Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 February 18 February >

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 Merge, disambig. Create a disambig to Agrarian Society, plus "Agricultural Societies" like 4h, merge duplicate content ( non-admin closure) ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 11:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Agricultural society

AfDs for this article:
Agricultural society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod. "A society that uses plows and drafts animals in growing food". So, that would be every society in the world then? Will never be anything other than a pointless fork of Agriculture; oh, and the "References" are to Britannica and Encarta, respectively. I don't even think it's worth preserving as a redirect (but am happy to be overruled if anyone thinks it's necessary)..  –  iridescent 23:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete As written, but I can't rule out that there might be some kind of article on this subject. I see industrial society as a see also. But there not much content in the present article, nothing to indicate notability, and it all seems very vague and even inaccurate. Maybe the creator can explain the plan? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Agrarian society ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I created the article so I'd have a COI and my vote may not count, but that is not why I'm here. I created the article in the image after the industrial society article. Perhaps rather than doing a deletion, you could simply tag it to be expanded, or tag it as a stub. As for the references, I don't get what point you are trying to make. They are valid references as Encarta and Britannica both have articles on the subject. Smallman12q ( talk) 00:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • A stub article needs to provide background and context; this provides neither. Deletion doesn't mean "we don't want an article on this subject", it means "there is no version in the article history which is a valid article". We're not a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we're a list of everything either.
      Regarding references, I think you're misunderstanding how Wikipedia referencing works. References aren't "a list of other sources which consider the topic notable", they're a list of reliable sources – by our definition – for the facts in the article. Neither Encarta nor Britannica are reliable sources, although Britannica articles (like Wikipedia) generally contain citations to their sources which are usually reliable. (Although they have more restrictions over who can edit, they work to the same basic principles as us.) –  iridescent 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm a bit surprised by your comment in considering Britannica unreliable.Could you provide me a link where it says Britannica (and Encarta) are considered unreliable. Is world book also unreliable? Smallman12q ( talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
It's a judgement call; the official policy is the ambiguously worded Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes the criteria for assessing the reliability of sources. That in turn points to a great gobbet of wiki-gibberish, the pertinent point of which is As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Britannica.com Inc. (the online Britannica) and the online Encarta are user-generated and website-aggregation sites along the lines of Citizendium – the main difference between them and us is that they have flagged revisions turned on (which is why Britannica and Encarta articles have a "suggest edit" tab where we have "edit this page") – and no longer the academic-compiled works the print versions are. –  iridescent 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
While Britannica does accept online content, they still adhere to their fact-checking policies online as much as they do in their print version. There's no reason to assume they'd be any less vigilant about their reputation for accuracy. - Mgm| (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Out of curiosity, if I was to use the print version would it also be considered an aggregation of website and user content? What about the disc version, is it also considered tertiary? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I find it quite amusing to see a nomination asserting on the one hand that the subject is unencyclopaedic and noting that the article cites two encyclopaedias on the other. ☺

    I think that the creator is unsuccessfully groping for the concept that is more usually called an agrarian society. An agricultural, rather than agrarian society is usually a farmers' or growers' association of some kind, as are the ones linked-to in the "See also" section of this very article — indeed, as also is the Agricultural Society in Poland discussed in the Britannica article that this article's creator incorrectly thinks supports the article.

    We don't need deletion order to solve this. Just turn it into a disambiguation. Clearly the creator of this article isn't going to be the last person to look up agrarian society by this name, and be so convinced of its correctness that xe starts an article. ☺ And equally clearly, the Royal Agricultural Society, the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales, the Royal Agricultural Society of Tasmania, and so forth are all agricultural societies. Uncle G ( talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll agree with Uncle G that it should probably be a redirect to agrarian society. Smallman12q ( talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • In fact, scratch my post above – the "references" don't check out even on their own terms. The Britannica page is about a Polish trade union called "The Agricultural Society" and the Encarta article doesn't exist at all. Strong delete. No problem with turning it into a dab page per Uncle G, though. –  iridescent 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I have already created a disambiguation page Agricultural society (disambiguation). Smallman12q ( talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure whether you read this entire Afd, but Uncle G mentioned agrarian society which is what I now believe agricultural society should be redirected to. Smallman12q ( talk) 02:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Credit where credit is due, it was Uncle G and not I who realized the existing article agrarian society covers this material. A disambiguation page looks like the right solution. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep and Redirect to agrarian society. It takes a lot of patience to be civil in this response, because the nomination is based on the totally ridiculous premise that there is no distinction between the concept of agricultural societies and society in general, or that there is no conceptual distinction between agriculture as a practice and agricultural societies. Read a history of agriculture (or any history of the human race) and you'll quickly discover that a lot of our history has not been in agricultural societies, but in hunter-gatherer ones. There are still quite a few hunter-gatherers today. Thus, to say that every society in the world is agricultural is both abject stupidity and ignorant of history. There is more than enough published, reliable material to make a single separate article on agricultural societies in contrast to agriculture as a practice. That said, the topic is functionally the same as that covered in agrarian society at present, despite agricultural society being a more accurate term. Steven Walling (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Disambig I too don't agree the reasoning for this nomination. I propose the article should be changed into a disambig page with a link to agrarian society. I also take issue with the statement that, "A society that uses plows and drafts animals in growing food. So, that would be every society in the world then?" I don't believe that it is a valid nomination rational. Smallman12q ( talk) 23:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
How about the disambig page, should it remain a separate article then? Smallman12q ( talk) 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

List of Disney animated heroines

List of Disney animated heroines (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

WP is not a collection of indiscriminate lists. Characters are already listed on List of Disney characters - no reason provided to differentiate female heroines/characters vs other characters. "Heroine" not defined, article has turned into a list of all female Disney characters SpikeJones ( talk) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, list is of little encyclopedic use. J Milburn ( talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Variously violates WP:NOTLINK, WP:IINFO, and (in such portions of entries as "Age" and "Era") WP:OR. But basically violates the requirement of WP:SAL that "lists should begin with a lead section, that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria," which seems impossible in this case, since "heroine" is an essentially vague concept. Deor ( talk) 01:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Inclusion criteria is not well defined. No need for this as lists of Disney characters already exist. Doctorfluffy ( robe and wizard hat) 04:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This may have started out with good intentions, but what it turned into was a large biography of Jasmine, Cinderella, Ariel, etc., complete with descriptions of their "family", including other characters in their films. And there is no need to duplicate other articles about Jasmine, Cinderella, Ariel, etc., complete with descriptions of their "family", including other characters in their films. While it's possible that a good article might be written about the portrayal of women in Disney's films and how it has evolved over time (and there have been books that looked at that aspect), this appears to have been pieced together by people who buy a VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc. everytime the "Disney vault" opens. Mandsford ( talk) 13:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I worked for Disney for over 5 years and still follow it whenever I can. I have never heard this collection of characters branded as "Disney heroines" in the same vein as Disney Princess or Disney Fairies. Sounds like whoever created this list was trying to go after something in that vein because "List of Disney animated female characters" would have sounded even more indiscriminate. The little non- cruft information is in this list can and should be captured in the individual character articles where they exist. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • WP:USERFY back to author User:Lmvp990766271 with the above suggestions that the informations be placed where approprate. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Listcruft, plain and simple (well maybe a small dose of fancruft as well). The list is crafted using no out-of-universe material to attempt to justify why this collection of information as a whole has any encyclopedic value. Indiscriminate and nonnotable. Themfromspace ( talk) 02:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, It needs a little expansion, not deletion. Have a look at List of Disney princes. I suspect a bit of sexism here. =P This article simply needs to be cleaned up and perhaps renamed to List of Disney Princesses Smallman12q ( talk) 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
"Disney Princesses" has a specific meaning, and we already have an article on that. And such characters as Kim Possible, Penny Proud, and Lilo Pelekai are princesses by no stretch of the imagination. Deor ( talk) 23:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Todd Boone

Todd Boone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Delete nn tv pitchman. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

John Decyk

John Decyk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

All nonsense. Nothing on this guy anywhere. CSD G3 was turned down. -- aktsu ( t /  c) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • You know normally the only time I look at this thing is when I am told children come on here and edit it that im gay or phony or fake so i fix it so the facts are there. Now you people want to come on here and delete it because well it dosen't sound true to me so it definately is not true? Come on I thought you people were more inteligent then that but hey I guess thats how things go you bust your ass your whole life to acomplish a little something and then you book worm computer cowboys come on here and bash me knock me down then say im phony? You know what just delete it then cause this proves to me that Wikipedia is not a website of information its a dictator that says whats right and whats wrong no facts just "Hmm he did alot with his life, he's just trying to get a little respect for time he put in, NAH Lets just say he is fake and delete it all." You know what if this is the type of information you people want to put up based on what you think is true or not then do me the favor and delete it but the people who paid there hard earned money for a ticket to come watch me fight they will know its true. You can delete me from your records but you can't delete me from the minds of the people who know the truth. John Decyk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.218.251 ( talk)
  • John, all you need to do to prove people wrong is give us a link to one of your fight videos. That's all you have to do. Until then, this wiki entry is the biggest piece of bullcrap I have seen in a long, LONG time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKing85 ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Also, you say you have wrestled Randy Savage. You also say you started wrestling in 2002 (age of 17). Randy Savage has only wrestled in TNA since he stopped working for WCW. He has not wrestled any independent shows since then. So there is no way you could have wrestled Randy Savage. At least make up stuff that could be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKing85 ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Assuming you are John Decyk (69.248.218.251), I'm afraid you are totally out of touch with the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia has Rules and Guidelines, and as Editors we try to follow them. You also state that: "You know normally the only time I look at this thing is when I am told children come on here and edit it that im gay or phony or fake so i fix it so the facts are there", I take it by "this thing", you mean the Wikipedia, but John Decyk article was started by JamManJohnDecyk on 7 September 2007 and with interesting edits by 68.32.140.61 and 69.140.24.104. Some one has now looked closely at your page and realised it is not correct for the Wikipedia. What are required are independent third party references. Have a look at WP:BIO. Artypants, Babble 16:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Please DELETE, this guy is not a professional MMA fighter. There are no fights listed in any of the official MMA databases or any fighter information listed. This is made up. Obsessis ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • MISINFORMATION! this guy is not a PRO MMA FIGHTER, period!!!!! HOAX HOAX HOAX, wikipedia is better than this!!!! sherdog the guys name for crying otu loud, lol, seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.141.99 ( talk) 18:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Guys like this are the entire reason for encyclopedias. He has plenty of references, they just need to be listed!
All very credible sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.21.38.66 ( talk • contribs)
  • DO NOT DELETE PLEASE - THIS GUY IS A GREAT FIGHTER AND AMBASSADOR TO THE SPORT OF MIXED MARTIAL ARTS - OUR SPORT IS STRUGGLING FOR MAINSTREAM ACCEPTANCE AS IS, WE DON'T NEED TO FIGHT TO STAY ON WIKIPEDIA NOW TOO DO WE?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.163.110 ( talk • contribs)
  • DO NOT DELETE THIS AS HE IS AN ACTUAL FIGHTER, THE PEOPLE HE HAS DEFEATED ARE JEALOUS OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.5.23 ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

NSW Junior Tennis Rankings

NSW Junior Tennis Rankings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Not an encyclopedic topic, but a mere listing of (junior) rankings with no evidence of accuracy other than the assurance of the creating editor. One of the cited sources is "NSW Selectors Lists". Wikipedia is not a free web host and data of this nature is best hosted elsewhere. A disputed PROD, reasons for disputing are given on the article talk page Mattinbgn\ talk 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Links both to and from this article have been updated.

There are other pages on Wikipedia which list Australian tennis players/results at a junior level, but these pages are not considered for deletion. Not all of these players have continued to become world famious stars. Examples of pages include Junior Wimbledon Winners and Runners-Up (eg Debbie Freeman); Junior Australian Championship results, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegum Bill ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep. I think that the article should stay. It contains links to other Australian tennis players listed on Wikipedia and puts their career as a whole into context. It provides an opportunity for people to see how they performed at a junior level. Regarding the earlier delete message (Most of the players listed have not competed at the "highest amateur level of a sport), I would argue that ALL of these players have competed at the highest amateur level. Remember that 'Juniors' also includes 18 year olds. Many of these players (eg Debbie Freeman, Amanda Tobin, Craig Miller, etc) were playing at Wimbledon the year after they left the junior ranks! If this is not the highest amateur than what is!! Also, regarding the earlier message (Most of the players listed have not competed at a "fully professional level of a sport) with a reference given of " WP:ATHLETE", this page doesn't state word 'Most", but simply 'People who have competed....". The page in question certainly meets this criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.237.196 ( talk) 00:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

— 203.54.237.196 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • You may be misinterpreting the intent of WP:ATHLETE. Highest amateur level refers to adults, not juniors and refers to national level (or interstate), not state. Else we'd be potentially having hundreds of such lists—think of every sport/age group/regional combination. Djanga 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Acapulco gold

Acapulco gold (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Delete. Factual accuracy has been disputed since last year, and there are no reliable sources which document this "strain" of marijuana. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx) 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article is disputed, according to the talk page, because it shows the wrong image. Also, the article does contain at least one reliable reference. I found one too:

    Russell, I. Willis; Mary Gray Porter (Winter 1982). "Among the New Words". American Speech. 57 (4). Duke University Press: 272. JSTOR  454629..

    There might be a case for transwikification to Wiktionary if nothing more than a slang definition can be found in sources, but deletion is not needed as the accuracy dispute can be solved by removing the picture. - Mgm| (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are 666 hits for this in Google books. It's a sign! Colonel Warden ( talk) 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • A sign of what? Have you actually taken a look at any of those hits? The majority of them are referring to a song by Rainy Daze and those that actually are relevant do not fall under the umbrella of reliable / non-trivial coverage. Please help me understand what its a sign of other than a sign that this article needs to be deleted. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The only factual dispute I saw on the talk page was about an image, which has nothing to do with whether the whole article should be deleted. To have a listing in the OED and a linguistics article is way more notability than the average cultivar (of any plant) has. If there is something in the article which isn't supported by sources, and sources for it are not found, then delete those parts, not the whole article. I also won't express an opinion on transwikification to Wiktionary (not having looked enough at the sources), although I suspect it probably makes sense on Wikipedia. Kingdon ( talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Acapulco Gold was the catch word of a generation when it came to good pot. There was marijuana... and there was Acapulco Gold. Notability easy to source. Article need correct image and then be expanded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, snowball keep bad faith nom (again) (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Johnny Test

AfDs for this article:
Johnny Test (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

The article does not have any reliable sources or references AltecCrog ( talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • I was trying to make a comment and somehow THAT COUNTS AS EDITING OTHERS COMMENTS.THAT COMMENT WAS MY COMMENT.Sorry for being rude but do we really need to resort to such little changes being an offence? AltecCrog ( talk) 22:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
You're not getting it, are you? Your contribution history shows that you removed my comments twice, after I pointed out your reasoning of "the show sucks". Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close obvious POINTy nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Johnny Test

Johnny Test (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Does not cite any references or sources AltecCrog ( talk) 22:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment I can edit my own comment when I want to AltecCrog ( talk) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Do NOT edit other peoples comments as you did here and here. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Zombie company

Zombie company (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Neologism; non-sourced slang term Mhking ( talk) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is somebody's attempt to create a new word during this era of company bailouts. Mandsford ( talk) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bankruptcy or some more appropriate target. The phrase has been in common use at least since the Japanese economic crisis of the 1990s, and is a common search term, but the current article topic is not appropriately focused and doesn't contain material worth saving. If somebody else wants to perform an article salvage, that's fine, too. Baileypalblue ( talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Provisional Keep/Commentary - The article was just created yesterday. Let's give the creator some time to bring this up to spec. Also, I remember hearing the term on a couple news shows (Either CTV, Global, or BNN. Can't remember at the moment), so I don't think this was made up by just this guy. A google search for "zombie companies" turns up a few thousand hits, including the NY Times [2] from 2002, so this isn't particularly new. Though I question whether this is really suitable for wikipedia, as I somewhat doubt as to if a real article can be constructed for this. If not, it ought to be transwiki'd to wiktionary. Grandmartin11 ( talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Rather than let this linger in the mainspace, I suggest if the outcome is to let the author work on it, the article should be userfied until such time it is up to scratch. - Mgm| (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and maybe redirect somewhere like the TARP article? Probably worth a mention there. So I would say transwiki, merge and redirect. How's that for an answer! A TRIFECTA!!! ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
No good merge target at this time. Term is notable enough to be worth including and there's no harm in a stub. There is harm in losing this sourced and notable terminology. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Adjust my vote to keep. Term is notable. It's not the same as bankruptcy. It refers to walking dead, like a zombie. Company that is non functional and not alive, but kept going none the less. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Here are a few more (I put them on the article talk page too...)

  • "Fearing more bad news if banks were forced to disclose their real losses, Japan’s leaders allowed banks to keep loans to “zombie” companies on their balance sheets. Japan, instead, experimented with a series of funds, in part privately financed, to relieve banks of their bad assets." [6]
  • "Paradoxically, though they are declining to extend credit to many smaller and stronger companies, the banks have been reluctant to cut off their worst customers, the all-but-insolvent zombie companies that have little or no hope of ever repaying their loans. Government subsidies, low interest rates and easy treatment by the banks keep these companies stumbling along because, in the short term, it is cheaper for the banks than letting them die and then having to write off all that has been lent to them." [7]
  • "Falling land and stock prices have also conspired against the banks, which hold huge portfolios of those assets. And the banks are continuing to prop up large numbers of zombie companies, which have heavy debts and weak if any prospects of repaying them.

The zombies have become a political lightning rod. Japan's economy and financial services minister, Heizo Takenaka, wants the banks to assess their loan books more strictly and force the no-hope borrowers into liquidation. But many politicians have backed the resistance of banks to shutting down the zombies, for fear of widespread layoffs and a loss of political contributions from them." [8]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedied as vandalism, and as utter bollocks. Grutness... wha? 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC). reply

Southern Tibor Islands

Southern Tibor Islands (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Not a single hit on Google, Google News or Google scholar, which is just not credible for what would be a major event in scientific and ecological fields. dramatic ( talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Stunna

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

Neologism; non-sourced slang term Mhking ( talk) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Give Him Time It seems the article isn't finnished. I think he may have just gone on a tangent about the term. Make the article more about the practice, mabe if you can find a more official term change the name of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 ( talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Complete Over haul This article belongs in the Rites of passage category Distiguish Stunna from Stunter. It would be better to not define the term or find other terms which decribe the same behavior. I put in the section I will help you out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Nickels ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
NOTEThis is the user' sole edit as of 19:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) DFS454
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There is no consensus regarding the appropriateness of a merge below but further discussion may be pursued on the talk page if desired. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Albedo (Xenosaga)

Albedo (Xenosaga) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Large article of unreferenced gamecruft. No assertion of notability. Any other info can be summarized in the list of characters.

The information is also already mentioned in the Xenosaga Wikia.

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

Wilhelm (Xenosaga) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Testament (Xenosaga) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Tricia Wilds

Tricia Wilds (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Article doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Dismas| (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Talk page said this was a guy "trying to get his name out there" - sorry, that's not what we're here for. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

InFire Everlasting

InFire Everlasting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Should be speedy deleted as A7 and G11, author contested. Non-notable band, Self-created page, blatant advertising, author has removed AfD tag from article between the time I placed it on there and the time I completed this nomination. KuyaBriBri Talk 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

David Mytton

David Mytton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Some claiming to be the subject of the article applied a Prod template, however this article has previously been up for AFD, so Prod is wrong.

