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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Themsie Times

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

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

WP:BLP failing WP:bio: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Pikiwyn ^talk 09:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I added a reference. -- Eastmain ( talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Of the 2 references currently on the article, one appears to be a trivial mention, the other looks non trivial but I don't read Afrikaans. Also found this from Sarie which looks non trivial but again, it's in Afrikaans. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep: See Ron above - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian ( talk) 17:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Neil Hurst

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

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

Previously deleted article that has been recreated. Same editor, same autobiographical style. Once again, this is a self-created promotional resume for a local performer who does not appear to meet WP:BIO. There is substantial conflict of interest. The only actual "references" provided are a couple of local-interest mentions in his hometown Courier newspaper, and the rest appears to be reviews, etc. (A cursory mention in a BBC article about a play he is in is still just that: a cursory mention.) Looks somewhat different than the previous version that was deleted, so brought here in lieu of a WP:CSD#G4. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Also note that the author has no other contributions, save for introducing information about himself into other articles. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I think we should zero tolerance of WP:AUTO, but in any case his press coverage (passing mention of his role in BBC reviews of stage shows) is too minor to pass WP:ENT. Peter Ballard ( talk) 02:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, insufficient evidence of passing notability standards. Glass Cobra 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Nicole Ricca

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

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

Fails WP:ENT. Spammy article on a "video vixen" w/o sources and no GNews hits, with no demonstration of notability.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment But what if we WP:LIKE "video vixens?" Edison ( talk) 05:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: She's mentioned in this article, can anyone access to see if its non-trivial? (excerpt: "Nicole Ricca. Ricca, a native of Jamaica, is presently in New York City working, says she is working enough through Ethnicity that she does not...") Article needs rewrite, but not sure she is actually non-notable. -- Milowent ( talk) 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As per Mbinebri, fails WP:ENT. An attractive young woman, of course, but see no evidence of notability here. Ohiostandard ( talk) 08:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep: In followup to my above comment (hopefully someone can pull that article?). I did some rewriting and expanding of the article, I think she just crosses over into notability to me. Though I have little knowledge of black-focused american media (which is not a small niche), clearly she was/is a popular niche "ethnicity" model. And apparently a "video vixen" is typically a black female model who appears in rap music videos, though the term seems a bit informal. A boatload of video appearances listed in the article, and lots of informal discussion that can be found about her online; she's not just some unknown model like those that rightfully go to AfD regularly. (Aside: I had added a youtube link from a morning talk show to support the belly casting claim, but Mbinebri removed because, as I see, probably is a copyright viol issue) -- Milowent ( talk) 14:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Featured on numerous notable magazines, and in notable music videos. Dream Focus 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, clearly fails WP:ENT. Random appearances in music videos aside, of the new sources added, most are not significant coverage about Nicole herself, just her name mentioned in passing. Two are focused on Mario, not her (and the later does not appear to be a reliable source, but a gossip blog). The article from "The King" is about Hype Williams, and you have to hunt to find Nicole's mention. And Global Grind is basically a gallery of "Eye candy" with a bio of Nicole taken word from word from her own MySpace. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 13:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Passing media mentions are not enough to satisfy WP:ENT. Kevin ( talk) 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - reading WP:ENT she clearly does not qualify. Peter Ballard ( talk) 02:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Appearing in music videos and getting a few small mentions does not satisfy WP:ENT. Glass Cobra 17:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Loraine Patrick

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

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. (Also tagged for notability since April 2008) ƒ(Δ)² 09:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails criteria for inclusion of both WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE could find little evidence of her at all. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That's probably because you are looking under her married name. Her maiden name is Loraine Webber, and under that name one finds things such as an interview in the newsletter of Queen Margaret University, which she attended. Uncle G ( talk) 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails both WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. Simply working in the media doesn't make one notable. Peter Ballard ( talk) 06:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for a month and a half with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (which is Durova). Though I'm closing "keep", I have no problem with a speedy renomination if the issues raised by the "weak keep" !voters are not addressed. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Tricephalous

