentioned.ok, 2 of these links use this phrase. that makes 3 uses out of the multiple references provided. and nothing else i can find on google. all of these uses are at purely commercial sites. no indication that this phrase is used other than as a marketing tool (not necessarily a negative, but indicative of lack of notability), and its not widespread. perhaps the people arguing that this is a notable term can provide some evidence that it is. and i apologize for misunderstanding the use in my previous post above, but my "vote" remains the same.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've fixed the violation of the license by restoring the deleted edits, and I've reverted to the wikified version. Fences&Windows 22:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 22:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting as the above discussion was somewhat sidetracked by the cut-and-paste issue. Fences&Windows 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retitle I agree such sites asa class are notable , but I do not see any justification of the title used for the article. To me., a documentary is a film, and an adult documentary is a film that presents a factual or editorial view about sexuality is a way suitable for adults who wish to see sexually frank material but not pornography. There are indeed many important websites that correspond to this, but I do not see that the term is used of them. Looking even more generally, I note our disam page on Documentary (disambiguation) indicates it might also apply to the related genres of radio and photography, but it does not include websites. I see that a Gsearch on Documentary website either as a phrase or not as a phrase gives mainly articles on websites about documentary films or videos , not anything corresponding to a news or opinion or discussion or Q&A site. Unfortunately I have no idea what a proper title would be. We might have to use the clumsy "adult non-pornographic websites" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I can see some use in a list of academic sexuality websites. good idea. i sincerely doubt we could include any commercial websites, as most would probably have banner ads even if they arent selling pornography themselves. im not a prude, but you cant call a website nonpornographic if it actually contains any pornographic images or writings. Lists of websites doesnt have much, and List of educational video websites may be a model for such a list. my vote has not changed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even clear to me that this is an actual recognized topic, and certainly not by this particular name. I can find barely any sources that say that an "adult documentary" is a kind of web site, as opposed to a kind of documentary film. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and not encyclopedic. Someidiot (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and Keep per above. Potentially merge somewhere if possible. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism and synthesis. An article on either explicit documentaries or instructional videos about sex, or websites with explicit instruction about sex might merit creation if there are none such already, but there's no reason to start one using this title or to preserve the editing history or anything in it. Шизомби (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Acroterion _(talk) 00:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CAG

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

Delete, per WP:MADEUP WuhWuzDat 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, category A7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP Jarkeld (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP RadioFan (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro de Levantamientos Integrados de Recursos Naturales por Sensores Remotos}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Research and Technology Development in Ecuador}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Aerospace Development (Ecuador)}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Aerospace Development (Ecuador)}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy twins}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instituto Tecnologico Superior Aeronautico}}<!--Relisted-->