Davidmytton ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims:
Subject requests deletion due to recent ID fraud based on past article content

Previous AFD discussions were here and here. Martin451 ( talk) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • weak delete The previous two AFD discussions came up no consensus and keep, respectively, though the most recent in 2006 should've been relisted, probably. I honestly see a marginal case for notability here at best, and since we're seeming to trend towards deletion when marginal cases come up and the subject requests deletion, weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Side note: I can't see how the current article could contribute to ID fraud. It contains no personal details like birthday, SSN or address. - Mgm| (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • A programmer who's written a couple of books. I am not seeing the great loss to an encyclopedia from deleting this article! It's marginal, there's a request not to have it, may as well be gone. Shimgray | talk | 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Radio Mirchi. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Mirchi

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

Mirchi is an Indian/Hindi word that has several meanings, should not redirect to anything English, certainly not to capsicum Chengiz ( talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Chris Rogers (actor)

AfDs for this article:
Chris Rogers (actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Deleted as an expired PROD, restored per request ( [11]). — Aitias //  discussion 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It would be even more helpful if the commenting user would read the nominator's rationale, which explicitly provides the reason for deletion. — Aitias //  discussion 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but that won't do. By not doing the few seconds' work needed to copy the rationale into this AfD you are making every single editor that wants to comment spend the time to check the article history to find out why you want this to be deleted - and even then we don't know if that is your reason for nomination as that rationale was given by someone else. Please don't think that your time is more valuable than other people's. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Are you able to read my mind or why do you untruthfully claim that I would "think that" my "time is more valuable than other people's"? May I kindly ask you to stop putting words into my mouth immediately? Also, I did nowhere say that I agree with that prod reason. I have given my only reason for nominating this for deletion: If one wishes a page to be restored that has been deleted as an expired prod, it's just the usual course of action to nominate it for deletion after having restored. — Aitias //  discussion 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This is getting ridiculous. To answer you points in turn:
  1. Are you able to read my mind or why do you untruthfully claim that I would "think that" my "time is more valuable than other people's"? - Nominating an article for deletion without saying why you want it to be deleted means that others have to spend more than the couple of seconds that you could have taken doing that to dig around in article history to find the deletion reason. It's a perfectly reasonable deduction from that that you value your time more highly that others'.
  2. I did nowhere say that I agree with that prod reason. You did that above by responding to my question as to why you had nominated this with a link to the prod reason.
  3. If one wishes a page to be restored that has been deleted as an expired prod, it's just the usual course of action to nominate it for deletion after having restored. - The normal course of action before nominating anything for AfD is described at WP:BEFORE. Nowhere there, or at WP:PROD, does it say that restored prods should automatically be nominated at AfD. If you nominate something for AfD then you are responsible for providing the reason why you think that the article should be deleted. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G12, copyright violation of http://www.goldengatemanagement.com/en/produzenten/phil-vinall/ (no prejudice against original content) Mgm| (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Phil Vinall

Phil Vinall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Deleted as an expired WP:PROD, restored per request at my talk page ( [19]). — Aitias //  discussion 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • The article as it stands is garbage, but there's lots to work with here. I'm 90 percent sure that he was nominated for a Latin Grammy for Producer of the Year in 2007 as the producer for Zoé, which received three awards - unfortunately the official press release doesn't actually, y'know, use his *name* and I can't get a list of nominees off the site. A Grammy nom would certainly fill the demands of WP:MUSIC, I'd say, and I suspect he's probably been involved with some other well received projects as well. This needs to be cleaned up badly, but there's some notability here. UNFORTUNATELY... it's a copyvio of his bio on his management's page. Smeg, all that work and I have to say delete as cut-and-paste and allow someone to rewrite from scratch... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Vista Solutions Group

Vista Solutions Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Limited or no indication of notability. Sigma 7 ( talk) 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The Queer Channel

The Queer Channel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article is about a proposed television channel that never launched and at this present time, there is no clear evidence that this channel has any plans on launching anymore. When the article was first created it said the channel had plans on launching in 2006, it never did, it's 2009 now, the channel has still not launched and there is no evidence or references in the article or I can even find using Google searches saying it will launch.Television channel articles should only be about channels that are on the air or have been at one time on the air. This channel in question, has neither. There is also no references or citations. musimax. ( talk) 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Pride TV

Pride TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This article is about a proposed television channel that never launched and at this present time, has no plans on launching anymore. Television channel articles should only be about channels that are on the air or have been at one time on the air. This channel in question, has neither. There is also no references or citations and is an orphaned article musimax. ( talk) 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Mind Polish

AfDs for this article:
Mind Polish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This was previously discussed at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Polish, but I am not sure this version is substantially similar enough to warrant a speedy deletion. Bringing here for wider community input. Cirt ( talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Albert Park Futsal Club

Albert Park Futsal Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Contested deletion as author removed PROD. Non-notable Futsal Club who play in a local non-notable league. Eastlygod ( talk) 18:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete as G12. TerriersFan ( talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School

St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Local church and associated school lacking any suggestion of notability. Article is almost entirely copy-pasted from the church website: this page. (The only part that's not copy-pasted seems to be the lead sentence that I added to indicate what the article is about.) Article is unreferenced and an orphan. Additionally, the school has its own separate article at St. Paul's Lutheran School.-- Orlady ( talk) 17:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I brought it here instead of speedying it for several reasons: (1) the church doesn't assert copyright on its website, (2) on the expectation that an inexperienced user will try to recreate the article, an AfD provides a much more thorough documentary record of the issues with the article so they are less likely to be repeated, (3) the content has been there for more than a year without anyone noticing it (in part because the article is orphaned and uncategorized), so a few more days shouldn't hurt. -- Orlady ( talk) 19:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Your first reason doesn't hold. The church doesn't have to assert copyright. Something is copyrighted unless otherwise stated. - Mgm| (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ross Macfadyen II

Ross Macfadyen II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Autobiography with little serious claim of meeting WP:Notability. Normally I'd prod this, but the creator removed a prod tag on a duplicate article [20] minutes before creating this one, so I'm assuming a prod here would be removed as well. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Traian Vasai

Traian Vasai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

There's no evidence this man is "notable", as claimed. The only non-trivial mention I could find is an interview in an obscure Montreal magazine, but notable artists usually have a greater Internet presence. Moreover, Romania ceased being Communist in 1989, and the article's creator is now banned, which is further reason to doubt the claims of notability being made. Biruitorul Talk 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I found one passing mention that I added to the article, and one other passing mention that I can't get the text for. Nothing more--which suggests that nominator is correct on the point of notability. Drmies ( talk) 18:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems the article was part of a largely suppressed effort to write spammy stubs on all sort of Romanian non-entities, in order to promote the Romanian Canadian community on some symbolic level. Plus, I looked over the link provided by the nominator above as the only outside source to discuss Vasai (it is not an interview, btw, but more of a promotional piece). Here's its conclusion, in the French original: "Il est bien dommage que Traian Vasai ne soit pas connu dans le milieu artistique de Montréal." My translation: "It is indeed a shame that Traian Vasai still isn't known to the Montreal artistic milieu." And, heh, that's his most important attribute... Dahn ( talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

David Gill (economist)

David Gill (economist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Possible autobiography, the article is a resume without with only one independent third-party source. I can't find anything in Google News that isn't the other David Gill, and Google Books is similarly unavailing. The Southampton IP address has repeatedly removed the notability tag that dated from Sep 2007 without adding any while adding only one significant independent sources, while not hesitating to include non-notable trivia, so the intelligent Bayesian in me tells me this does not meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC. THF ( talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC), updated 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Isn't a second source required? Are we really to be cataloguing every academic profiled by THE? THF ( talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
In a word, Yes. whether a second source is needed depends upon the distinction conferred by the first. Just like we accept an obit in the Times as sufficient. DGG ( talk) 06:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not pass WP:N which requires significant coverage, and a single short article about a single research paper of this economist is not significant coverage. The article is not even about David Gill himself, but about a research paper that apparently ended up in only a mid-level Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, not exactly signalling that this paper has had any big impact on the profession. And as said about, this academic completely fails WP:PROF. Afroghost ( talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion to rename/rewrite should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Gary Finlay

Gary Finlay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Although well-sourced, thoroughly negative BOLO notice for a not notable fugitive. This one event would not make him notable, and that seems to be all there is. Does not really assert significance, despite sourcing. Dloh cierekim 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I will be pleased to modify the article as suggested, but I will not be able to do it for some hours, hopefully later today. The notice says it must not be blanked, but is it Ok to edit, or should I just start a new article. Hey, this is my first ever attempt, I am still learning, and am not allowed to post images yet. Paul Crewe ( talk) 09:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, right now we don't have anyone saying to "delete" and one "Rename" that is tantamount to a "Keep." Wait for more feedback. Try to make it sound less like a news sensation (or a BOLO). Add references from national and world class papers and other media. Add references as to the effect the subject/his crime is having beyond the actual accusation of a heinous crime. The decision will hang heavily on the heaviness of the coverage. And if it is in news media in other countries, that raises the level of notability too. (You may see comments referring to notability and reliable sources. That means impact and news coverage and coverage beyond the news. Hope that helps. Dloh cierekim 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Michael J.K. Choi

Michael J.K. Choi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

It was previously (repeatedly) speedy-deleted due to notability issues. Now that he's making some assertions of notability.... Well, here's the thing. The whole page is essentially an advertisement/PR piece, as it only contains links for this singer (Michael Choi) and his friend/business partner (Robert Lee Taylor). Its references are MySpace pages and blogs. None of his recent work is exactly notable (music on a website, a future documentary?), so notability hinges on his past...of which there is very little information. After some research, I found his discography on a Korean album directory site, so he did release albums in Korea. Looking for his Korean name in Google reveals results, but after glancing through them, very few of them have to do with this singer. So basically, there are notability and verifiability issues.

Please note that this article has been repeatedly created by the same user. SKS2K6 ( talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

See my comment below on the sales figure. 130K is pretty trivial for the English-speaking market, but is considerable for the Korean market. TJRC ( talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The discography page lists "아세아" (A-seh-a) Records. Whether that stands for Asia or ASEA or what, I don't know. The page creator notes that he signed with Sony, so I tried searching ASEA with Sony Entertainment (thinking it was A___ Sony Entertainment Asia), and came up with nothing. Even if it was with Sony, the fact that there are no reliable sources kinda makes things difficult. SKS2K6 ( talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep. I'd like to see some more substantial sources on this; but sales of 130,000 records (although I realize that's spread over 6 albums) is pretty substantial for the Korean market, and to me meets the notability requirements. The band S.E.S. (group) was a superstar group by Korean standards, and their top-selling album, Love, sold only 700,000; that's the top-selling album by one of Korea's top-selling pop groups. 130K is not too shabby in light of that. I wonder of this 최진경 is the same as the bandmember listed in ko:두번째_달 on the Korean wikipedia. I'm guessing no. TJRC ( talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Yup. It's all about the sourcing. That's why my keep is weak. Without wishing to increase the already-formal formality of Wikipedia procedures, I almost wish there was a "probation" we could put this on: the article is probationally kept, with the proviso that it will be subject to WP:SPEEDY if no reliable sources are provided within 30 days. I'd like to give the guy a chance to fix it, if it's fixable. TJRC ( talk) 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rutland City School District. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Northeast Primary Elementary School

Northeast Primary Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Average elementary school with no clear target for merging: there's no article for the local school district, for example. No evidence of notability, and except for something sourced by the school's website, there aren't any references. Nyttend ( talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that AfD often is an effective mechanism to find someone to pay attention to a problematic situation and resolve it in a positive manner. -- Orlady ( talk) 00:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Spoudware

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for neologisms made up one day. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD ( talk) 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I guess that depends how you read it. The CSD criteria state that neologisms except for the ridiculous ones are not sufficient for speedy nominations. I read that as saying that ridiculous neologisms do qualify as speedy criterion, but you're right, there's no obvious way to handle it except db based on vandalism, which this may not be if we assume good faith. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball delete - no way this is going to stick around. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Lovin' (TV Series)

AfDs for this article:
Lovin' (TV Series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

A television series which is "unaried and not yet planned" -- Longhair\ talk 15:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply


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

The result was Speedy Delete as WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 17:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Matthew Pilgrim

Matthew Pilgrim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability in the article. A search for the individual and his band turn up no reliable sources. The article states the band is recently formed so it is no surprise that there is zero coverage about the band. Having a Myspace page is not the same as having coverage in reliable sources. Speedy deletion was contested by IP editors after the article creator tried to remove the speedy. So here we are. Whpq ( talk) 14:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

NO MA'AM

AfDs for this article:
NO MA'AM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Strong Delete I think this epitomizes the problem with Wikipedia. It's a collection of useless TV Trivia. I don't see the point in non-notable articles like this. George Pelltier ( talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Against deletion, we have entire chapters on for instance, every river mentioned in the lord of the rings, pokemon, etc. This Trivia is not worthless. Personally, I see the relevance of this article. It is definitely not a non-noticable article. [21] Taketa ( talk) 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Um... see WP:EFFORT. Just because a page has been around a while or a lot of people have worked on it, doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. The question is whether it meets our inclusion guidelines, and this article doesn't. Robofish ( talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Marilyn Sudor (TV character)

Marilyn Sudor (TV character) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable. An old TV show that's been off the air for a while. This is trivial at best and non-encyclopedic. George Pelltier ( talk) 06:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kayla (whale)

Kayla (whale) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Keet

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research Rtphokie ( talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kanduke

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kohana

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kasatka

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kandu V

Kandu V (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Gudrun (whale)

Gudrun (whale) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie ( talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • The content is now in a section in the new article Captive orcas, with some references. Don't think there is enough for a stand-alone article. For now, this article could change to a redirect to the section. But if the section grows, it could be broken out into a separate article. Aymatth2 ( talk) 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. She might be worth a mention because of the experiments she was in (redirect), but right now, there's no indication she's notable in the sense we judge it in people. She's not involved in notable incidents, wasn't on film or even widely famous. Unless notability is asserted, there definitely shouldn't be a separate article. _ Mgm| (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and merge Into captive orcas, unless greater notability can be established for this whale in particular. Anaxial ( talk) 18:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sumar

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Taku (whale)

Taku (whale) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MPlayer. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

MplayerXP

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

Contested prod. Minor fork of MPlayer which does not assert its notability through the inclusion of any independent reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, it doesn't seem implausible that somebody would be typing MplayerXP here on Wikipedia, since the fork does exist. At least, taking the reader to the MPlayer article would give the casual reader some information. Hence my proposition to redirect rather than simply delete. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Given that there is no evidence of any external coverage of the application, is there any reason to believe it's a likely search target? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Almost 1,300 hits in January - that is probably by people link-clicking after introduction of wikilinks to the article. Before that, about 30 hits per month, probably as a search target and of course those editing the article. I don't know, but it's not what I'd call "very few" hits. So I'm still leaning towards a plausible search target. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 10:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Tilikum

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

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

See the new merged article Captive orcas. Maybe better as a section in this article? Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Unna (whale)

Unna (whale) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps all these articles could be grouped together under one AfD entry? - Ddawkins73 ( talk) 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I would prefer to keep the AfD discussions separate, despite the fact the articles have so much in common. I have seen the confusion that can result from grouping after starting an AfD process. Some may be worth retaining, others not, but Mergism may be the best approach. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
As an experiment, I just created an article on Captive orcas, merging the first 8 of these whale articles. If someone wants to AfD it, I will not defend it too strongly. It may have the makings of a list-type article if the entries were trimmed down (e.g. removing genealogy, original research). Maybe better than many very small individual articles? Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Wow, kudos! Drmies ( talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article needs a major re-write to be encyclopedic, and not read like a resume. No consensus to delete ( non-admin closure) ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 06:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Elena Baramova

AfDs for this article:
Elena Baramova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Not notable, sings with a touring group, otherwise appears to be a cover (understudy) Vitellia ( talk) 06:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: This is the problem with resumes, they can be filled with non-notable stuff. If there was nothing notable to begin with, a cleanup is not going to make it notable.
I Googled Rejeka Belcanto because I'd never heard of it; it appears to be a cost-effective way to get singers to perform in the Rejeka opera house [33]. This isn't even the Croatian National Theatre in Zagreb.
The Bulgarian newpaper looks like a fluff piece in an entertainment-listing magazine [34].
Also, out of all the "future" engagements listed, she has only one listing in Operabase, in a shared role in a local-level venue [35]
Vitellia ( talk) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Addressing some of the issues in the first deletion discussion
1. Her pictures don't show a young soprano with her career ahead of her (nor is there a birth date given). She looks like she's (was) in her 30's, which is a singer's vocal prime, and she has not achieved notability in the years since 2006.
2. Simply her being an exotic Bulgarian is no reason for inclusion. I'm from an out of the way place too, but that's no reason for me to have an article in Wikipedia. In any case, Bulgaria has given opera a lot truly talented singers, who deservedly have Wikipedia articles - the only reason she came to my attention at all was from edits like this in Ghena Dimitrova's article. (In truth, dropping Ghena's name is rather damning for this singer, because Ghena was a popular soprano - if she had found any talent in her compatriot, she was in a position to open many doors, and this singer would not be working in a local touring company now.)
3. She has never made a recording, nor has she ever been covered by any outside news source, and her record of engagements is very spotty - the only run looks like a tour in Japan, otherwise just single performances here and there in small venues.
Vitellia ( talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Dear Vitellia, Elena Baramova is not working in a local touring company now!!!! For example Avenches Opera Festival, where Baramova sang Aida in summer 2007 is a stage with a world famous cast!! And her last Turandot at Opera de Massy, Paris Sud, the partner of Baramova was the famous italian tenor Nicola Martinucci... Hero7 ( talk) 05:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Other editors have linked to the pages defining what is expected for notability; the Baramova article has nothing but press releases.
Vitellia ( talk) 06:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment
Actually those guidelines look good for opera singers (or any classical musician) - they don't get pushed on the Radio and TV like pop musicians, but they definitely get press coverage. They're not on the front page, but the "Arts" sections are there for those who follow classical music to turn to. A google search will bring up whatever's been written about them.
Also an opera singer (or classical musician) needs to have been recorded - they don't need to be "top 10", but they need to something out there for classical radio stations to play to promote their next appearance, if you want to call them notable.
Vitellia ( talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Addressing Baramova's appearances specifically, she has not performed any actual runs in Prague or anywhere else - just single performances here and there - even understudies in a proper run traditionally (but not always) get 2 performances, and that would not be notable. There is only one mention of her since Jan 2007 in Operabase, which is strange because even an understudy's performances would be recorded. The only place I can find where she is on any roster at all is at the local opera house in Stara Zagora [36], so presumeably she's a house singer there, which is also not notable. I think all the facts that can be provided on her career are already in the article (there's even less on the internet) - it would be hard to call this career very successful, much less notable, and rewriting her resume to look more encyclopedic will not make her any more notable.
Vitellia ( talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments about the criteria for notability for opera singers (and classical musicians in general):
  • Any half-way notable opera singer gets media coverage and critical reviews when they perform; you have to go to the Arts or Culture section in the newspaper. In Italy they may even get tabloid coverage.
  • They will have commercial recordings out. Their bread and butter is live performances, and for many, recordings are part of the publicity for their appearances.
  • Simply winning an award or a competition, even a very notable one like the Cardiff competition, while it is a career boost, isn't always a free ticket to future notability.
  • The analogy of #10 for opera singers would be to play a principle role in a new production, or to participate in a world or national premier of an opera, in a major venue.
  • Opera productions in major houses are performed in runs of perhaps a dozen performances over a period of time. A notable singer will be in the "first cast", in one of the principal roles, and sing a majority of performances in the run. They will almost always also sing in smaller venues, especially near their homes, but they will definitely have notable appearances in major houses. Covers (understudies) and house singers who take on secondary roles are rarely notable (although many people would say house singers are the most rewarding jobs in opera).
  • Simply being a professional classical musician, while impressive, does not make you notable.
Vitellia ( talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Oliver Pollock. Mgm| (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oliver Pollack