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

• Keep: It appears that the page of this Deviant Mutate is pended for deletion. I say it should stay and be expanded in our own words. Besides, Tricephalous is going to appear in "The Super Hero Squad Show. Rtkat3 ( talk) 2:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with comment Article creator blanked PROD and replaced it with an AFD template, but without copying the prod rationale. "Minimal content, no third party sources or demonstration of notability outside fictional universe." Article creator has since entered one abbreviated reference which I was unable to parse. No objection to keeping the article if it improves. Durova ³¹¹ 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 18:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep The article contains resourceful information, the main issue is the article references too many copyrighted sources (i.e. Comic books) which can not be verified in a encyclopedic fashion. Without valid third party resources to cite the article lacks any true content. If additional external open sources for the information contained can be cited, the article would be acceptable. Aramova ( talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 16:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep, for reasons given by Aramova. Has two external links, but they are not third party references, and thus are primary source, which doesn't add to verifiability of notability of article's subject. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 09:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

IBN Sports

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

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

No evidence of passing WP:WEB. -- aktsu ^{( t /  c)} 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete All the sources currently in the article appear to be press releases or links to the IBN sports site. There does not appear to be any reliable sources that discuss the site to establish notability ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you consider Reuters a reliable new source? "IMG and iBN Sports Announce Worldwide Distribution Pact" - http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS178373+26-May-2009+MW20090526 Eckinc ( talk) 17:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Reuters is a reliable source, but this "article" appears to be a press release. From the sound of it, IMG and iBN sports wrote the "article" so it is not a reliable source to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

You've clearly never heard of IMG. IMG is a global leader in event management and talent representation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMG_(business). Your requirements for a "reliable source" seem questionable. Eckinc ( talk) 23:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not sure what I said to make you think I have not heard of IMG before, but I must not have been clear in my statement. To establish notability you need to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Since the Reuters article is not independent of IBN sports it is not significant coverage that establishes notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article is not based on independent reliable sources. The Reuters "article" is in fact a press release, which does not stabilish notability. Algébrico ( talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

FNPower100

FNPower100 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Listcruft - very few of the people listed have articles. Could also be considered a copyvio from Footwear News. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 03:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no secondary sources, meaning no evidence of notability. (i.e. no evidence that anyone except Footwear News - the publisher of the list - thinks this list is notable). Peter Ballard ( talk) 00:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Since Footwear News itself is a redlink, I doubt that this list deserves an article. Glass Cobra 17:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Kathy Clugston

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

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

Was originally a prod but removed as "Notability is on the grounds that she is broadcast to millions of listeners which might lead to natural curiousity (as in my case), the basic reason for an encyclopaedia", however I don't think that address the concern that the notability is not established to the degree required by Wikipedia:Notability (people). The main problem is the lack of references to demonstrate notability. Of the three references cited, two are from the BBC raising concerns about their connection with the subject, and the other one is pretty trivial. Adambro ( talk) 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep They enjoy fairly widespread coverage on the BBC and coverage from the BBC itself is certainly enough to meet any issue of WP:V. Notability is admittedly marginal, but IMHO does fall on the side of adequate (the comment on curiosity is also a good one). Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, no it isn't. It's a completely spurious argument. There are many things that people may be curious about that are not currently parts of the general corpus of human knowledge. Wikipedia is about what is known, not about what people want to know. Uncle G ( talk) 01:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • So you dispute this article's ability to address what is known, i.e. WP:V? Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I wrote what I actually wrote, not something else. Uncle G ( talk) 01:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Curiosity, and wishing to know something, certainly doesn't guarantee knowing it — but nor does it contradict it. This is an article that people might wish to know, it's also an article with adequate WP:V that we can robustly claim to know this. We have no problem with it on that score. Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
          • You prove my point for me. The comment on curiosity was not "a good one". It was, as I said, spurious. Uncle G ( talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
            • So what is your point? It appears to be that we can't reliably know anything about this person, which (if true) would certainly mean that we'd be unable to write about them. Your evidence for this seems to be that curiousity implies a lack of knowledge. Although we're often curious about the unknown, the converse that we're only curious about the unknown is a non sequitur. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
              • I have clearly and straightforwardly stated my point twice, now. This is the second time that you've put a different set of words into my mouth in response. Please read the words actually written. Uncle G ( talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
                • You have stated that the argument is "spurious" and "not good", but provided nothing to back this up. You then went off on an irrelevant digression about the limits of knowledge: that is either a claim that this article is unverifiable or unknowable (false), or else it's an irrelevance. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment I recently re-wrote a BLP about BBC announcer Sally Traffic after it was deleted. I found a lot of tabloid and trivial mention in sources, but also managed to find 20 or so fairly solid ones. I am betting a good editor who took their time could do that for Kathy Clugson but it takes time that most Wikipedia rescuers undevoted to their subject matter don't/won't commit to. Miami33139 ( talk) 03:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'd love to keep the article as not only is she a newsreader on Radio 4 but she also plays the ukulele. But... I can't find good sources. So I'm neutral. Fences& Windows 01:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep. Article's subject appears to meet bare minimum requirements of notability, per WP:BIO, in so much that there have been at least one source provided that is not connected to the subject, i.e. not the BBC. If additional sources can be found, I would change my statement to Keep. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Times Community Newspapers#Rappahannock News. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Rappahannock News Times