Oliver Pollack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I believe this stub article is talking about Oliver Pollock, which is a substantial article. Muboshgu ( talk) 12:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfie Patten. -- Longhair\ talk 12:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Alfie patten

Alfie patten (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Subject in question is in huge media storm at the moment in a UK... but I think this might be a case of WP:BLP1E. Although sources to exist, I'm not sure whether he satisfies the general notability criteria. D.M.N. ( talk) 12:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 08:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kenichi Ito

Kenichi Ito (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

After doing extensive searching, I've come to conclude that this article fails WP:MUSICBIO. This is an uncharting musician, who has not been the subject of significant third party coverage. He may have some albums on major labels, but I cannot verify that from any website/book, not even the artist's website. The artists claim to fame is that he has been a member of quite a few bands, but the articles put the emphasis on Ito. --  Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 12:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per WP:MUSICBIO point 6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable;" - he has been a member of several apparently notable bands (they already have articles). If it was just one band, perhaps we could consider a redirect. But with him playing in two or more notable bands, I think point 6 applies. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 12:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: The problem is, those articles on those bands seem to accert their notability from the fact that Ito was a member. They all seem to be uncharting and failing WP:BAND themselves.--  Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 12:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as the article now has reliable sources establishing notability, and the original nominator withdrew the nomination. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 08:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

John Maginnis (Louisiana political writer)

John Maginnis (Louisiana political writer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Is this columnist notable? I think not. He will obviously be in papers etc, but I doubt coverage warrants notability. Computerjoe 's talk 12:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn. Computerjoe 's talk 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

*:Delete - the only assertion of notability is that "he is read by political analysts nationwide", to which the author cites the subject's own webpage. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The article needs to stay. A dozen or so other articles already link to it. John Maginnis is the go-to guy for commentary on Louisiana's political potpouri. Rammer ( talk) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The AfD is still on the article. Will someone kindly remove the AfD? Rammer ( talk) 03:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

TeamDesk

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

Non-notable software. No assertion of notability made, no notable mentions found with google. Blowdart | talk 09:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

BUGtrack

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

No assertion of notability, none found via google. Blowdart | talk 09:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayne Snyder

Jayne Snyder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable early candidate in a Lincoln, Nebraska city council election. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. -- Shadowlynk ( Talk) 09:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

David Dobson

David Dobson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

No assertion of notability. A cursory Google search reveals nothing substantive. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 08:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep, but I may be persuaded to lean towards deletion. The article was created two years ago in what I suspect was a fit of WP:RECENTISM due to his parole hearing. The original creator removed, without explanation, the notability tag slapped on the article back then (the original creator is still active today, so I'm guessing he did so in good faith, rather than as a piece of vandalism). I think we should perhaps still give it the notability tag - the person has received some press coverage it would seem - whether it is enough to establish notability should probably be handled with the {{ notability}} template to begin with. However, I may lean a bit towards deletion since this two year old article still is uncertain in regards to notability. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 12:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Saya Mochizuki

Saya Mochizuki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I do not think this page should be deleted, but this is the second time this older, established article has been speedy deleted in two days, the first admin who deleted it restored it as notability was found. A substantial article exists on the Japanese Wiki and should be translated to this one. I am putting this to a vote so these false speedies can be stopped. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 06:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It was at DRV, then restored. The speedy-tagger will speedy-tag it again. This AfD vote resolves that problem. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The Dethalbum II

The Dethalbum II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL - There must be significant coverage on upcoming albums and it must be fully sourced which it currently is not. No good sources found on the net for the existence of this upcoming release and no, MySpace does not count. FireCrystal ( talk) 06:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment: even if it was confirmed by him we need undeniable truth from the media or any other third party source. 'Small' is an example of a self-published source and MySpace is a social networking site and I understand that it's "Dethklok's official site" but the entire site itself is non-notable or not a reliable source to wikipedia standards. Also, blogs are unreliable as well. FireCrystal ( talk) 06:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Online Graduate Programs in History

Online Graduate Programs in History (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Not encyclopedic and never could be. Just a list of colleges. Dmol ( talk) 05:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

PS, very similar list, Online Social Science Graduate Degree Programs, was speedy deleted. -- Dmol ( talk) 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. per multiple BLP issues. Mgm| (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Mainyo

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

Article about a rapper that makes incredibly aggrandizing claims to fame (At age one Mainyo was reading at a fifth grade level and was already showing signs of genius when he became the youngest person to ever write a love song. The song was titled Yo Momma Smokes Crack Rock...; By the age of 18 Mainyo and P-Diddy had become the target of FBI, DEA, ATF and CIA investigations...). The fact that such claims were made make this article not speediable, but everything on this page smells of hoax. TheLetterM ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Beifuss

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

Contested prod that doesn't easily fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Appears to be a pure neologism. Kubigula ( talk) 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Odious Mortem

Odious Mortem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable band... of the 7 news hits that are found, 2 are about one of the members of the band (playing for another band), 4 are concert announcements (in which they are only one of a long list of performers, not headliners), and one is an "upcoming album" announcement... Does not meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND... Adolphus ( talk) 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

User:MinorLegend pointed out on my talk page that Odious Mortem meets criterion #6 of WP:BAND because 3 members were also members of Decrepit Birth. If that can be verified with reliable sources, I'll happily change my recommendation here. —  LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I read MinorLegend's comment on the article's talk page, and replied there... But... After looking at the Decrepit Birth article, and checking the news, they appear to be barely more notable than Odious Mortem... If the members of this non-notable band later joined a slightly more notable (but possibly still not enough to pass WP:BAND) band, does that really add to the notability of this band? - Adolphus ( talk) 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I could go either way on these. I'd say a decision needs to be made on the notability of Decrepit Birth. If they are deemed notable, then that confers notability on Odious Mortem as well. —  LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Interaction painting

Interaction painting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Neologism describing a non-notable new art technique. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Peter Campbell (horse trainer)

Peter Campbell (horse trainer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unsourced article, notability is unclear as there does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources. — Snigbrook 16:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Echoes of Pink: A Pink Floyd Tribute

Echoes of Pink: A Pink Floyd Tribute (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable tribute album performed by almost exclusively non-notable singers (the only one with her own article seems to pass due to her TV show hosting, not her singing). Little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply


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

The result was speedy keep. nominator didn't give a reason and no one stepped in to do so in over a week. Mgm| (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Al Naama

Al Naama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsmoke1212 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, February 10, 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Drop Dead!

Drop Dead! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:MUSIC. This article was posted around half a year ago and speedied. It was reposted today by the same poster, who has what appears to be a conflict of interest with the subject matter, and the speedy was declined as there was a source to back up a claim. The links shown are to trivial mentions, one internet-interview, and a blog posting. These are hardly the nontrivial mentions by multiple, third party sources, that are needed to demonstrate notability. Themfromspace ( talk) 04:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear user. Please i want to know what references do you need to keep this article. There are a lot of bands in here with less references and without this problem. Kamoweasel ( talk) 12:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC -3) — Kamoweasel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Dear Users. A new reference was added (nº3). I really want to keep this article, so please... i want some help with the text, please tell me what's wrong. This band is well known in my country. I'll wait for your reply. Thanks.
    -- Kamoweasel ( talk) 16:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Users. A sentence was corrected according the reference nº2 to make it more neutral in order to the general notability guidelines and WP:MUSIC argument of the user "Themfromspace". -- Kamoweasel ( talk) 11:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) — Kamoweasel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Nashville Aquatic Club

Nashville Aquatic Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

sports club, no assertion of notability for the club itself, article consists mainly of coaching staff resumes Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 14:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Myanmar X Bands

Myanmar X Bands (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

notability not established through wp:reliable sources (no references). Most of the article is biographical tangent not even related to website/company Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jet fuel. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Jp 54

Jp 54 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This was tagged as a speedy A1 for lack of context, even though the article made it pretty clear what the context was. I'm still not convinced there's enough content available to warrant an article though. Lot's of links from trading websites, but nothing to substantiate content. Delete Mgm| (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Those websites buying and selling JP 54 may not be useful as sources of article content, but they are evidence of the fuel's notability. I'd say any significant type of jet fuel in production is notable, particularly if it's the primary form of jet fuel produced in Russia, as claimed in the article. Rather than deletion, this article needs an expert in jet fuel; I have applied an {{expert-verify}} tag. Baileypalblue ( talk) 09:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
And what do you sugges the experts should use as a reference? - Mgm| (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't know, I'm not an expert! :) Seriously, though, if this is a real jet fuel in production, as it appears to be, then reliable sources must exist documenting its manner of production, proper usage, etc. Just because a non-expert like myself can't find them, it doesn't follow they don't exist. I'm confident an expert on jet fuel could solve the article's problems, via editing, so deletion is not necessary. Baileypalblue ( talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
What do you suggest we merge? None of the info is referenced. - Mgm| (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Well merge might be a strong term. I know the fuel exists, it's also called Colonial Grade 54 and it does come from Russia, but I can't find any reliable English sources for it (Google returns 100,000 commodity trader spam sites). I know Cuba uses it. It's probably widely used in Africa as well. Perhaps we can just add the entry to Jet fuel as a mention. Unfortunately I don't read or speak Russian so I'm not going to be of much help, and the EDL site keeps barfing up with a Java error. § FreeRangeFrog 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Assertion reaction paradigm

Assertion reaction paradigm (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable neologism; no valid tertiary source found for term. Possibly WP:OR. § FreeRangeFrog 08:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Dining Late with Claude La Badarian

Dining Late with Claude La Badarian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

I've been following the William Monahan articles for a while now. They are ALL original research. This is the worst of those articles. Dining Late with Claude La Badarian is a non-notable fictional epistolary story. No evidence of notability outside the Manhattan Samurai/ BillDeanCarter initiative. No independent, reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Delete promptly, Issue 12 exists ( talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Renomination: IAR, I've taken the step of changing the nomination to my name, even though I don't remember seeing it done before; my reasons are those given below by Bali ultimate. This is a very minor fictional work, that has never been commented on in any reliable source, and hardly noticed even by the fans of the author. It has been maintained as part of a elaborate structure by a sockpuppet farm which now needs to be re-examined. Monahan did write one notable screenplay, if not much else of significance.. Getting rid of this is a good place to start. DGG ( talk) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

*cmt *delete nom made by indef blocked sock of a banned user (the creator of the nominated page). So the nom should probably be nuked. However, I agree that this elaborate piece of garbage should also be deleted. No secondary coverage that establishes notability. Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • cmt reiterating delete. I've gone through this article and it has no reliable secondary sources to establish notability (there's a blog post praising it, and a passant mention in an inside joke sort of way in a gossip column, and that's it.) Fails all portions of notability guidelines, most relevantly fiction and book.
  • Question: Is there some way this work by an academy award-winning screenwriter and novelist be made encyclopdic? Or would a merge back to the William Monahan article overburden? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • cmt well, is there any coverage to establish notability for this minor piece? There's already a short graph on this in the monahan article, which seems appropriate given it has never been covered or commented on (outside of one blog). Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Turfing

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

Article about a form of dance that is completely unsourced. There are claims of notability but this term is essentially a neologism. See below TheLetterM ( talk) 04:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

*Delete. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:DANCE. (Okay, that last one is a link to a Wikiproject. But if it was a criterion for deletion, I'm sure it would fail that as well.) Un sch ool 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. User:Baileypalblue has done a much better job than I in coming up with sources. Quite honestly, of the six sources now listed, I can only credit two of them as RS (the San Fran Chronicle and the Washington Post), but that's enough for me (MTV would be good enough, but that's a viewer submission with the same RS status as a Wikipedia article. Un sch ool 06:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw Nomination. Bailey's contributions have improved the article past the points where it could be deleted for. TheLetterM ( talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Jiyang Luo

Jiyang Luo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Notability per WP:BIO. It's a good try but the cited sources do not meet WP:RS. Two of them are papers written by Jiyang Luo; one is a search engine query and the history of the punch card link does not verify that Luo was involved. We do not have non-trivial coverage by third-party sources. There are also a WP:NPOV issue but that can be cleaned up if it's kept. Enviroboy Talk Cs 04:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. One paper with no Google scholar citations is very far from passing WP:PROF, the usual standard when someone is claimed as here to be notable for their academic achievements. And I see nothing else resembling a claim of notability in the article. The only thing saving it from an A7 speedy is all the peacock language. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Agree with the lack Notability to support article. ttonyb1 ( talk) 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Merge - It's hard to say. There are few online resources that give a more comprehensive understanding of history of the study of artificial neural networks. In admission to any perceived non-objectivity, I know the student who wrote this article. The peacock language should probably be edited out. There don't seem to be any sources available to verify his breadboard patent, and personally, I have no idea either, so I won't bother wasting my time trying to research it. However, I am aware of his hypothesis. I'm a subscriber to the IEEE, and upon reading his article, one can infer its significance, in fact, based on today's direction in artificial neural networks. Give it more time? tatepotato ( talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (PST)
    • In response to David Eppstein, I often cite papers on IEEE, a very reliable resource for academics studying artificial neural networks. If it's good enough for research papers, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. In addition, references cannot be viewed by non-subscribers. As far as papers are concerned, there are more available on IEEE. The author clearly was too lazy to go beyond googling his work, but a query on IEEE would be more enlightening. Tatepotato ( talk) 05:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Google scholar shows zero papers citing Luo's "Instant learning for supervised learning neural networks: arank-expansion algorithm". The page for the paper in IEEE Xplore ( DOI:10.1109/ICNN.1994.374277) shows zero citing documents. It's not even listed in ISI Web of Knowledge because it's not a journal paper. Did you have any other databases you think might do a better job of showing some significance for this work? And "Give it more time?" is not a good argument for keeping, per WP:CRYSTAL. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • David, although I know the creator of this article, I have no personal stake. I am not much of a "Wikipedian", but to be fair, I do know that: 1) The paper you mentioned has two iterations, one of which is indeed a journal paper. 2) There are plenty of papers by Jiyang Luo out there, and I read at least a few of them in my student years (just a few years back). 3) His first journal paper is one of the first in a major change in trend of research direction. Even before I got an account, I helped salvage many articles that were stubs and/or insignificant blurbs, so when I suggested "give it more time", I first asked myself: Is the subject notable? In my humble opinion, yes. Anyone willing to do digging could put together a significant list of the subject's publications, a number of which are frequently cited. (i.e. Articles should not be so easily dismissed because of clean-cut "WP" protocol). I hope you'll understand that I say so out of a cooperative spirit, not an argumentative one. Back then, articles could sit around for months as mere stubs until someone came around and made a substantial contribution. Especially because artificial neural networks is a field relevant to my work, I would be saddened to see an attempt go to waste. If I want to make it in WP someday, I'd better be getting back to my own research ;), so I'll exit the discussion with that. Tatepotato ( talk) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Tomorrow is Today (song)

Tomorrow is Today (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable song, didn't chart, only one source AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, "IS" SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED. Contested redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

DJ Tilt

DJ Tilt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Promotion for Non-notable DJ, references don't support claims in some cases OlEnglish ( Talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, do you mind explaining what's going on? Baileypalblue ( talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I was being careless and jumped to conclusions, the references do support the claims. OlEnglish ( Talk) 04:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The only valid reference I see there is the "bizbash" one, which aside from probably not being WP:RS, also simply repeats the Google bit, which in and of itself does not suddenly propel this guy to WikiStardom. Of course, no prejudice to creating a page for him once he is notable, but this AfD is intended to decide if he meets the inclusion guidelines now. § FreeRangeFrog 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Schwartzhog. MBisanz talk 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hardenberg-Wilthen

Hardenberg-Wilthen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unreferenced/fails WP:N/ WP:CORP -Zeus- u c 02:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rail transport modelling scales. MBisanz talk 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Modeling 2' gauge railroads

AfDs for this article:
Modeling 2' gauge railroads (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

violates WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Orange Mike | Talk 02:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Linguistic titles for the homeless around the world

Linguistic titles for the homeless around the world (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's a dictionary of translations of the word " homeless" into many languages, along with a suggestion that conclusions can be drawn from all of the translations. This fails two basic policies. There is no evidence that anyone, outside of the Wikipedia editor(s) who wrote this, actually has drawn any such conclusions. I had a look and couldn't find any such conclusions published anywhere. Certainly the article cites no sources that do so. It cites dictionaries (and Wikipedia itself, which of course is not a source at all). From dictionaries as sources one gets a dictionary as an article. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a dictionary seasoned with original research. It should not have been split out of homelessness. It should have been zapped as original research in situ, with appropriate use of {{ wiktionary}} or [[ wikt:homeless#English|homeless]] if pointing people to a translating dictionary was actually desired. Uncle G ( talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, unfortunately. I was unable to find substantial research discussing if/how different languages' terms for homelessness shapes their society's view of the homeless. Interesting idea, and would make for some interesting research, but until someone else does that research and publishes it independently, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia per WP:OR and WP:DICT. —  LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep can use some development, but this is not a mere translation of the word "homeless" in different languages but rather an interesting window into how different cultures treat the concept of being with a home (e.g. are you a loser or are you a victim or somewhere in between). Look at the Spanish definitions, which include "desperate, helpess, unprotected, deserted " and Swedish "someone lying outside" This article provides a basis for an encyclopedic look at the concept of homelessness around the world. Scarykitty ( talk) 03:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Who opened this window? This article may be an interesting window into different societies, but it is an original window into these societies. Nobody has previously come to this conclusion, and thus it is original research.
    Moreover, who says these are all synonyms, and why were these words chosen? I could offer a number of words from American English, each, if chosen without consideration of the others, casting a certain view of speakers of American English. Bum, drifter, vagrant, downtrodden, homeless, dispossessed, beggar, down-on-his-luck... I don't doubt that each of these languages has multiple words as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    And, indeed, this is exactly what has happened. Using the Spanish translations as an example, sin techo (without roof) and sin hogar (without home) are the only accurate translations of "homeless" provided. The others — vagabundo (vagabond), indigente (indigent), desamparado (forsaken), pordiosero (person who goes around saying "for the love of god" - beggar) — all have different connotations. Concluding that this has any bearing on cultural views of the homeless is simply incorrect; no sane linguist would try to make that kind of assertion based on data this flimsy. Zetawoof( ζ) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - it's a dictionary and original research rolled into one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Michael Tunn

Michael Tunn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Unsourced biography that contains negative information. Wikipedia should not contain unsourced biographies about living people. Miami33139 ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Upgrading to keep per article improvements. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the lack of references and significant number of claims that are not backed up suggest that there are verifiablity issues if supporters of the article are unable to rustle em up to ascertain claimed notability Satu Suro 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It was all it needed - was someone prepared to give it some WP:RS well done NickD Satu Suro 10:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Tunn was a prominent presenter on what's probably the most popular national radio station in Australia for five years, and tons has been written about him. Most JJJ presenters meet WP:BIO (hence all the blue links in List of Triple J presenters), and Tunn is in no way an exception to this - he's probably one of the better known JJJ presenters. Nick-D ( talk) 07:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Google news isn't bringing up what I'd call significant coverage. He's mentioned in some articles but generally the article is about a radio station rather than Tunn himself. Could you add some of these references you are referring to?-- Rtphokie ( talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment As Tunn was in his most prominent position between 1992 and 1997 Google News isn't going to pick up many stories on him. I remember that there were often stories about him in the print media at the time - he hosted a popular show on a major national radio station. Nick-D ( talk) 07:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per ChildofMidnight. LotLE× talk 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've just substantively re-written the article using sources available on Factivia. It should be stressed that Factivia's coverage of the early 1990s is limited, and only returned results from the Sydney Morning Herald (which is one of Australia's major newspapers). I've kept a couple of paras which look right to me as former JJJ-obsessive, but which I couldn't provide cites for. As the article now draws on a fairly large number of sources, I'd invite editors who have already voted to consider the article as it now stands. Nick-D ( talk) 09:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • keep Given Nick's rewrite. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep given the sources Nick found. Pburka ( talk) 15:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Namibia's Next Top Model

AfDs for this article:
Namibia's Next Top Model (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Similar to Iceland's Next Top Model‎, I can't find any ghits for the names mentioned in this article linked to this show, or modeling in general, except for the alleged "host." No ghits on the show, either, indicating its existence. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The result was G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Iceland's Next Top Model

AfDs for this article:
Iceland's Next Top Model (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Seems to be a hoax - I can't find any ghits for the host "Magda Haversen" or either of the winners, which would make zero sense if they are models who have just appeared on a television show. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Voltcan

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

This doesn't seem to be notable, to me. A google search turns up nothing but the company website and some other junk. The other sources in the article don't seem to stand up (My browser couldn't read http://www.lactualite.com/economie/article.jsp?content=20081229_110047_23284, so I'm not sure about that one). VX! talk 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ballas Hough Band

Ballas Hough Band (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC just yet. Two of its five members are no doubt notable as placers on Dancing with the Stars, but their notability is not inherited in the band, which does not yet have an album or chart single. The only sources aren't substantial. Come back when you've charted at least. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Single "Do It for You" is already released on iTunes and other stores. The debut album is going to drop on March 10, 2009. Johnny0929 ( talk) 19:17, 17 February 2009 (ETC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 as vandalism. Re-closing as previous closer, WWGB, accidentally used the wrong closure template. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The Omens (Cult)

The Omens (Cult) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

Likely hoax, certainly not notable. Grahame ( talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close Nominated revision was nonsense/vandalism. Current revision is a stub on an athlete who, as a former NFL player, meets WP:ATHLETE without dispute. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Cecil Johnson

Cecil Johnson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Open House Arts Collective

Open House Arts Collective (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

This is, by its own admission, an informal grouping started in 2008. There is no evidence of notability and what few third-party sources are listed, none are beyond the local, including a university paper freshacconci talktalk 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: This is a formal organization that has been the subject of coverage from the following reliable, independent secondary sources:
    • CBC Radio 2's Ontario Morning (provincial) [1]
    • 94.9 CHRW (regional) [2]
    • Western Gazette at the University of Western Ontario (local) [3]
    • Two Way Monologues (national - online) [4]
The organization has also existed in an alternate formal arrangement since at least April 4, 2007 [5] and has expanded from the Viking Swimmers of 1926, [6] who were active as recently as November 20, 2008 [7], into the Open House Arts Collective.
  1. ^ http://www.freewebs.com/vikingswimmers/Olenka_OntarioMorning.mp3
  2. ^ http://www.freewebs.com/vikingswimmers/blair_sam_CHRW_truncated.mp3
  3. ^ http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/index.cfm?section=FrontPage&month=01&day=16&year=2009
  4. ^ http://www.twowaymonologues.com/interviews/10-questions-with-ola-from-olenka-and-the-autumn-lovers/
  5. ^ http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=vikingswimmers.com&prog_id=godaddy
  6. ^ http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/index.cfm?section=FrontPage&month=01&day=16&year=2009
  7. ^ http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=250543&x=articles&s=club
Stuartathompson ( talk) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
  • Comment The above references are essentially the London Free Press and University of Western Ontario paper. The other links are for the band OOlenka and the Autumn Lovers, and one link above just goes to the Open House Arts Collective article. So, no, there are no third-party sources beyond the trivial for Open House Arts Collective itself. freshacconci talktalk 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Source (1) is an audio interview with CBC Radio 1. Source (2) is an audio interview with 94.9 CHRW radio. Interviews on radio programs qualify as sources, as do provincially-broadcast programs on national radio networks. A Wikipedia linking error requires you copy and paste these links to properly access the audio file. Source (5) is a verifiable factual link to the existence of the related Viking Swimmers of 1926; please take a moment to scroll down to see the relevant information, the link is not broken. Source (6) confirms these groups are related. Source (7) is verifiable third-party evidence that the related group, from which Open House was created, was active as recently as November 2008. Stuartathompson ( talk) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
  • Comment Please note in source (4), Krakus discuses both the Collective and its association with the Viking Swimmers of 1926 in the third-last question. Stuartathompson ( talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
  • Comment No one is doubting that this group exists. The sources do not appear to be about the group in question. To be establish notability, sources need to be non-trivial, third-party sources and should be about Open House Arts Collective, not a previous group. Even of these sources were about Open House Arts Collective, they do not appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:V at this point. freshacconci talktalk 03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:COI's concerns are with neutral point of view, monetary gain, neutral tone, and associated notions of bias or manipulation. Information provided above is neutral and factual. The organization is not-for-profit. There is no benefit for personally editing this article or supplementing the deletion discussion. No attempt has been made to withhold or disguise any identity. Moreover, I neither created this article nor maintain it, though I have made factual and organizational changes and added appropriate links, and was notified of this deletion by the first poster in this discussion. Associations with the Viking Swimmers of 1926 have been made clear to counter the original claim that the group "started in 2008" when this is not entirely the case. Stuartathompson ( talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
  • Comment Of course you created the article: it's in the article's history. And the first poster was you. Being a non-profit does not negate the conflict of interest situation. As the media representative of the group, it's in your interest to promote the group. It's as simple as that. Money has nothing to do with it (although, as a non-profit, you could be eligible for government funding where a higher profile would be valuable, but that's beside the point). As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what any of that actually refers to. In any case, you should be careful when creating article about groups you are involved with. It's not up to you to decide if the article is neutral. Your involvement already calls that into question. freshacconci talktalk 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Of course, there was no way for me to know about the page move (the history merely states that you "created" this article). As for the rest, the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines are clear: you are to exercise caution when creating, editing and participating in deletion discussions about subjects that you are connected to. I never once said that your participation did not benefit Wikipedia, but it must be made clear that you do have an invested interest in this article as I've stated above. This is all a distraction, however, since a reliably sourced article is not presently evident. As for neutrality, that's for others to decide, as you cannot possibly make that judgement. freshacconci talktalk 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Unfortunately, a profile in a university paper does not constitute significant coverage. As for signing numerous acts, their principle claim to notability is as an arts collective. Perhaps a merge into the article for Olenka and the Autumn Lovers as a record label would be appropriate. freshacconci talktalk 04:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Significant coverage as defined by WP:N does not require certain size of circulation, reach, or prominence to be considered significant, and where these factors may contribute, they are understood to be relative to the scope of the article in question; in this case, the organization serves this publication's constituency. The article does "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" and "is more than trivial." Further, as a newspaper, it is a secondary source beholden to standards of objectivity and neutrality and is considered reliable according to WP:N's definitions. The interview with CBC Radio 1's Ontario Morning meets all criteria for WP:N, falls within its criteria of "works in all forms and media" and may fulfill a more liberal definition of "significant coverage." Stuartathompson ( talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Stuartathompson reply
  • Comment Please read the notability requirements for organizations. This is not substantial coverage. A profile in a university newspaper, an article in the local paper and an interview on the radio, which at this point is unclear as it's not used in the article (i.e. not quoted or referred to). The interview appears to be about the band's singer. Again, this is not a discussion about the notability of the band, but the arts organization and so far, sources do not appear to be beyond the trivial at this point. The organization has been around for less than a year. In a year or two, if more sources are established, the article can be recreated (should it be deleted). But as it stands, notability has not been established. freshacconci talktalk 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please listen to the CBC Radio 1 interview before commenting on its content. It is, in its entirety, about the organization, and only makes incidental reference to the interviewee's band. It is a program on a national network broadcast provincially and meets all qualifications under both WP:N and organizations. The organization formed under its current title in 2008 but has existed since at least April 4, 2007 as the Viking Swimmers of 1926. This association attempts to nullify arguments against its perceived short lifespan by drawing an evidential, sourced timeline extending back several years. Stuartathompson ( talk) 05:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
Well if it has actually done anything in any area, this is not reflected in the article. Johnbod ( talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ http://www.londonarts.ca/default.aspx?Select=ArtsOrganizationsDetail&Business=i7%2fGFy1YO0%2fOCnPAaNSwUg%3d%3d
  • Comment I don't understand the relevence of this information. No one is questioning the existence of the group. And adding that they are "recognized" by the London Arts Council in the article is quite awkward. A municiple arts council funds all sorts of groups. In and of itself this is not an establishment of notability by Wikipedia standards. freshacconci talktalk 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This information was added to supplement third-party secondary sources and was not intended to establish notability in and of itself. The City of London Arts Council individually approves organizations for inclusion. Some groups, especially those of local interest, appear to base their notability on associations with the city government and arts councils such as these (ex. Grand Theatre, Ontario). (Though it's somewhat unclear how the Grand Theatre, Ontario has established notability.) Stuartathompson ( talk) 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
  • Comment Actually, the radio interviews are terrible sources as we are asking too much of the reader to cut and paste the link into a new window and then listen to the entire interview to see if it's really about the subject of the article. The onus is on the editor who provided the source to incorporate the source into the article better. As its stands, it's an interview with the singer of a band. So what if she mentions this group? By definition that makes it an unreliable third-party source. When did this interview take place? On what show? What was the context of the interview? We're given nothing and the editor glibbly tells us to listen to the interview. And university newspaper articles are fine, but not in an article with so few sources to begin with. We have a local paper, a university paper and an ambiguous (at best) radio interview. By WP:N standards this is not substantial. We need more third-party sources to establish notability. If they do not exist, then the article should be deleted. And the conflict of interest is still a major issue that has not been addressed except in the most dismissive way by the editor in question. We may need to take this further for administrative comment. freshacconci talktalk 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Wikipedia's link malfunction only occurs in this discussion; the link works properly in the article. Adjustments have been made to reference these interviews as additional information rather than inline citations to remove obligations from readers to seek out direct references. Dates have been added to these sources. Not to belabour the point, but the CBC Radio 1 interview, in its entirety, references only the organization this article pertains to, and not the artist, her work, or her music -- these are incidental. This interview addresses the subject of this article directly and in detail. Radio interviews may be less convenient than text, but they are, especially in the case of the CBC, authoritative third-party sources nonetheless. The qualifiers "substantial" and "significant" may have been misunderstood by the above poster. WP:N describes "significant" as a qualifier for the article itself, not he publication, as in: Does the citation discuss the article in a "significant" or "trivial" nature? Again, as per WP:N, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Any discussion of WP:COI is welcomed and encouraged. Any and all edits made to the article in question are open to revision or deletion, especially if they qualify for WP:COI, such as bias or lack of neutral tone. This AfD discussion is independent of the article itself. Please briefly review edits made to this article: they are grammatical and organizational, or offer changes to diction, or add references. Stuartathompson ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
  • Comment Uh, no. The links do not work in the article itself. Maybe from your computer but not from my work PC or home Mac. And no, I do not "misunderstand" the qualifiers in question. WP:N notability is fairly nuanced in order to allow leaway for editors when discussing these things. In the end it's a matter of interpretation but do not insult me by telling me that I misunderstand the terms. My reading of the sources provided is that they are insufficient to establish notability. It's as simple as that. This organization is simply not there yet. That's my opinion. And I'm sure "[a]ny discussion of WP:COI is welcomed and encouraged" since you were not upfront about it until I called you on it. I'm sorry, but you have contributed very little to Wikipedia outside an organization that you are affiliated with and participating in a deletion discussion when you are the press officer. This is why Wikipedia has conflict of interest guidelines. Conflicts of interest do not always involve monetary gain. There are other issues at stake as well. Do not misunderstand me: you are welcome to edit; you are welcome to participate in this discussion. But the COI guidelines are important for a reason and you have been dismissive of them so far, mainly because I called you on it. Anyway, I'm done with this. I've said my what I have to say. freshacconci talktalk 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Any offense was unintentional. Attempts were only made to provide direct quotations from the source material used to justify this AfD discussion. Contributions to Wikipedia have been made often outside this article but this username was only recently registered using my full real name. I was unaware of full disclosure WP:COI protocol but have taken steps to make any affiliations clear by adding my name to the discussion page for the article in question. I remain confident that edits made to this article do not violate WP:COI but welcome sound arguments to the contrary. This discussion appears incidental to the debate at hand. Your passionate responses are much appreciated, but sources added to this article since its nomination for AfD and a direct interpretation of WP:N attempts to disagree with you. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the Grand Theatre, Ontario, I was certainly not attempting to justify this article's existence on the basis of the other article; rather, I was attempting to justify the inclusion of the City of London Arts Council recognition as a supplement to this article's notability on the (perhaps false) conclusion that it is acceptable evidence -- a conclusion reached by seeing other articles using such evidence. If the Grand Theatre, Ontario is justified on different grounds, or not at all, then I rescind my argument. Stuartathompson ( talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
You are linking to the wrong City of London here! The Grand Theatre is a decent-sized professional theatre over a century old; I'm not familiar with the relevant policy for notability of theatres but I imagine it passes easily. Johnbod ( talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - most of the commentary above relates to either a perceived COI or to the quality (rather than wikipedia-eligibility) of the article. COI can be dealt with, and is not an absolute bar to editing an article. Issues of quality are a call to improve an article not to delete it. Perhaps the COI and quality issues could be taken to a more appropriate forum. TJRC ( talk) 23:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
No, a group that has done nothing is not notable. Johnbod ( talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I actually hate popping in here all the time as it appears that I'm on some sort of crusade, but I do need to respond to TJRC. At no time did I indicate that I was concerned with the quality of the article. The quality of the sources, yes, but the article itself is not what I am concerned with. I am only interested in the notability of the subject. And as Johnbod so succinctly put it, this group hasn't actually done anything yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as we all know. Likewise, I very specifically stated that I am aware that COI is not a reason for deletion and that Stuartathompson is more than welcome to edit and participate in this discussion. The COI issue is important but in no way did I state or imply that a conflict of interest was a reason for deletion. On the contrary, I've been pretty adamant that it is all about sources and notability. freshacconci talktalk 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Information has been added to the article to reflect work the organization has completed: Open House has organized, promoted or sponsored music and art shows at the Alex P. Keaton, the Yale Speakeasy and Coffee Culture with artists from the London area and abroad, including a band from the United Kingdom. [1] Open House organized and promoted a White Album Tribute Show at the London Music Club as the Viking Swimmers of 1926. [2] The organization also has a partnership with the Grand Theatre, Ontario to promote theatre productions, including "Robertson Davies: The Peeled I." [3]
  • ^ http://openhouseartscollective.com/events.html
  • ^ http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=250543&s=cds
  • ^ http://www.facebook.com/reqs.php#/event.php?eid=51895398483

    • 24.150.227.235 ( talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply

    • Keep based on indicia of notability noted by Stuartathompson. TJRC ( talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete per nom... Modernist ( talk) 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete A student newspaper can be used as a source, but I can't see how it can support notability. The source that is more relevant is the CBC interview. I've listened to this, and I hope the closing admin does as well (as Freshacconci says you need to copy and paste the link). Personally, I don't think it's enough. It's only 6 minutes long.-- Ethicoaestheticist ( talk) 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I understand this discussion is almost at its end (almost five days now I believe). Though there's been interest in keeping the article, there have also been arguments for deletion. May I suggest, if the consensus or administrative decision does not favour keeping the article, that the administrator moves it to a stub or piece of another article until such a time as notability can be confirmed to a degree satisfying standards argued for in this debate. Freshacconci suggested moving it to a stub of Olenka and the Autumn Lovers since ties there are strong. Another possibility would be moving it as a Canada-related stub, as is the London Ontario Live Arts Festival. The "indicia of notability" added to the article since this debate began may make deletion a step too far. 64.201.38.62 ( talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The Fitovers

    The Fitovers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non notable band. I've waited to see if anything emerges but nothing. No google news hits, no easily found google hits (other than myspace and facebook pages), and no albums available on Amazon Music. No references in article either suggesting notability. Shadowjams ( talk) 01:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assassin's Creed#Sequel. MBisanz talk 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Assassin's Creed 2

    AfDs for this article:
    Assassin's Creed 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This is almost entirely gossip and conjecture. The only confirmed statement was "What we just can say is that we are working hard on the product." The rest of this info is made up or guessed at. While at some point it may be referenced and notable, it is certainly is not now. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Weak keep The game is in development, and the first game was certainly notable. WP:Crystal certainly is relevant to the content of the article, but there is something that can be said about the game now from reliable sources (like the one included in the article now). Shadowjams ( talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      The ENTIRETY of the reference is listed above. The only thing that has been officially said about this game is "What we just can say is that we are working hard on the product." That hardly counts as significant coverage, or really even coverage. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. As pointed out, there's not a whole lot of information out there. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". As I see it, the release of Assassin's Creed 2 is certain to take place and will be notable. There's not a whole lot to say about it, other than that it is forthcoming, but I do find a large number of google hits, and there's enough information to make a decent article. Cool3 ( talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment As with all things, the WP policy you're referencing indicates (through an example) that google hits alone do not create notability. That was not the argument that Cool3 was making. It is however quite relevant that there are a number of notable sources out there, which was his argument. Shadowjams ( talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Spirit Combat Jujitsu (New Zealand)

    Spirit Combat Jujitsu (New Zealand) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non notable martial arts dojo. Reads as though author is directly involved with it. AFD because I couldn't decide between {{db-A7}} and {{db-spam}} dramatic ( talk) 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Jason Steed

    Jason Steed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Fails WP:Fiction. Real-world context lacking to the point that if you missed reading one line you would mistake this for a real person. Most of the article is about the subject's father rather than the subject, and the article is basically a regurgitation of plot. The book itself might deserve an article if it has received sufficient coverage, but as the first in a series, an article for a single character is unwarranted (maybe in 5 books' time). dramatic ( talk) 00:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    100 Words

    100 Words (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Unsourced, not notable online game. It was PROD'd but the PROD was contested by a bot-like user who un-PRODs dozens of articles daily. I have read the article and this does not seem notable. Website hovers around the 2millionth in popularity, which is dreadful. Miami33139 ( talk) 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    List of Python software

    List of Python software (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This is a list of lists. None of the sub-lists are well defined other than be having some relation to the programming language. This list contains zero usable prose linking the lists. This suite of lists would be better served by a category and sub-categories; which I believe already exist. Miami33139 ( talk) 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Itech

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

    Article that reads as an advertisement tagged for one year. No sources, and has been tagged to add sources for 18 months. Wikipedia is better off without this article until a neutral, sourced article can be re-written. Miami33139 ( talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    "If it's been around that long, no one's going to fix it." What? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Amanda Kapousoucz

    Amanda Kapousoucz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Contested PROD, non-notable musician. References fail WP:V and Google only turns up self published material, no third party sources indicating that person passes WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_17&oldid=1142645112"
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    < 16 February 18 February >

    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 Merge, disambig. Create a disambig to Agrarian Society, plus "Agricultural Societies" like 4h, merge duplicate content ( non-admin closure) ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 11:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Agricultural society

    AfDs for this article:
    Agricultural society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Contested prod. "A society that uses plows and drafts animals in growing food". So, that would be every society in the world then? Will never be anything other than a pointless fork of Agriculture; oh, and the "References" are to Britannica and Encarta, respectively. I don't even think it's worth preserving as a redirect (but am happy to be overruled if anyone thinks it's necessary)..  –  iridescent 23:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Delete As written, but I can't rule out that there might be some kind of article on this subject. I see industrial society as a see also. But there not much content in the present article, nothing to indicate notability, and it all seems very vague and even inaccurate. Maybe the creator can explain the plan? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect Agrarian society ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, I created the article so I'd have a COI and my vote may not count, but that is not why I'm here. I created the article in the image after the industrial society article. Perhaps rather than doing a deletion, you could simply tag it to be expanded, or tag it as a stub. As for the references, I don't get what point you are trying to make. They are valid references as Encarta and Britannica both have articles on the subject. Smallman12q ( talk) 00:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • A stub article needs to provide background and context; this provides neither. Deletion doesn't mean "we don't want an article on this subject", it means "there is no version in the article history which is a valid article". We're not a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we're a list of everything either.
        Regarding references, I think you're misunderstanding how Wikipedia referencing works. References aren't "a list of other sources which consider the topic notable", they're a list of reliable sources – by our definition – for the facts in the article. Neither Encarta nor Britannica are reliable sources, although Britannica articles (like Wikipedia) generally contain citations to their sources which are usually reliable. (Although they have more restrictions over who can edit, they work to the same basic principles as us.) –  iridescent 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I'm a bit surprised by your comment in considering Britannica unreliable.Could you provide me a link where it says Britannica (and Encarta) are considered unreliable. Is world book also unreliable? Smallman12q ( talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    It's a judgement call; the official policy is the ambiguously worded Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes the criteria for assessing the reliability of sources. That in turn points to a great gobbet of wiki-gibberish, the pertinent point of which is As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Britannica.com Inc. (the online Britannica) and the online Encarta are user-generated and website-aggregation sites along the lines of Citizendium – the main difference between them and us is that they have flagged revisions turned on (which is why Britannica and Encarta articles have a "suggest edit" tab where we have "edit this page") – and no longer the academic-compiled works the print versions are. –  iridescent 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    While Britannica does accept online content, they still adhere to their fact-checking policies online as much as they do in their print version. There's no reason to assume they'd be any less vigilant about their reputation for accuracy. - Mgm| (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Out of curiosity, if I was to use the print version would it also be considered an aggregation of website and user content? What about the disc version, is it also considered tertiary? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I find it quite amusing to see a nomination asserting on the one hand that the subject is unencyclopaedic and noting that the article cites two encyclopaedias on the other. ☺

      I think that the creator is unsuccessfully groping for the concept that is more usually called an agrarian society. An agricultural, rather than agrarian society is usually a farmers' or growers' association of some kind, as are the ones linked-to in the "See also" section of this very article — indeed, as also is the Agricultural Society in Poland discussed in the Britannica article that this article's creator incorrectly thinks supports the article.