Rappahannock News Times (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

A local weekly paper which gets 19 Google hits. There are no sources that help establish notability. Speedy tag removed with the false claim that newspapers are exempt from A7. Deprodded with the edit summary "niche newspaper which serves community of Washington, Viriginia. Cited as a reliable source in other Wikipedia articles". I am not of the opinion that all local newspapers deserve an article, and would prefer to see the usual standards of the General notability guideline applied to this for-profit corporation. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I think that all newspapers should have an article. This is one of the very few times that I use WP:IAR. Joe Chill ( talk) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• If you look at the {{ UK regional daily newspapers}} template, for example, you will see that many daily UK newspapers don't have articles. That's consistent with people not ignoring the notability rules. Abductive ( reasoning) 02:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I really don't care. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill ( talk) 00:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, with regrets. I would go with WP:IAR if this seemed like it was worthy, but this is just a small weekly newspaper with a staff of three. I can't see how it even comes close to passing WP:N. Bearian ( talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Small, non-notable newspaper. Glass Cobra 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Redirect to Times Community Newspapers#Rappahannock News, per below. Glass Cobra 14:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge/redirect to Times Community Newspapers#Rappahannock News, the newspaper group that owns this weekly. I have completed the merge. Cunard ( talk) 06:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Times Community Newspapers#Rappahannock News seems reasonable to me.-- RadioFan ( talk) 12:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm Your Villain

I'm Your Villain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-single, and non-notable. Keytar Shredder ( talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Does not appears to meet notability per WP:NSONG. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as it fails WP:NSONGS, never charted, never released as a single, not covered. Possibly redirect to its album, You Could Have It So Much Better. talking birds 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NSONGS per above. Glass Cobra 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Jason Henry

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

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

No sources to prove any of the claims, let alone show notability. Prod removed by creator without addressing concern.

I did find a "Jason Henry" listed with a 7-14 record at MMAUniverse.com but not on the more reliable (and listing pro-fights only) Sherdog.com. This MMA-blog has an article on mentioned amateur-organization "Unplugged Fights", but does not mention Henry. He is listed on LinkedIn as having that position, but I can't imagine that is a reliable source.

A Jason Henry seems to have fought twice at IFC 8 (going 1-1, see MMAUniverse), but I was unable to find anything on him winning a lightweight title, and even if he did that is by all accounts not notable by itself being in a very minor organization.

In short, no sources to establish notability per WP:GNG/ WP:BIO. -- aktsu ^{( t /  c)} 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 00:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment If he was on the U.S. Olympic judo team as the article claims, I think he would pass the notability requirement for athletes. However, when I look at the list of U.S. Olympic judo teams at http://judoinfo.com/usolympic.htm I don't see his name. Papaursa ( talk) 23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete MMA universe is not wonderfully reliable for records (they had me down for a pro fight rather than amateur @ one point) if his name is also failing to appear for other claims then sounds non-notable) -- Nate ^t/ _c 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Considering the Olympics claim hasn't been validated (as Papaursa points out), it doesn't seem to be notable. I wouldn't consider LinkedIn as a reliable source for the CEO claim, as anyone can put anything in their own profile. Additionally, I'm not sure the company would meet notability either. In short, not enough sources to establish notability. Vincent Valentine 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Nate1481 and VincentValentine29 above, fails WP:ATHLETE. Glass Cobra 16:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Reiff Funeral Home