      We don't need deletion order to solve this. Just turn it into a disambiguation. Clearly the creator of this article isn't going to be the last person to look up agrarian society by this name, and be so convinced of its correctness that xe starts an article. ☺ And equally clearly, the Royal Agricultural Society, the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales, the Royal Agricultural Society of Tasmania, and so forth are all agricultural societies. Uncle G ( talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    I'll agree with Uncle G that it should probably be a redirect to agrarian society. Smallman12q ( talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • In fact, scratch my post above – the "references" don't check out even on their own terms. The Britannica page is about a Polish trade union called "The Agricultural Society" and the Encarta article doesn't exist at all. Strong delete. No problem with turning it into a dab page per Uncle G, though. –  iridescent 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I have already created a disambiguation page Agricultural society (disambiguation). Smallman12q ( talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure whether you read this entire Afd, but Uncle G mentioned agrarian society which is what I now believe agricultural society should be redirected to. Smallman12q ( talk) 02:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Credit where credit is due, it was Uncle G and not I who realized the existing article agrarian society covers this material. A disambiguation page looks like the right solution. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep and Redirect to agrarian society. It takes a lot of patience to be civil in this response, because the nomination is based on the totally ridiculous premise that there is no distinction between the concept of agricultural societies and society in general, or that there is no conceptual distinction between agriculture as a practice and agricultural societies. Read a history of agriculture (or any history of the human race) and you'll quickly discover that a lot of our history has not been in agricultural societies, but in hunter-gatherer ones. There are still quite a few hunter-gatherers today. Thus, to say that every society in the world is agricultural is both abject stupidity and ignorant of history. There is more than enough published, reliable material to make a single separate article on agricultural societies in contrast to agriculture as a practice. That said, the topic is functionally the same as that covered in agrarian society at present, despite agricultural society being a more accurate term. Steven Walling (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Disambig I too don't agree the reasoning for this nomination. I propose the article should be changed into a disambig page with a link to agrarian society. I also take issue with the statement that, "A society that uses plows and drafts animals in growing food. So, that would be every society in the world then?" I don't believe that it is a valid nomination rational. Smallman12q ( talk) 23:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    How about the disambig page, should it remain a separate article then? Smallman12q ( talk) 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    List of Disney animated heroines

    List of Disney animated heroines (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    WP is not a collection of indiscriminate lists. Characters are already listed on List of Disney characters - no reason provided to differentiate female heroines/characters vs other characters. "Heroine" not defined, article has turned into a list of all female Disney characters SpikeJones ( talk) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Delete, list is of little encyclopedic use. J Milburn ( talk) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Variously violates WP:NOTLINK, WP:IINFO, and (in such portions of entries as "Age" and "Era") WP:OR. But basically violates the requirement of WP:SAL that "lists should begin with a lead section, that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria," which seems impossible in this case, since "heroine" is an essentially vague concept. Deor ( talk) 01:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. Inclusion criteria is not well defined. No need for this as lists of Disney characters already exist. Doctorfluffy ( robe and wizard hat) 04:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete This may have started out with good intentions, but what it turned into was a large biography of Jasmine, Cinderella, Ariel, etc., complete with descriptions of their "family", including other characters in their films. And there is no need to duplicate other articles about Jasmine, Cinderella, Ariel, etc., complete with descriptions of their "family", including other characters in their films. While it's possible that a good article might be written about the portrayal of women in Disney's films and how it has evolved over time (and there have been books that looked at that aspect), this appears to have been pieced together by people who buy a VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc. everytime the "Disney vault" opens. Mandsford ( talk) 13:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete. I worked for Disney for over 5 years and still follow it whenever I can. I have never heard this collection of characters branded as "Disney heroines" in the same vein as Disney Princess or Disney Fairies. Sounds like whoever created this list was trying to go after something in that vein because "List of Disney animated female characters" would have sounded even more indiscriminate. The little non- cruft information is in this list can and should be captured in the individual character articles where they exist. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • WP:USERFY back to author User:Lmvp990766271 with the above suggestions that the informations be placed where approprate. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Listcruft, plain and simple (well maybe a small dose of fancruft as well). The list is crafted using no out-of-universe material to attempt to justify why this collection of information as a whole has any encyclopedic value. Indiscriminate and nonnotable. Themfromspace ( talk) 02:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep, It needs a little expansion, not deletion. Have a look at List of Disney princes. I suspect a bit of sexism here. =P This article simply needs to be cleaned up and perhaps renamed to List of Disney Princesses Smallman12q ( talk) 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    "Disney Princesses" has a specific meaning, and we already have an article on that. And such characters as Kim Possible, Penny Proud, and Lilo Pelekai are princesses by no stretch of the imagination. Deor ( talk) 23:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Todd Boone

    Todd Boone (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Delete nn tv pitchman. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    John Decyk

    John Decyk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    All nonsense. Nothing on this guy anywhere. CSD G3 was turned down. -- aktsu ( t /  c) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • You know normally the only time I look at this thing is when I am told children come on here and edit it that im gay or phony or fake so i fix it so the facts are there. Now you people want to come on here and delete it because well it dosen't sound true to me so it definately is not true? Come on I thought you people were more inteligent then that but hey I guess thats how things go you bust your ass your whole life to acomplish a little something and then you book worm computer cowboys come on here and bash me knock me down then say im phony? You know what just delete it then cause this proves to me that Wikipedia is not a website of information its a dictator that says whats right and whats wrong no facts just "Hmm he did alot with his life, he's just trying to get a little respect for time he put in, NAH Lets just say he is fake and delete it all." You know what if this is the type of information you people want to put up based on what you think is true or not then do me the favor and delete it but the people who paid there hard earned money for a ticket to come watch me fight they will know its true. You can delete me from your records but you can't delete me from the minds of the people who know the truth. John Decyk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.218.251 ( talk)
    • John, all you need to do to prove people wrong is give us a link to one of your fight videos. That's all you have to do. Until then, this wiki entry is the biggest piece of bullcrap I have seen in a long, LONG time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKing85 ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Also, you say you have wrestled Randy Savage. You also say you started wrestling in 2002 (age of 17). Randy Savage has only wrestled in TNA since he stopped working for WCW. He has not wrestled any independent shows since then. So there is no way you could have wrestled Randy Savage. At least make up stuff that could be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKing85 ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Assuming you are John Decyk (69.248.218.251), I'm afraid you are totally out of touch with the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia has Rules and Guidelines, and as Editors we try to follow them. You also state that: "You know normally the only time I look at this thing is when I am told children come on here and edit it that im gay or phony or fake so i fix it so the facts are there", I take it by "this thing", you mean the Wikipedia, but John Decyk article was started by JamManJohnDecyk on 7 September 2007 and with interesting edits by 68.32.140.61 and 69.140.24.104. Some one has now looked closely at your page and realised it is not correct for the Wikipedia. What are required are independent third party references. Have a look at WP:BIO. Artypants, Babble 16:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Please DELETE, this guy is not a professional MMA fighter. There are no fights listed in any of the official MMA databases or any fighter information listed. This is made up. Obsessis ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • MISINFORMATION! this guy is not a PRO MMA FIGHTER, period!!!!! HOAX HOAX HOAX, wikipedia is better than this!!!! sherdog the guys name for crying otu loud, lol, seriously —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.141.99 ( talk) 18:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Guys like this are the entire reason for encyclopedias. He has plenty of references, they just need to be listed!
    All very credible sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.21.38.66 ( talk • contribs)
    • DO NOT DELETE PLEASE - THIS GUY IS A GREAT FIGHTER AND AMBASSADOR TO THE SPORT OF MIXED MARTIAL ARTS - OUR SPORT IS STRUGGLING FOR MAINSTREAM ACCEPTANCE AS IS, WE DON'T NEED TO FIGHT TO STAY ON WIKIPEDIA NOW TOO DO WE?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.163.110 ( talk • contribs)
    • DO NOT DELETE THIS AS HE IS AN ACTUAL FIGHTER, THE PEOPLE HE HAS DEFEATED ARE JEALOUS OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.5.23 ( talk • contribs)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    NSW Junior Tennis Rankings

    NSW Junior Tennis Rankings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Not an encyclopedic topic, but a mere listing of (junior) rankings with no evidence of accuracy other than the assurance of the creating editor. One of the cited sources is "NSW Selectors Lists". Wikipedia is not a free web host and data of this nature is best hosted elsewhere. A disputed PROD, reasons for disputing are given on the article talk page Mattinbgn\ talk 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Links both to and from this article have been updated.

    There are other pages on Wikipedia which list Australian tennis players/results at a junior level, but these pages are not considered for deletion. Not all of these players have continued to become world famious stars. Examples of pages include Junior Wimbledon Winners and Runners-Up (eg Debbie Freeman); Junior Australian Championship results, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegum Bill ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    • Keep. I think that the article should stay. It contains links to other Australian tennis players listed on Wikipedia and puts their career as a whole into context. It provides an opportunity for people to see how they performed at a junior level. Regarding the earlier delete message (Most of the players listed have not competed at the "highest amateur level of a sport), I would argue that ALL of these players have competed at the highest amateur level. Remember that 'Juniors' also includes 18 year olds. Many of these players (eg Debbie Freeman, Amanda Tobin, Craig Miller, etc) were playing at Wimbledon the year after they left the junior ranks! If this is not the highest amateur than what is!! Also, regarding the earlier message (Most of the players listed have not competed at a "fully professional level of a sport) with a reference given of " WP:ATHLETE", this page doesn't state word 'Most", but simply 'People who have competed....". The page in question certainly meets this criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.237.196 ( talk) 00:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    — 203.54.237.196 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • You may be misinterpreting the intent of WP:ATHLETE. Highest amateur level refers to adults, not juniors and refers to national level (or interstate), not state. Else we'd be potentially having hundreds of such lists—think of every sport/age group/regional combination. Djanga 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Acapulco gold

    Acapulco gold (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Delete. Factual accuracy has been disputed since last year, and there are no reliable sources which document this "strain" of marijuana. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx) 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep The article is disputed, according to the talk page, because it shows the wrong image. Also, the article does contain at least one reliable reference. I found one too:

      Russell, I. Willis; Mary Gray Porter (Winter 1982). "Among the New Words". American Speech. 57 (4). Duke University Press: 272. JSTOR  454629..

      There might be a case for transwikification to Wiktionary if nothing more than a slang definition can be found in sources, but deletion is not needed as the accuracy dispute can be solved by removing the picture. - Mgm| (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep There are 666 hits for this in Google books. It's a sign! Colonel Warden ( talk) 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • A sign of what? Have you actually taken a look at any of those hits? The majority of them are referring to a song by Rainy Daze and those that actually are relevant do not fall under the umbrella of reliable / non-trivial coverage. Please help me understand what its a sign of other than a sign that this article needs to be deleted. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep The only factual dispute I saw on the talk page was about an image, which has nothing to do with whether the whole article should be deleted. To have a listing in the OED and a linguistics article is way more notability than the average cultivar (of any plant) has. If there is something in the article which isn't supported by sources, and sources for it are not found, then delete those parts, not the whole article. I also won't express an opinion on transwikification to Wiktionary (not having looked enough at the sources), although I suspect it probably makes sense on Wikipedia. Kingdon ( talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep. Acapulco Gold was the catch word of a generation when it came to good pot. There was marijuana... and there was Acapulco Gold. Notability easy to source. Article need correct image and then be expanded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, snowball keep bad faith nom (again) (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Johnny Test

    AfDs for this article:
    Johnny Test (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    The article does not have any reliable sources or references AltecCrog ( talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • I was trying to make a comment and somehow THAT COUNTS AS EDITING OTHERS COMMENTS.THAT COMMENT WAS MY COMMENT.Sorry for being rude but do we really need to resort to such little changes being an offence? AltecCrog ( talk) 22:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    You're not getting it, are you? Your contribution history shows that you removed my comments twice, after I pointed out your reasoning of "the show sucks". Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close obvious POINTy nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Johnny Test

    Johnny Test (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Does not cite any references or sources AltecCrog ( talk) 22:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Comment I can edit my own comment when I want to AltecCrog ( talk) 22:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Do NOT edit other peoples comments as you did here and here. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Zombie company

    Zombie company (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Neologism; non-sourced slang term Mhking ( talk) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Delete This is somebody's attempt to create a new word during this era of company bailouts. Mandsford ( talk) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Redirect to Bankruptcy or some more appropriate target. The phrase has been in common use at least since the Japanese economic crisis of the 1990s, and is a common search term, but the current article topic is not appropriately focused and doesn't contain material worth saving. If somebody else wants to perform an article salvage, that's fine, too. Baileypalblue ( talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Provisional Keep/Commentary - The article was just created yesterday. Let's give the creator some time to bring this up to spec. Also, I remember hearing the term on a couple news shows (Either CTV, Global, or BNN. Can't remember at the moment), so I don't think this was made up by just this guy. A google search for "zombie companies" turns up a few thousand hits, including the NY Times [2] from 2002, so this isn't particularly new. Though I question whether this is really suitable for wikipedia, as I somewhat doubt as to if a real article can be constructed for this. If not, it ought to be transwiki'd to wiktionary. Grandmartin11 ( talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Rather than let this linger in the mainspace, I suggest if the outcome is to let the author work on it, the article should be userfied until such time it is up to scratch. - Mgm| (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep and maybe redirect somewhere like the TARP article? Probably worth a mention there. So I would say transwiki, merge and redirect. How's that for an answer! A TRIFECTA!!! ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    No good merge target at this time. Term is notable enough to be worth including and there's no harm in a stub. There is harm in losing this sourced and notable terminology. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Adjust my vote to keep. Term is notable. It's not the same as bankruptcy. It refers to walking dead, like a zombie. Company that is non functional and not alive, but kept going none the less. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Here are a few more (I put them on the article talk page too...)

    • "Fearing more bad news if banks were forced to disclose their real losses, Japan’s leaders allowed banks to keep loans to “zombie” companies on their balance sheets. Japan, instead, experimented with a series of funds, in part privately financed, to relieve banks of their bad assets." [6]
    • "Paradoxically, though they are declining to extend credit to many smaller and stronger companies, the banks have been reluctant to cut off their worst customers, the all-but-insolvent zombie companies that have little or no hope of ever repaying their loans. Government subsidies, low interest rates and easy treatment by the banks keep these companies stumbling along because, in the short term, it is cheaper for the banks than letting them die and then having to write off all that has been lent to them." [7]
    • "Falling land and stock prices have also conspired against the banks, which hold huge portfolios of those assets. And the banks are continuing to prop up large numbers of zombie companies, which have heavy debts and weak if any prospects of repaying them.

    The zombies have become a political lightning rod. Japan's economy and financial services minister, Heizo Takenaka, wants the banks to assess their loan books more strictly and force the no-hope borrowers into liquidation. But many politicians have backed the resistance of banks to shutting down the zombies, for fear of widespread layoffs and a loss of political contributions from them." [8]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was Speedied as vandalism, and as utter bollocks. Grutness... wha? 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC). reply

    Southern Tibor Islands

    Southern Tibor Islands (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Not a single hit on Google, Google News or Google scholar, which is just not credible for what would be a major event in scientific and ecological fields. dramatic ( talk) 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Stunna

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

    Neologism; non-sourced slang term Mhking ( talk) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Give Him Time It seems the article isn't finnished. I think he may have just gone on a tangent about the term. Make the article more about the practice, mabe if you can find a more official term change the name of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 ( talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Complete Over haul This article belongs in the Rites of passage category Distiguish Stunna from Stunter. It would be better to not define the term or find other terms which decribe the same behavior. I put in the section I will help you out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Nickels ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    NOTEThis is the user' sole edit as of 19:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) DFS454
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. There is no consensus regarding the appropriateness of a merge below but further discussion may be pursued on the talk page if desired. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Albedo (Xenosaga)

    Albedo (Xenosaga) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Large article of unreferenced gamecruft. No assertion of notability. Any other info can be summarized in the list of characters.

    The information is also already mentioned in the Xenosaga Wikia.

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

    Wilhelm (Xenosaga) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Testament (Xenosaga) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Tricia Wilds

    Tricia Wilds (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Article doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Dismas| (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was Speedy deleted A7. Talk page said this was a guy "trying to get his name out there" - sorry, that's not what we're here for. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    InFire Everlasting

    InFire Everlasting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Should be speedy deleted as A7 and G11, author contested. Non-notable band, Self-created page, blatant advertising, author has removed AfD tag from article between the time I placed it on there and the time I completed this nomination. KuyaBriBri Talk 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Xavexgoem ( talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    David Mytton

    David Mytton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Some claiming to be the subject of the article applied a Prod template, however this article has previously been up for AFD, so Prod is wrong.

    Davidmytton ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims:
    Subject requests deletion due to recent ID fraud based on past article content

    Previous AFD discussions were here and here. Martin451 ( talk) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • weak delete The previous two AFD discussions came up no consensus and keep, respectively, though the most recent in 2006 should've been relisted, probably. I honestly see a marginal case for notability here at best, and since we're seeming to trend towards deletion when marginal cases come up and the subject requests deletion, weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Side note: I can't see how the current article could contribute to ID fraud. It contains no personal details like birthday, SSN or address. - Mgm| (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • A programmer who's written a couple of books. I am not seeing the great loss to an encyclopedia from deleting this article! It's marginal, there's a request not to have it, may as well be gone. Shimgray | talk | 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Radio Mirchi. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Mirchi

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

    Mirchi is an Indian/Hindi word that has several meanings, should not redirect to anything English, certainly not to capsicum Chengiz ( talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Chris Rogers (actor)

    AfDs for this article:
    Chris Rogers (actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Deleted as an expired PROD, restored per request ( [11]). — Aitias //  discussion 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    It would be even more helpful if the commenting user would read the nominator's rationale, which explicitly provides the reason for deletion. — Aitias //  discussion 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, but that won't do. By not doing the few seconds' work needed to copy the rationale into this AfD you are making every single editor that wants to comment spend the time to check the article history to find out why you want this to be deleted - and even then we don't know if that is your reason for nomination as that rationale was given by someone else. Please don't think that your time is more valuable than other people's. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Are you able to read my mind or why do you untruthfully claim that I would "think that" my "time is more valuable than other people's"? May I kindly ask you to stop putting words into my mouth immediately? Also, I did nowhere say that I agree with that prod reason. I have given my only reason for nominating this for deletion: If one wishes a page to be restored that has been deleted as an expired prod, it's just the usual course of action to nominate it for deletion after having restored. — Aitias //  discussion 21:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    This is getting ridiculous. To answer you points in turn:
    1. Are you able to read my mind or why do you untruthfully claim that I would "think that" my "time is more valuable than other people's"? - Nominating an article for deletion without saying why you want it to be deleted means that others have to spend more than the couple of seconds that you could have taken doing that to dig around in article history to find the deletion reason. It's a perfectly reasonable deduction from that that you value your time more highly that others'.
    2. I did nowhere say that I agree with that prod reason. You did that above by responding to my question as to why you had nominated this with a link to the prod reason.
    3. If one wishes a page to be restored that has been deleted as an expired prod, it's just the usual course of action to nominate it for deletion after having restored. - The normal course of action before nominating anything for AfD is described at WP:BEFORE. Nowhere there, or at WP:PROD, does it say that restored prods should automatically be nominated at AfD. If you nominate something for AfD then you are responsible for providing the reason why you think that the article should be deleted. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G12, copyright violation of http://www.goldengatemanagement.com/en/produzenten/phil-vinall/ (no prejudice against original content) Mgm| (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Phil Vinall

    Phil Vinall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Deleted as an expired WP:PROD, restored per request at my talk page ( [19]). — Aitias //  discussion 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • The article as it stands is garbage, but there's lots to work with here. I'm 90 percent sure that he was nominated for a Latin Grammy for Producer of the Year in 2007 as the producer for Zoé, which received three awards - unfortunately the official press release doesn't actually, y'know, use his *name* and I can't get a list of nominees off the site. A Grammy nom would certainly fill the demands of WP:MUSIC, I'd say, and I suspect he's probably been involved with some other well received projects as well. This needs to be cleaned up badly, but there's some notability here. UNFORTUNATELY... it's a copyvio of his bio on his management's page. Smeg, all that work and I have to say delete as cut-and-paste and allow someone to rewrite from scratch... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Vista Solutions Group

    Vista Solutions Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Limited or no indication of notability. Sigma 7 ( talk) 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The Queer Channel

    The Queer Channel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This article is about a proposed television channel that never launched and at this present time, there is no clear evidence that this channel has any plans on launching anymore. When the article was first created it said the channel had plans on launching in 2006, it never did, it's 2009 now, the channel has still not launched and there is no evidence or references in the article or I can even find using Google searches saying it will launch.Television channel articles should only be about channels that are on the air or have been at one time on the air. This channel in question, has neither. There is also no references or citations. musimax. ( talk) 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Pride TV

    Pride TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This article is about a proposed television channel that never launched and at this present time, has no plans on launching anymore. Television channel articles should only be about channels that are on the air or have been at one time on the air. This channel in question, has neither. There is also no references or citations and is an orphaned article musimax. ( talk) 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Mind Polish

    AfDs for this article:
    Mind Polish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This was previously discussed at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Polish, but I am not sure this version is substantially similar enough to warrant a speedy deletion. Bringing here for wider community input. Cirt ( talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Albert Park Futsal Club

    Albert Park Futsal Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Contested deletion as author removed PROD. Non-notable Futsal Club who play in a local non-notable league. Eastlygod ( talk) 18:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was speedy delete as G12. TerriersFan ( talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School

    St. Paul's Lutheran Church and School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Local church and associated school lacking any suggestion of notability. Article is almost entirely copy-pasted from the church website: this page. (The only part that's not copy-pasted seems to be the lead sentence that I added to indicate what the article is about.) Article is unreferenced and an orphan. Additionally, the school has its own separate article at St. Paul's Lutheran School.-- Orlady ( talk) 17:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    I brought it here instead of speedying it for several reasons: (1) the church doesn't assert copyright on its website, (2) on the expectation that an inexperienced user will try to recreate the article, an AfD provides a much more thorough documentary record of the issues with the article so they are less likely to be repeated, (3) the content has been there for more than a year without anyone noticing it (in part because the article is orphaned and uncategorized), so a few more days shouldn't hurt. -- Orlady ( talk) 19:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Your first reason doesn't hold. The church doesn't have to assert copyright. Something is copyrighted unless otherwise stated. - Mgm| (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Ross Macfadyen II

    Ross Macfadyen II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Autobiography with little serious claim of meeting WP:Notability. Normally I'd prod this, but the creator removed a prod tag on a duplicate article [20] minutes before creating this one, so I'm assuming a prod here would be removed as well. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Traian Vasai

    Traian Vasai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    There's no evidence this man is "notable", as claimed. The only non-trivial mention I could find is an interview in an obscure Montreal magazine, but notable artists usually have a greater Internet presence. Moreover, Romania ceased being Communist in 1989, and the article's creator is now banned, which is further reason to doubt the claims of notability being made. Biruitorul Talk 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Delete. I found one passing mention that I added to the article, and one other passing mention that I can't get the text for. Nothing more--which suggests that nominator is correct on the point of notability. Drmies ( talk) 18:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete Seems the article was part of a largely suppressed effort to write spammy stubs on all sort of Romanian non-entities, in order to promote the Romanian Canadian community on some symbolic level. Plus, I looked over the link provided by the nominator above as the only outside source to discuss Vasai (it is not an interview, btw, but more of a promotional piece). Here's its conclusion, in the French original: "Il est bien dommage que Traian Vasai ne soit pas connu dans le milieu artistique de Montréal." My translation: "It is indeed a shame that Traian Vasai still isn't known to the Montreal artistic milieu." And, heh, that's his most important attribute... Dahn ( talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    David Gill (economist)

    David Gill (economist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Possible autobiography, the article is a resume without with only one independent third-party source. I can't find anything in Google News that isn't the other David Gill, and Google Books is similarly unavailing. The Southampton IP address has repeatedly removed the notability tag that dated from Sep 2007 without adding any while adding only one significant independent sources, while not hesitating to include non-notable trivia, so the intelligent Bayesian in me tells me this does not meet the standards of WP:ACADEMIC. THF ( talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC), updated 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Isn't a second source required? Are we really to be cataloguing every academic profiled by THE? THF ( talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    In a word, Yes. whether a second source is needed depends upon the distinction conferred by the first. Just like we accept an obit in the Times as sufficient. DGG ( talk) 06:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - does not pass WP:N which requires significant coverage, and a single short article about a single research paper of this economist is not significant coverage. The article is not even about David Gill himself, but about a research paper that apparently ended up in only a mid-level Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, not exactly signalling that this paper has had any big impact on the profession. And as said about, this academic completely fails WP:PROF. Afroghost ( talk) 19:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Discussion to rename/rewrite should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Gary Finlay

    Gary Finlay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Although well-sourced, thoroughly negative BOLO notice for a not notable fugitive. This one event would not make him notable, and that seems to be all there is. Does not really assert significance, despite sourcing. Dloh cierekim 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 19:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    I will be pleased to modify the article as suggested, but I will not be able to do it for some hours, hopefully later today. The notice says it must not be blanked, but is it Ok to edit, or should I just start a new article. Hey, this is my first ever attempt, I am still learning, and am not allowed to post images yet. Paul Crewe ( talk) 09:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Well, right now we don't have anyone saying to "delete" and one "Rename" that is tantamount to a "Keep." Wait for more feedback. Try to make it sound less like a news sensation (or a BOLO). Add references from national and world class papers and other media. Add references as to the effect the subject/his crime is having beyond the actual accusation of a heinous crime. The decision will hang heavily on the heaviness of the coverage. And if it is in news media in other countries, that raises the level of notability too. (You may see comments referring to notability and reliable sources. That means impact and news coverage and coverage beyond the news. Hope that helps. Dloh cierekim 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Michael J.K. Choi

    Michael J.K. Choi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    It was previously (repeatedly) speedy-deleted due to notability issues. Now that he's making some assertions of notability.... Well, here's the thing. The whole page is essentially an advertisement/PR piece, as it only contains links for this singer (Michael Choi) and his friend/business partner (Robert Lee Taylor). Its references are MySpace pages and blogs. None of his recent work is exactly notable (music on a website, a future documentary?), so notability hinges on his past...of which there is very little information. After some research, I found his discography on a Korean album directory site, so he did release albums in Korea. Looking for his Korean name in Google reveals results, but after glancing through them, very few of them have to do with this singer. So basically, there are notability and verifiability issues.

    Please note that this article has been repeatedly created by the same user. SKS2K6 ( talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    See my comment below on the sales figure. 130K is pretty trivial for the English-speaking market, but is considerable for the Korean market. TJRC ( talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: The discography page lists "아세아" (A-seh-a) Records. Whether that stands for Asia or ASEA or what, I don't know. The page creator notes that he signed with Sony, so I tried searching ASEA with Sony Entertainment (thinking it was A___ Sony Entertainment Asia), and came up with nothing. Even if it was with Sony, the fact that there are no reliable sources kinda makes things difficult. SKS2K6 ( talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Week keep. I'd like to see some more substantial sources on this; but sales of 130,000 records (although I realize that's spread over 6 albums) is pretty substantial for the Korean market, and to me meets the notability requirements. The band S.E.S. (group) was a superstar group by Korean standards, and their top-selling album, Love, sold only 700,000; that's the top-selling album by one of Korea's top-selling pop groups. 130K is not too shabby in light of that. I wonder of this 최진경 is the same as the bandmember listed in ko:두번째_달 on the Korean wikipedia. I'm guessing no. TJRC ( talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Yup. It's all about the sourcing. That's why my keep is weak. Without wishing to increase the already-formal formality of Wikipedia procedures, I almost wish there was a "probation" we could put this on: the article is probationally kept, with the proviso that it will be subject to WP:SPEEDY if no reliable sources are provided within 30 days. I'd like to give the guy a chance to fix it, if it's fixable. TJRC ( talk) 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rutland City School District. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Northeast Primary Elementary School

    Northeast Primary Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Average elementary school with no clear target for merging: there's no article for the local school district, for example. No evidence of notability, and except for something sourced by the school's website, there aren't any references. Nyttend ( talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    I think that AfD often is an effective mechanism to find someone to pay attention to a problematic situation and resolve it in a positive manner. -- Orlady ( talk) 00:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Spoudware

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

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for neologisms made up one day. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD ( talk) 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Comment I guess that depends how you read it. The CSD criteria state that neologisms except for the ridiculous ones are not sufficient for speedy nominations. I read that as saying that ridiculous neologisms do qualify as speedy criterion, but you're right, there's no obvious way to handle it except db based on vandalism, which this may not be if we assume good faith. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was snowball delete - no way this is going to stick around. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Lovin' (TV Series)

    AfDs for this article:
    Lovin' (TV Series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    A television series which is "unaried and not yet planned" -- Longhair\ talk 15:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply


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

    The result was Speedy Delete as WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 17:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Matthew Pilgrim

    Matthew Pilgrim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    There is no assertion of notability in the article. A search for the individual and his band turn up no reliable sources. The article states the band is recently formed so it is no surprise that there is zero coverage about the band. Having a Myspace page is not the same as having coverage in reliable sources. Speedy deletion was contested by IP editors after the article creator tried to remove the speedy. So here we are. Whpq ( talk) 14:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply


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

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    NO MA'AM

    AfDs for this article:
    NO MA'AM (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Strong Delete I think this epitomizes the problem with Wikipedia. It's a collection of useless TV Trivia. I don't see the point in non-notable articles like this. George Pelltier ( talk) 02:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Against deletion, we have entire chapters on for instance, every river mentioned in the lord of the rings, pokemon, etc. This Trivia is not worthless. Personally, I see the relevance of this article. It is definitely not a non-noticable article. [21] Taketa ( talk) 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Um... see WP:EFFORT. Just because a page has been around a while or a lot of people have worked on it, doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. The question is whether it meets our inclusion guidelines, and this article doesn't. Robofish ( talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Marilyn Sudor (TV character)

    Marilyn Sudor (TV character) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Delete. Non-notable. An old TV show that's been off the air for a while. This is trivial at best and non-encyclopedic. George Pelltier ( talk) 06:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Kayla (whale)

    Kayla (whale) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Keet

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

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research Rtphokie ( talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Kanduke

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

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Kohana

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

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Kasatka

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

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Kandu V

    Kandu V (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie ( talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Gudrun (whale)

    Gudrun (whale) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources Rtphokie ( talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • The content is now in a section in the new article Captive orcas, with some references. Don't think there is enough for a stand-alone article. For now, this article could change to a redirect to the section. But if the section grows, it could be broken out into a separate article. Aymatth2 ( talk) 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Neutral. She might be worth a mention because of the experiments she was in (redirect), but right now, there's no indication she's notable in the sense we judge it in people. She's not involved in notable incidents, wasn't on film or even widely famous. Unless notability is asserted, there definitely shouldn't be a separate article. _ Mgm| (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep and merge Into captive orcas, unless greater notability can be established for this whale in particular. Anaxial ( talk) 18:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Sumar

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

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Taku (whale)

    Taku (whale) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MPlayer. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    MplayerXP

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

    Contested prod. Minor fork of MPlayer which does not assert its notability through the inclusion of any independent reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Actually, it doesn't seem implausible that somebody would be typing MplayerXP here on Wikipedia, since the fork does exist. At least, taking the reader to the MPlayer article would give the casual reader some information. Hence my proposition to redirect rather than simply delete. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Given that there is no evidence of any external coverage of the application, is there any reason to believe it's a likely search target? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Almost 1,300 hits in January - that is probably by people link-clicking after introduction of wikilinks to the article. Before that, about 30 hits per month, probably as a search target and of course those editing the article. I don't know, but it's not what I'd call "very few" hits. So I'm still leaning towards a plausible search target. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 10:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Tilikum

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

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    See the new merged article Captive orcas. Maybe better as a section in this article? Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Unna (whale)

    Unna (whale) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie ( talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Perhaps all these articles could be grouped together under one AfD entry? - Ddawkins73 ( talk) 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I would prefer to keep the AfD discussions separate, despite the fact the articles have so much in common. I have seen the confusion that can result from grouping after starting an AfD process. Some may be worth retaining, others not, but Mergism may be the best approach. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    As an experiment, I just created an article on Captive orcas, merging the first 8 of these whale articles. If someone wants to AfD it, I will not defend it too strongly. It may have the makings of a list-type article if the entries were trimmed down (e.g. removing genealogy, original research). Maybe better than many very small individual articles? Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Wow, kudos! Drmies ( talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias //  discussion 13:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article needs a major re-write to be encyclopedic, and not read like a resume. No consensus to delete ( non-admin closure) ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 06:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Elena Baramova

    AfDs for this article:
    Elena Baramova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Not notable, sings with a touring group, otherwise appears to be a cover (understudy) Vitellia ( talk) 06:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Comment: This is the problem with resumes, they can be filled with non-notable stuff. If there was nothing notable to begin with, a cleanup is not going to make it notable.
    I Googled Rejeka Belcanto because I'd never heard of it; it appears to be a cost-effective way to get singers to perform in the Rejeka opera house [33]. This isn't even the Croatian National Theatre in Zagreb.
    The Bulgarian newpaper looks like a fluff piece in an entertainment-listing magazine [34].
    Also, out of all the "future" engagements listed, she has only one listing in Operabase, in a shared role in a local-level venue [35]
    Vitellia ( talk) 15:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Addressing some of the issues in the first deletion discussion
    1. Her pictures don't show a young soprano with her career ahead of her (nor is there a birth date given). She looks like she's (was) in her 30's, which is a singer's vocal prime, and she has not achieved notability in the years since 2006.
    2. Simply her being an exotic Bulgarian is no reason for inclusion. I'm from an out of the way place too, but that's no reason for me to have an article in Wikipedia. In any case, Bulgaria has given opera a lot truly talented singers, who deservedly have Wikipedia articles - the only reason she came to my attention at all was from edits like this in Ghena Dimitrova's article. (In truth, dropping Ghena's name is rather damning for this singer, because Ghena was a popular soprano - if she had found any talent in her compatriot, she was in a position to open many doors, and this singer would not be working in a local touring company now.)
    3. She has never made a recording, nor has she ever been covered by any outside news source, and her record of engagements is very spotty - the only run looks like a tour in Japan, otherwise just single performances here and there in small venues.
    Vitellia ( talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Dear Vitellia, Elena Baramova is not working in a local touring company now!!!! For example Avenches Opera Festival, where Baramova sang Aida in summer 2007 is a stage with a world famous cast!! And her last Turandot at Opera de Massy, Paris Sud, the partner of Baramova was the famous italian tenor Nicola Martinucci... Hero7 ( talk) 05:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Other editors have linked to the pages defining what is expected for notability; the Baramova article has nothing but press releases.
    Vitellia ( talk) 06:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment
    Actually those guidelines look good for opera singers (or any classical musician) - they don't get pushed on the Radio and TV like pop musicians, but they definitely get press coverage. They're not on the front page, but the "Arts" sections are there for those who follow classical music to turn to. A google search will bring up whatever's been written about them.
    Also an opera singer (or classical musician) needs to have been recorded - they don't need to be "top 10", but they need to something out there for classical radio stations to play to promote their next appearance, if you want to call them notable.
    Vitellia ( talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Addressing Baramova's appearances specifically, she has not performed any actual runs in Prague or anywhere else - just single performances here and there - even understudies in a proper run traditionally (but not always) get 2 performances, and that would not be notable. There is only one mention of her since Jan 2007 in Operabase, which is strange because even an understudy's performances would be recorded. The only place I can find where she is on any roster at all is at the local opera house in Stara Zagora [36], so presumeably she's a house singer there, which is also not notable. I think all the facts that can be provided on her career are already in the article (there's even less on the internet) - it would be hard to call this career very successful, much less notable, and rewriting her resume to look more encyclopedic will not make her any more notable.
    Vitellia ( talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Comments about the criteria for notability for opera singers (and classical musicians in general):
    • Any half-way notable opera singer gets media coverage and critical reviews when they perform; you have to go to the Arts or Culture section in the newspaper. In Italy they may even get tabloid coverage.
    • They will have commercial recordings out. Their bread and butter is live performances, and for many, recordings are part of the publicity for their appearances.
    • Simply winning an award or a competition, even a very notable one like the Cardiff competition, while it is a career boost, isn't always a free ticket to future notability.
    • The analogy of #10 for opera singers would be to play a principle role in a new production, or to participate in a world or national premier of an opera, in a major venue.
    • Opera productions in major houses are performed in runs of perhaps a dozen performances over a period of time. A notable singer will be in the "first cast", in one of the principal roles, and sing a majority of performances in the run. They will almost always also sing in smaller venues, especially near their homes, but they will definitely have notable appearances in major houses. Covers (understudies) and house singers who take on secondary roles are rarely notable (although many people would say house singers are the most rewarding jobs in opera).
    • Simply being a professional classical musician, while impressive, does not make you notable.
    Vitellia ( talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy redirect to Oliver Pollock. Mgm| (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Oliver Pollack

    Oliver Pollack (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    I believe this stub article is talking about Oliver Pollock, which is a substantial article. Muboshgu ( talk) 12:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was Speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfie Patten. -- Longhair\ talk 12:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Alfie patten

    Alfie patten (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Subject in question is in huge media storm at the moment in a UK... but I think this might be a case of WP:BLP1E. Although sources to exist, I'm not sure whether he satisfies the general notability criteria. D.M.N. ( talk) 12:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 08:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Kenichi Ito

    Kenichi Ito (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    After doing extensive searching, I've come to conclude that this article fails WP:MUSICBIO. This is an uncharting musician, who has not been the subject of significant third party coverage. He may have some albums on major labels, but I cannot verify that from any website/book, not even the artist's website. The artists claim to fame is that he has been a member of quite a few bands, but the articles put the emphasis on Ito. --  Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 12:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep per WP:MUSICBIO point 6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable;" - he has been a member of several apparently notable bands (they already have articles). If it was just one band, perhaps we could consider a redirect. But with him playing in two or more notable bands, I think point 6 applies. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 12:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Comment: The problem is, those articles on those bands seem to accert their notability from the fact that Ito was a member. They all seem to be uncharting and failing WP:BAND themselves.--  Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 12:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as the article now has reliable sources establishing notability, and the original nominator withdrew the nomination. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 08:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    John Maginnis (Louisiana political writer)

    John Maginnis (Louisiana political writer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Is this columnist notable? I think not. He will obviously be in papers etc, but I doubt coverage warrants notability. Computerjoe 's talk 12:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Withdrawn. Computerjoe 's talk 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    *:Delete - the only assertion of notability is that "he is read by political analysts nationwide", to which the author cites the subject's own webpage. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The article needs to stay. A dozen or so other articles already link to it. John Maginnis is the go-to guy for commentary on Louisiana's political potpouri. Rammer ( talk) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The AfD is still on the article. Will someone kindly remove the AfD? Rammer ( talk) 03:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    TeamDesk

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

    Non-notable software. No assertion of notability made, no notable mentions found with google. Blowdart | talk 09:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    BUGtrack

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

    No assertion of notability, none found via google. Blowdart | talk 09:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Jayne Snyder

    Jayne Snyder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable early candidate in a Lincoln, Nebraska city council election. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. -- Shadowlynk ( Talk) 09:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    David Dobson

    David Dobson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    No assertion of notability. A cursory Google search reveals nothing substantive. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 08:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Weak keep, but I may be persuaded to lean towards deletion. The article was created two years ago in what I suspect was a fit of WP:RECENTISM due to his parole hearing. The original creator removed, without explanation, the notability tag slapped on the article back then (the original creator is still active today, so I'm guessing he did so in good faith, rather than as a piece of vandalism). I think we should perhaps still give it the notability tag - the person has received some press coverage it would seem - whether it is enough to establish notability should probably be handled with the {{ notability}} template to begin with. However, I may lean a bit towards deletion since this two year old article still is uncertain in regards to notability. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 12:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Saya Mochizuki

    Saya Mochizuki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    I do not think this page should be deleted, but this is the second time this older, established article has been speedy deleted in two days, the first admin who deleted it restored it as notability was found. A substantial article exists on the Japanese Wiki and should be translated to this one. I am putting this to a vote so these false speedies can be stopped. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 06:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    It was at DRV, then restored. The speedy-tagger will speedy-tag it again. This AfD vote resolves that problem. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The Dethalbum II

    The Dethalbum II (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    WP:CRYSTAL - There must be significant coverage on upcoming albums and it must be fully sourced which it currently is not. No good sources found on the net for the existence of this upcoming release and no, MySpace does not count. FireCrystal ( talk) 06:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Comment: even if it was confirmed by him we need undeniable truth from the media or any other third party source. 'Small' is an example of a self-published source and MySpace is a social networking site and I understand that it's "Dethklok's official site" but the entire site itself is non-notable or not a reliable source to wikipedia standards. Also, blogs are unreliable as well. FireCrystal ( talk) 06:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Online Graduate Programs in History

    Online Graduate Programs in History (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Not encyclopedic and never could be. Just a list of colleges. Dmol ( talk) 05:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    PS, very similar list, Online Social Science Graduate Degree Programs, was speedy deleted. -- Dmol ( talk) 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was speedy delete. per multiple BLP issues. Mgm| (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Mainyo

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

    Article about a rapper that makes incredibly aggrandizing claims to fame (At age one Mainyo was reading at a fifth grade level and was already showing signs of genius when he became the youngest person to ever write a love song. The song was titled Yo Momma Smokes Crack Rock...; By the age of 18 Mainyo and P-Diddy had become the target of FBI, DEA, ATF and CIA investigations...). The fact that such claims were made make this article not speediable, but everything on this page smells of hoax. TheLetterM ( talk) 05:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Beifuss

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

    Contested prod that doesn't easily fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Appears to be a pure neologism. Kubigula ( talk) 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Odious Mortem

    Odious Mortem (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable band... of the 7 news hits that are found, 2 are about one of the members of the band (playing for another band), 4 are concert announcements (in which they are only one of a long list of performers, not headliners), and one is an "upcoming album" announcement... Does not meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND... Adolphus ( talk) 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    User:MinorLegend pointed out on my talk page that Odious Mortem meets criterion #6 of WP:BAND because 3 members were also members of Decrepit Birth. If that can be verified with reliable sources, I'll happily change my recommendation here. —  LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I read MinorLegend's comment on the article's talk page, and replied there... But... After looking at the Decrepit Birth article, and checking the news, they appear to be barely more notable than Odious Mortem... If the members of this non-notable band later joined a slightly more notable (but possibly still not enough to pass WP:BAND) band, does that really add to the notability of this band? - Adolphus ( talk) 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I could go either way on these. I'd say a decision needs to be made on the notability of Decrepit Birth. If they are deemed notable, then that confers notability on Odious Mortem as well. —  LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Interaction painting

    Interaction painting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Neologism describing a non-notable new art technique. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Peter Campbell (horse trainer)

    Peter Campbell (horse trainer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Unsourced article, notability is unclear as there does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources. — Snigbrook 16:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete per discussion. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Echoes of Pink: A Pink Floyd Tribute

    Echoes of Pink: A Pink Floyd Tribute (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable tribute album performed by almost exclusively non-notable singers (the only one with her own article seems to pass due to her TV show hosting, not her singing). Little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply


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

    The result was speedy keep. nominator didn't give a reason and no one stepped in to do so in over a week. Mgm| (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Al Naama

    Al Naama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsmoke1212 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, February 10, 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Drop Dead!

    Drop Dead! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:MUSIC. This article was posted around half a year ago and speedied. It was reposted today by the same poster, who has what appears to be a conflict of interest with the subject matter, and the speedy was declined as there was a source to back up a claim. The links shown are to trivial mentions, one internet-interview, and a blog posting. These are hardly the nontrivial mentions by multiple, third party sources, that are needed to demonstrate notability. Themfromspace ( talk) 04:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Delete per nom.-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 13:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Dear user. Please i want to know what references do you need to keep this article. There are a lot of bands in here with less references and without this problem. Kamoweasel ( talk) 12:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC -3) — Kamoweasel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Dear Users. A new reference was added (nº3). I really want to keep this article, so please... i want some help with the text, please tell me what's wrong. This band is well known in my country. I'll wait for your reply. Thanks.
      -- Kamoweasel ( talk) 16:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Dear Users. A sentence was corrected according the reference nº2 to make it more neutral in order to the general notability guidelines and WP:MUSIC argument of the user "Themfromspace". -- Kamoweasel ( talk) 11:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) — Kamoweasel ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Nashville Aquatic Club

    Nashville Aquatic Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    sports club, no assertion of notability for the club itself, article consists mainly of coaching staff resumes Wuhwuzdat ( talk) 14:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Myanmar X Bands

    Myanmar X Bands (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    notability not established through wp:reliable sources (no references). Most of the article is biographical tangent not even related to website/company Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jet fuel. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Jp 54

    Jp 54 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This was tagged as a speedy A1 for lack of context, even though the article made it pretty clear what the context was. I'm still not convinced there's enough content available to warrant an article though. Lot's of links from trading websites, but nothing to substantiate content. Delete Mgm| (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep. Those websites buying and selling JP 54 may not be useful as sources of article content, but they are evidence of the fuel's notability. I'd say any significant type of jet fuel in production is notable, particularly if it's the primary form of jet fuel produced in Russia, as claimed in the article. Rather than deletion, this article needs an expert in jet fuel; I have applied an {{expert-verify}} tag. Baileypalblue ( talk) 09:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    And what do you sugges the experts should use as a reference? - Mgm| (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I don't know, I'm not an expert! :) Seriously, though, if this is a real jet fuel in production, as it appears to be, then reliable sources must exist documenting its manner of production, proper usage, etc. Just because a non-expert like myself can't find them, it doesn't follow they don't exist. I'm confident an expert on jet fuel could solve the article's problems, via editing, so deletion is not necessary. Baileypalblue ( talk) 19:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    What do you suggest we merge? None of the info is referenced. - Mgm| (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Well merge might be a strong term. I know the fuel exists, it's also called Colonial Grade 54 and it does come from Russia, but I can't find any reliable English sources for it (Google returns 100,000 commodity trader spam sites). I know Cuba uses it. It's probably widely used in Africa as well. Perhaps we can just add the entry to Jet fuel as a mention. Unfortunately I don't read or speak Russian so I'm not going to be of much help, and the EDL site keeps barfing up with a Java error. § FreeRangeFrog 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Assertion reaction paradigm

    Assertion reaction paradigm (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable neologism; no valid tertiary source found for term. Possibly WP:OR. § FreeRangeFrog 08:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Dining Late with Claude La Badarian

    Dining Late with Claude La Badarian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    I've been following the William Monahan articles for a while now. They are ALL original research. This is the worst of those articles. Dining Late with Claude La Badarian is a non-notable fictional epistolary story. No evidence of notability outside the Manhattan Samurai/ BillDeanCarter initiative. No independent, reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Delete promptly, Issue 12 exists ( talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      • Renomination: IAR, I've taken the step of changing the nomination to my name, even though I don't remember seeing it done before; my reasons are those given below by Bali ultimate. This is a very minor fictional work, that has never been commented on in any reliable source, and hardly noticed even by the fans of the author. It has been maintained as part of a elaborate structure by a sockpuppet farm which now needs to be re-examined. Monahan did write one notable screenplay, if not much else of significance.. Getting rid of this is a good place to start. DGG ( talk) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    *cmt *delete nom made by indef blocked sock of a banned user (the creator of the nominated page). So the nom should probably be nuked. However, I agree that this elaborate piece of garbage should also be deleted. No secondary coverage that establishes notability. Bali ultimate ( talk) 13:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • cmt reiterating delete. I've gone through this article and it has no reliable secondary sources to establish notability (there's a blog post praising it, and a passant mention in an inside joke sort of way in a gossip column, and that's it.) Fails all portions of notability guidelines, most relevantly fiction and book.
    • Question: Is there some way this work by an academy award-winning screenwriter and novelist be made encyclopdic? Or would a merge back to the William Monahan article overburden? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • cmt well, is there any coverage to establish notability for this minor piece? There's already a short graph on this in the monahan article, which seems appropriate given it has never been covered or commented on (outside of one blog). Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Turfing

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

    Article about a form of dance that is completely unsourced. There are claims of notability but this term is essentially a neologism. See below TheLetterM ( talk) 04:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    *Delete. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:DANCE. (Okay, that last one is a link to a Wikiproject. But if it was a criterion for deletion, I'm sure it would fail that as well.) Un sch ool 05:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep. User:Baileypalblue has done a much better job than I in coming up with sources. Quite honestly, of the six sources now listed, I can only credit two of them as RS (the San Fran Chronicle and the Washington Post), but that's enough for me (MTV would be good enough, but that's a viewer submission with the same RS status as a Wikipedia article. Un sch ool 06:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Withdraw Nomination. Bailey's contributions have improved the article past the points where it could be deleted for. TheLetterM ( talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Jiyang Luo

    Jiyang Luo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Notability per WP:BIO. It's a good try but the cited sources do not meet WP:RS. Two of them are papers written by Jiyang Luo; one is a search engine query and the history of the punch card link does not verify that Luo was involved. We do not have non-trivial coverage by third-party sources. There are also a WP:NPOV issue but that can be cleaned up if it's kept. Enviroboy Talk Cs 04:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Delete. One paper with no Google scholar citations is very far from passing WP:PROF, the usual standard when someone is claimed as here to be notable for their academic achievements. And I see nothing else resembling a claim of notability in the article. The only thing saving it from an A7 speedy is all the peacock language. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - Agree with the lack Notability to support article. ttonyb1 ( talk) 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep/Merge - It's hard to say. There are few online resources that give a more comprehensive understanding of history of the study of artificial neural networks. In admission to any perceived non-objectivity, I know the student who wrote this article. The peacock language should probably be edited out. There don't seem to be any sources available to verify his breadboard patent, and personally, I have no idea either, so I won't bother wasting my time trying to research it. However, I am aware of his hypothesis. I'm a subscriber to the IEEE, and upon reading his article, one can infer its significance, in fact, based on today's direction in artificial neural networks. Give it more time? tatepotato ( talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (PST)
      • In response to David Eppstein, I often cite papers on IEEE, a very reliable resource for academics studying artificial neural networks. If it's good enough for research papers, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. In addition, references cannot be viewed by non-subscribers. As far as papers are concerned, there are more available on IEEE. The author clearly was too lazy to go beyond googling his work, but a query on IEEE would be more enlightening. Tatepotato ( talk) 05:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Google scholar shows zero papers citing Luo's "Instant learning for supervised learning neural networks: arank-expansion algorithm". The page for the paper in IEEE Xplore ( DOI:10.1109/ICNN.1994.374277) shows zero citing documents. It's not even listed in ISI Web of Knowledge because it's not a journal paper. Did you have any other databases you think might do a better job of showing some significance for this work? And "Give it more time?" is not a good argument for keeping, per WP:CRYSTAL. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
          • David, although I know the creator of this article, I have no personal stake. I am not much of a "Wikipedian", but to be fair, I do know that: 1) The paper you mentioned has two iterations, one of which is indeed a journal paper. 2) There are plenty of papers by Jiyang Luo out there, and I read at least a few of them in my student years (just a few years back). 3) His first journal paper is one of the first in a major change in trend of research direction. Even before I got an account, I helped salvage many articles that were stubs and/or insignificant blurbs, so when I suggested "give it more time", I first asked myself: Is the subject notable? In my humble opinion, yes. Anyone willing to do digging could put together a significant list of the subject's publications, a number of which are frequently cited. (i.e. Articles should not be so easily dismissed because of clean-cut "WP" protocol). I hope you'll understand that I say so out of a cooperative spirit, not an argumentative one. Back then, articles could sit around for months as mere stubs until someone came around and made a substantial contribution. Especially because artificial neural networks is a field relevant to my work, I would be saddened to see an attempt go to waste. If I want to make it in WP someday, I'd better be getting back to my own research ;), so I'll exit the discussion with that. Tatepotato ( talk) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Tomorrow is Today (song)

    Tomorrow is Today (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Non-notable song, didn't chart, only one source AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, "IS" SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED. Contested redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    DJ Tilt

    DJ Tilt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Promotion for Non-notable DJ, references don't support claims in some cases OlEnglish ( Talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Ah, do you mind explaining what's going on? Baileypalblue ( talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    I was being careless and jumped to conclusions, the references do support the claims. OlEnglish ( Talk) 04:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - The only valid reference I see there is the "bizbash" one, which aside from probably not being WP:RS, also simply repeats the Google bit, which in and of itself does not suddenly propel this guy to WikiStardom. Of course, no prejudice to creating a page for him once he is notable, but this AfD is intended to decide if he meets the inclusion guidelines now. § FreeRangeFrog 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Schwartzhog. MBisanz talk 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Hardenberg-Wilthen

    Hardenberg-Wilthen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Unreferenced/fails WP:N/ WP:CORP -Zeus- u c 02:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rail transport modelling scales. MBisanz talk 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Modeling 2' gauge railroads

    AfDs for this article:
    Modeling 2' gauge railroads (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    violates WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Orange Mike | Talk 02:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Linguistic titles for the homeless around the world

    Linguistic titles for the homeless around the world (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    It's a dictionary of translations of the word " homeless" into many languages, along with a suggestion that conclusions can be drawn from all of the translations. This fails two basic policies. There is no evidence that anyone, outside of the Wikipedia editor(s) who wrote this, actually has drawn any such conclusions. I had a look and couldn't find any such conclusions published anywhere. Certainly the article cites no sources that do so. It cites dictionaries (and Wikipedia itself, which of course is not a source at all). From dictionaries as sources one gets a dictionary as an article. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a dictionary seasoned with original research. It should not have been split out of homelessness. It should have been zapped as original research in situ, with appropriate use of {{ wiktionary}} or [[ wikt:homeless#English|homeless]] if pointing people to a translating dictionary was actually desired. Uncle G ( talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Delete, unfortunately. I was unable to find substantial research discussing if/how different languages' terms for homelessness shapes their society's view of the homeless. Interesting idea, and would make for some interesting research, but until someone else does that research and publishes it independently, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia per WP:OR and WP:DICT. —  LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep can use some development, but this is not a mere translation of the word "homeless" in different languages but rather an interesting window into how different cultures treat the concept of being with a home (e.g. are you a loser or are you a victim or somewhere in between). Look at the Spanish definitions, which include "desperate, helpess, unprotected, deserted " and Swedish "someone lying outside" This article provides a basis for an encyclopedic look at the concept of homelessness around the world. Scarykitty ( talk) 03:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      Who opened this window? This article may be an interesting window into different societies, but it is an original window into these societies. Nobody has previously come to this conclusion, and thus it is original research.
      Moreover, who says these are all synonyms, and why were these words chosen? I could offer a number of words from American English, each, if chosen without consideration of the others, casting a certain view of speakers of American English. Bum, drifter, vagrant, downtrodden, homeless, dispossessed, beggar, down-on-his-luck... I don't doubt that each of these languages has multiple words as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      And, indeed, this is exactly what has happened. Using the Spanish translations as an example, sin techo (without roof) and sin hogar (without home) are the only accurate translations of "homeless" provided. The others — vagabundo (vagabond), indigente (indigent), desamparado (forsaken), pordiosero (person who goes around saying "for the love of god" - beggar) — all have different connotations. Concluding that this has any bearing on cultural views of the homeless is simply incorrect; no sane linguist would try to make that kind of assertion based on data this flimsy. Zetawoof( ζ) 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - it's a dictionary and original research rolled into one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq ( talk • contribs)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Michael Tunn

    Michael Tunn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Unsourced biography that contains negative information. Wikipedia should not contain unsourced biographies about living people. Miami33139 ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Upgrading to keep per article improvements. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Delete the lack of references and significant number of claims that are not backed up suggest that there are verifiablity issues if supporters of the article are unable to rustle em up to ascertain claimed notability Satu Suro 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    It was all it needed - was someone prepared to give it some WP:RS well done NickD Satu Suro 10:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep Tunn was a prominent presenter on what's probably the most popular national radio station in Australia for five years, and tons has been written about him. Most JJJ presenters meet WP:BIO (hence all the blue links in List of Triple J presenters), and Tunn is in no way an exception to this - he's probably one of the better known JJJ presenters. Nick-D ( talk) 07:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment Google news isn't bringing up what I'd call significant coverage. He's mentioned in some articles but generally the article is about a radio station rather than Tunn himself. Could you add some of these references you are referring to?-- Rtphokie ( talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Comment As Tunn was in his most prominent position between 1992 and 1997 Google News isn't going to pick up many stories on him. I remember that there were often stories about him in the print media at the time - he hosted a popular show on a major national radio station. Nick-D ( talk) 07:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep per ChildofMidnight. LotLE× talk 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I've just substantively re-written the article using sources available on Factivia. It should be stressed that Factivia's coverage of the early 1990s is limited, and only returned results from the Sydney Morning Herald (which is one of Australia's major newspapers). I've kept a couple of paras which look right to me as former JJJ-obsessive, but which I couldn't provide cites for. As the article now draws on a fairly large number of sources, I'd invite editors who have already voted to consider the article as it now stands. Nick-D ( talk) 09:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • keep Given Nick's rewrite. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Keep given the sources Nick found. Pburka ( talk) 15:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Namibia's Next Top Model

    AfDs for this article:
    Namibia's Next Top Model (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Similar to Iceland's Next Top Model‎, I can't find any ghits for the names mentioned in this article linked to this show, or modeling in general, except for the alleged "host." No ghits on the show, either, indicating its existence. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

    The result was G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Iceland's Next Top Model

    AfDs for this article:
    Iceland's Next Top Model (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Seems to be a hoax - I can't find any ghits for the host "Magda Haversen" or either of the winners, which would make zero sense if they are models who have just appeared on a television show. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Voltcan

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

    This doesn't seem to be notable, to me. A google search turns up nothing but the company website and some other junk. The other sources in the article don't seem to stand up (My browser couldn't read http://www.lactualite.com/economie/article.jsp?content=20081229_110047_23284, so I'm not sure about that one). VX! talk 01:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Ballas Hough Band

    Ballas Hough Band (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC just yet. Two of its five members are no doubt notable as placers on Dancing with the Stars, but their notability is not inherited in the band, which does not yet have an album or chart single. The only sources aren't substantial. Come back when you've charted at least. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Keep Single "Do It for You" is already released on iTunes and other stores. The debut album is going to drop on March 10, 2009. Johnny0929 ( talk) 19:17, 17 February 2009 (ETC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was G3 as vandalism. Re-closing as previous closer, WWGB, accidentally used the wrong closure template. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The Omens (Cult)

    The Omens (Cult) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    Likely hoax, certainly not notable. Grahame ( talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close Nominated revision was nonsense/vandalism. Current revision is a stub on an athlete who, as a former NFL player, meets WP:ATHLETE without dispute. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Cecil Johnson

    Cecil Johnson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    Open House Arts Collective

    Open House Arts Collective (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

    This is, by its own admission, an informal grouping started in 2008. There is no evidence of notability and what few third-party sources are listed, none are beyond the local, including a university paper freshacconci talktalk 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Comment: This is a formal organization that has been the subject of coverage from the following reliable, independent secondary sources:
      • CBC Radio 2's Ontario Morning (provincial) [1]
      • 94.9 CHRW (regional) [2]
      • Western Gazette at the University of Western Ontario (local) [3]
      • Two Way Monologues (national - online) [4]
    The organization has also existed in an alternate formal arrangement since at least April 4, 2007 [5] and has expanded from the Viking Swimmers of 1926, [6] who were active as recently as November 20, 2008 [7], into the Open House Arts Collective.
    1. ^ http://www.freewebs.com/vikingswimmers/Olenka_OntarioMorning.mp3
    2. ^ http://www.freewebs.com/vikingswimmers/blair_sam_CHRW_truncated.mp3
    3. ^ http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/index.cfm?section=FrontPage&month=01&day=16&year=2009
    4. ^ http://www.twowaymonologues.com/interviews/10-questions-with-ola-from-olenka-and-the-autumn-lovers/
    5. ^ http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=vikingswimmers.com&prog_id=godaddy
    6. ^ http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/index.cfm?section=FrontPage&month=01&day=16&year=2009
    7. ^ http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=250543&x=articles&s=club
    Stuartathompson ( talk) 02:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    • Comment The above references are essentially the London Free Press and University of Western Ontario paper. The other links are for the band OOlenka and the Autumn Lovers, and one link above just goes to the Open House Arts Collective article. So, no, there are no third-party sources beyond the trivial for Open House Arts Collective itself. freshacconci talktalk 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Source (1) is an audio interview with CBC Radio 1. Source (2) is an audio interview with 94.9 CHRW radio. Interviews on radio programs qualify as sources, as do provincially-broadcast programs on national radio networks. A Wikipedia linking error requires you copy and paste these links to properly access the audio file. Source (5) is a verifiable factual link to the existence of the related Viking Swimmers of 1926; please take a moment to scroll down to see the relevant information, the link is not broken. Source (6) confirms these groups are related. Source (7) is verifiable third-party evidence that the related group, from which Open House was created, was active as recently as November 2008. Stuartathompson ( talk) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    • Comment Please note in source (4), Krakus discuses both the Collective and its association with the Viking Swimmers of 1926 in the third-last question. Stuartathompson ( talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    • Comment No one is doubting that this group exists. The sources do not appear to be about the group in question. To be establish notability, sources need to be non-trivial, third-party sources and should be about Open House Arts Collective, not a previous group. Even of these sources were about Open House Arts Collective, they do not appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:V at this point. freshacconci talktalk 03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment WP:COI's concerns are with neutral point of view, monetary gain, neutral tone, and associated notions of bias or manipulation. Information provided above is neutral and factual. The organization is not-for-profit. There is no benefit for personally editing this article or supplementing the deletion discussion. No attempt has been made to withhold or disguise any identity. Moreover, I neither created this article nor maintain it, though I have made factual and organizational changes and added appropriate links, and was notified of this deletion by the first poster in this discussion. Associations with the Viking Swimmers of 1926 have been made clear to counter the original claim that the group "started in 2008" when this is not entirely the case. Stuartathompson ( talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    • Comment Of course you created the article: it's in the article's history. And the first poster was you. Being a non-profit does not negate the conflict of interest situation. As the media representative of the group, it's in your interest to promote the group. It's as simple as that. Money has nothing to do with it (although, as a non-profit, you could be eligible for government funding where a higher profile would be valuable, but that's beside the point). As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea what any of that actually refers to. In any case, you should be careful when creating article about groups you are involved with. It's not up to you to decide if the article is neutral. Your involvement already calls that into question. freshacconci talktalk 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Of course, there was no way for me to know about the page move (the history merely states that you "created" this article). As for the rest, the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines are clear: you are to exercise caution when creating, editing and participating in deletion discussions about subjects that you are connected to. I never once said that your participation did not benefit Wikipedia, but it must be made clear that you do have an invested interest in this article as I've stated above. This is all a distraction, however, since a reliably sourced article is not presently evident. As for neutrality, that's for others to decide, as you cannot possibly make that judgement. freshacconci talktalk 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Unfortunately, a profile in a university paper does not constitute significant coverage. As for signing numerous acts, their principle claim to notability is as an arts collective. Perhaps a merge into the article for Olenka and the Autumn Lovers as a record label would be appropriate. freshacconci talktalk 04:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Significant coverage as defined by WP:N does not require certain size of circulation, reach, or prominence to be considered significant, and where these factors may contribute, they are understood to be relative to the scope of the article in question; in this case, the organization serves this publication's constituency. The article does "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" and "is more than trivial." Further, as a newspaper, it is a secondary source beholden to standards of objectivity and neutrality and is considered reliable according to WP:N's definitions. The interview with CBC Radio 1's Ontario Morning meets all criteria for WP:N, falls within its criteria of "works in all forms and media" and may fulfill a more liberal definition of "significant coverage." Stuartathompson ( talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Stuartathompson reply
    • Comment Please read the notability requirements for organizations. This is not substantial coverage. A profile in a university newspaper, an article in the local paper and an interview on the radio, which at this point is unclear as it's not used in the article (i.e. not quoted or referred to). The interview appears to be about the band's singer. Again, this is not a discussion about the notability of the band, but the arts organization and so far, sources do not appear to be beyond the trivial at this point. The organization has been around for less than a year. In a year or two, if more sources are established, the article can be recreated (should it be deleted). But as it stands, notability has not been established. freshacconci talktalk 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Please listen to the CBC Radio 1 interview before commenting on its content. It is, in its entirety, about the organization, and only makes incidental reference to the interviewee's band. It is a program on a national network broadcast provincially and meets all qualifications under both WP:N and organizations. The organization formed under its current title in 2008 but has existed since at least April 4, 2007 as the Viking Swimmers of 1926. This association attempts to nullify arguments against its perceived short lifespan by drawing an evidential, sourced timeline extending back several years. Stuartathompson ( talk) 05:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    Well if it has actually done anything in any area, this is not reflected in the article. Johnbod ( talk) 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    1. ^ http://www.londonarts.ca/default.aspx?Select=ArtsOrganizationsDetail&Business=i7%2fGFy1YO0%2fOCnPAaNSwUg%3d%3d
    • Comment I don't understand the relevence of this information. No one is questioning the existence of the group. And adding that they are "recognized" by the London Arts Council in the article is quite awkward. A municiple arts council funds all sorts of groups. In and of itself this is not an establishment of notability by Wikipedia standards. freshacconci talktalk 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment This information was added to supplement third-party secondary sources and was not intended to establish notability in and of itself. The City of London Arts Council individually approves organizations for inclusion. Some groups, especially those of local interest, appear to base their notability on associations with the city government and arts councils such as these (ex. Grand Theatre, Ontario). (Though it's somewhat unclear how the Grand Theatre, Ontario has established notability.) Stuartathompson ( talk) 21:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    • Comment Actually, the radio interviews are terrible sources as we are asking too much of the reader to cut and paste the link into a new window and then listen to the entire interview to see if it's really about the subject of the article. The onus is on the editor who provided the source to incorporate the source into the article better. As its stands, it's an interview with the singer of a band. So what if she mentions this group? By definition that makes it an unreliable third-party source. When did this interview take place? On what show? What was the context of the interview? We're given nothing and the editor glibbly tells us to listen to the interview. And university newspaper articles are fine, but not in an article with so few sources to begin with. We have a local paper, a university paper and an ambiguous (at best) radio interview. By WP:N standards this is not substantial. We need more third-party sources to establish notability. If they do not exist, then the article should be deleted. And the conflict of interest is still a major issue that has not been addressed except in the most dismissive way by the editor in question. We may need to take this further for administrative comment. freshacconci talktalk 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Wikipedia's link malfunction only occurs in this discussion; the link works properly in the article. Adjustments have been made to reference these interviews as additional information rather than inline citations to remove obligations from readers to seek out direct references. Dates have been added to these sources. Not to belabour the point, but the CBC Radio 1 interview, in its entirety, references only the organization this article pertains to, and not the artist, her work, or her music -- these are incidental. This interview addresses the subject of this article directly and in detail. Radio interviews may be less convenient than text, but they are, especially in the case of the CBC, authoritative third-party sources nonetheless. The qualifiers "substantial" and "significant" may have been misunderstood by the above poster. WP:N describes "significant" as a qualifier for the article itself, not he publication, as in: Does the citation discuss the article in a "significant" or "trivial" nature? Again, as per WP:N, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Any discussion of WP:COI is welcomed and encouraged. Any and all edits made to the article in question are open to revision or deletion, especially if they qualify for WP:COI, such as bias or lack of neutral tone. This AfD discussion is independent of the article itself. Please briefly review edits made to this article: they are grammatical and organizational, or offer changes to diction, or add references. Stuartathompson ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    • Comment Uh, no. The links do not work in the article itself. Maybe from your computer but not from my work PC or home Mac. And no, I do not "misunderstand" the qualifiers in question. WP:N notability is fairly nuanced in order to allow leaway for editors when discussing these things. In the end it's a matter of interpretation but do not insult me by telling me that I misunderstand the terms. My reading of the sources provided is that they are insufficient to establish notability. It's as simple as that. This organization is simply not there yet. That's my opinion. And I'm sure "[a]ny discussion of WP:COI is welcomed and encouraged" since you were not upfront about it until I called you on it. I'm sorry, but you have contributed very little to Wikipedia outside an organization that you are affiliated with and participating in a deletion discussion when you are the press officer. This is why Wikipedia has conflict of interest guidelines. Conflicts of interest do not always involve monetary gain. There are other issues at stake as well. Do not misunderstand me: you are welcome to edit; you are welcome to participate in this discussion. But the COI guidelines are important for a reason and you have been dismissive of them so far, mainly because I called you on it. Anyway, I'm done with this. I've said my what I have to say. freshacconci talktalk 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Any offense was unintentional. Attempts were only made to provide direct quotations from the source material used to justify this AfD discussion. Contributions to Wikipedia have been made often outside this article but this username was only recently registered using my full real name. I was unaware of full disclosure WP:COI protocol but have taken steps to make any affiliations clear by adding my name to the discussion page for the article in question. I remain confident that edits made to this article do not violate WP:COI but welcome sound arguments to the contrary. This discussion appears incidental to the debate at hand. Your passionate responses are much appreciated, but sources added to this article since its nomination for AfD and a direct interpretation of WP:N attempts to disagree with you. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the Grand Theatre, Ontario, I was certainly not attempting to justify this article's existence on the basis of the other article; rather, I was attempting to justify the inclusion of the City of London Arts Council recognition as a supplement to this article's notability on the (perhaps false) conclusion that it is acceptable evidence -- a conclusion reached by seeing other articles using such evidence. If the Grand Theatre, Ontario is justified on different grounds, or not at all, then I rescind my argument. Stuartathompson ( talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
    You are linking to the wrong City of London here! The Grand Theatre is a decent-sized professional theatre over a century old; I'm not familiar with the relevant policy for notability of theatres but I imagine it passes easily. Johnbod ( talk) 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - most of the commentary above relates to either a perceived COI or to the quality (rather than wikipedia-eligibility) of the article. COI can be dealt with, and is not an absolute bar to editing an article. Issues of quality are a call to improve an article not to delete it. Perhaps the COI and quality issues could be taken to a more appropriate forum. TJRC ( talk) 23:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    No, a group that has done nothing is not notable. Johnbod ( talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I actually hate popping in here all the time as it appears that I'm on some sort of crusade, but I do need to respond to TJRC. At no time did I indicate that I was concerned with the quality of the article. The quality of the sources, yes, but the article itself is not what I am concerned with. I am only interested in the notability of the subject. And as Johnbod so succinctly put it, this group hasn't actually done anything yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as we all know. Likewise, I very specifically stated that I am aware that COI is not a reason for deletion and that Stuartathompson is more than welcome to edit and participate in this discussion. The COI issue is important but in no way did I state or imply that a conflict of interest was a reason for deletion. On the contrary, I've been pretty adamant that it is all about sources and notability. freshacconci talktalk 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Information has been added to the article to reflect work the organization has completed: Open House has organized, promoted or sponsored music and art shows at the Alex P. Keaton, the Yale Speakeasy and Coffee Culture with artists from the London area and abroad, including a band from the United Kingdom. [1] Open House organized and promoted a White Album Tribute Show at the London Music Club as the Viking Swimmers of 1926. [2] The organization also has a partnership with the Grand Theatre, Ontario to promote theatre productions, including "Robertson Davies: The Peeled I." [3]
    • ^ http://openhouseartscollective.com/events.html
    • ^ http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=250543&s=cds
    • ^ http://www.facebook.com/reqs.php#/event.php?eid=51895398483

      • 24.150.227.235 ( talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply

      • Keep based on indicia of notability noted by Stuartathompson. TJRC ( talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Delete per nom... Modernist ( talk) 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Delete A student newspaper can be used as a source, but I can't see how it can support notability. The source that is more relevant is the CBC interview. I've listened to this, and I hope the closing admin does as well (as Freshacconci says you need to copy and paste the link). Personally, I don't think it's enough. It's only 6 minutes long.-- Ethicoaestheticist ( talk) 00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I understand this discussion is almost at its end (almost five days now I believe). Though there's been interest in keeping the article, there have also been arguments for deletion. May I suggest, if the consensus or administrative decision does not favour keeping the article, that the administrator moves it to a stub or piece of another article until such a time as notability can be confirmed to a degree satisfying standards argued for in this debate. Freshacconci suggested moving it to a stub of Olenka and the Autumn Lovers since ties there are strong. Another possibility would be moving it as a Canada-related stub, as is the London Ontario Live Arts Festival. The "indicia of notability" added to the article since this debate began may make deletion a step too far. 64.201.38.62 ( talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)stuartathompson reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      The Fitovers

      The Fitovers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

      Non notable band. I've waited to see if anything emerges but nothing. No google news hits, no easily found google hits (other than myspace and facebook pages), and no albums available on Amazon Music. No references in article either suggesting notability. Shadowjams ( talk) 01:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assassin's Creed#Sequel. MBisanz talk 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      Assassin's Creed 2

      AfDs for this article:
      Assassin's Creed 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

      This is almost entirely gossip and conjecture. The only confirmed statement was "What we just can say is that we are working hard on the product." The rest of this info is made up or guessed at. While at some point it may be referenced and notable, it is certainly is not now. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      • Weak keep The game is in development, and the first game was certainly notable. WP:Crystal certainly is relevant to the content of the article, but there is something that can be said about the game now from reliable sources (like the one included in the article now). Shadowjams ( talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        The ENTIRETY of the reference is listed above. The only thing that has been officially said about this game is "What we just can say is that we are working hard on the product." That hardly counts as significant coverage, or really even coverage. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Keep. As pointed out, there's not a whole lot of information out there. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". As I see it, the release of Assassin's Creed 2 is certain to take place and will be notable. There's not a whole lot to say about it, other than that it is forthcoming, but I do find a large number of google hits, and there's enough information to make a decent article. Cool3 ( talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Comment As with all things, the WP policy you're referencing indicates (through an example) that google hits alone do not create notability. That was not the argument that Cool3 was making. It is however quite relevant that there are a number of notable sources out there, which was his argument. Shadowjams ( talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      Spirit Combat Jujitsu (New Zealand)

      Spirit Combat Jujitsu (New Zealand) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

      Non notable martial arts dojo. Reads as though author is directly involved with it. AFD because I couldn't decide between {{db-A7}} and {{db-spam}} dramatic ( talk) 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias //  discussion 00:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      Jason Steed

      Jason Steed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

      Fails WP:Fiction. Real-world context lacking to the point that if you missed reading one line you would mistake this for a real person. Most of the article is about the subject's father rather than the subject, and the article is basically a regurgitation of plot. The book itself might deserve an article if it has received sufficient coverage, but as the first in a series, an article for a single character is unwarranted (maybe in 5 books' time). dramatic ( talk) 00:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      100 Words

      100 Words (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

      Unsourced, not notable online game. It was PROD'd but the PROD was contested by a bot-like user who un-PRODs dozens of articles daily. I have read the article and this does not seem notable. Website hovers around the 2millionth in popularity, which is dreadful. Miami33139 ( talk) 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      List of Python software

      List of Python software (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

      This is a list of lists. None of the sub-lists are well defined other than be having some relation to the programming language. This list contains zero usable prose linking the lists. This suite of lists would be better served by a category and sub-categories; which I believe already exist. Miami33139 ( talk) 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      Itech

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

      Article that reads as an advertisement tagged for one year. No sources, and has been tagged to add sources for 18 months. Wikipedia is better off without this article until a neutral, sourced article can be re-written. Miami33139 ( talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      "If it's been around that long, no one's going to fix it." What? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      Amanda Kapousoucz

      Amanda Kapousoucz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( delete) – ( View AfD)

      Contested PROD, non-notable musician. References fail WP:V and Google only turns up self published material, no third party sources indicating that person passes WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_17&oldid=1142645112"

      Videos

      Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

      Websites

      Google | Yahoo | Bing

      Encyclopedia

      Google | Yahoo | Bing

      Facebook




      Top Of Page

      Home • Search • Translate

      © CSE