Reiff Funeral Home (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

A non-notable funeral home. It was deprodded by ThaddeusB on the grounds that it has survived in a bundled AfD. Going through the 3600 Google News hits is a pain, but those are mostly death notices. When one filters out those, only 9 News items remain. They do nothing for advancing any claim of notability for this ordinary business. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this funeral home. Joe Chill ( talk) 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill ( talk) 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Amazing that this and some others have stayed up since 2006. Not an ad put up the funeral home, but apparently part of someone's project [1] about funeral homes in and near Dubuque, Iowa. See also Martin Page Funeral Home and Hoffmann-Schneider Funeral Home Mandsford ( talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• To be fair, Hoffmann-Schneider Funeral Home has some chance of being notable, as the oldest funeral home in Iowa. Back when I reviewed some Jesster79's creations for deletion-worthy items, I found enough sources to convince me not to prod it or even put a notability tag on it. Even though retired, Jesster79 still has 398 articles on Wikipedia, and aside from some questionable choices of non-notable banks, churches and funeral homes, and uploading some possibly non-free images, never seemed to get into much trouble. We should all be like Jesster79. Abductive ( reasoning) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and Joe Chill, no substantive coverage found. Glass Cobra 16:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Seton Hall University School of Law Entertainment and Sports Law Society

Seton Hall University School of Law Entertainment and Sports Law Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable student club. Before I prod-tagged, I searched by the more loose "Entertainment and Sports Law Society" "Seton Hall University" which gives 18 Google hits. Deprodded by an IP with no improvement to the article. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete appears to be a non-notable club that also might be about to run afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST by listing the programs of all their seminars. Bfigura ^{( talk)} 23:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:ORG. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally not notable. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Promotional material for the Seton Hall law school, and cut and paste from their website. One of the perks if you get accepted to Seton Hall, I suppose. Mandsford ( talk) 15:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - not merely spam; it is a sponsor of a notable legal symposium; or merge. Bearian ( talk) 17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Metropolitan90 and Mandsford. Glass Cobra 16:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - If they have a publication or other influence then they're notable, but there's no independent coverage in a reliable source that indicates the group is notable. Any particular school will have dozens of these clubs. That doesn't make them notable. Shadowjams ( talk) 22:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Johan Letzelter

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

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

Player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE, sources show that the highest level he has played at is the Championnat National, which is not on the list of fully-pro leagues. Lack of sources so seems to also fail WP:GNG -- Big Dom 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It won't hurt to keep and expand the article, would it?  Btilm  21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment: I've made quite a few edits to this page, mostly updating stats, and I noticed that he hadn't played in a fully pro league. If you can find some reliable, non-primary sources to expand the article then go ahead but I haven't found any. -- Big Dom 21:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete. I changed my vote. I agree with GiantSnowman.  Btilm  02:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - unfortunately he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; until either of these concerns are met, he isn't notable. Giant Snowman 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per GiantSnowman. Eddie6705 ( talk) 15:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per above Spiderone 11:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Glass Cobra 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

List of productions of the University of Canterbury Drama Society

List of productions of the University of Canterbury Drama Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I fail to see how a list of plays put on by a student club at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand is not in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. The article was deprodded by its creator, with the argument that because the University of Canterbury Drama Society is notable (no secondary sources are in its article, btw), the list of plays is too. I have carefully checked; lists such as this are very unusual on Wikipedia; there are four, for three better-known (but still not the heavy hitters one might expect) theatre companies/festivals, and are, in my opinion, equally in violation of NOT#DIR. It would take some serious secondary sources, remarking at the amazing series of plays this club has put on, for this list to be notable on its own right. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete I'd say that a listing of student plays would pretty much be a violation of WP:NOT#DIR too. Without any proper sourcing (and university papers typically aren't considered reliable sources for play reviews), this should go. Bfigura ^{( talk)} 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note This is potentially notable, since Ngaio Marsh was involved in the early years and there are numerous secondary sources on her. Whether they can or will be bought to bear is another matter. Stuartyeates ( talk) 04:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

But that would make the Drama society notable, not require a separate article listing their productions. Notability isn't inherited, or in this case, transferred. If they're only notable because of her, then we should just have a list of her productions. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 04:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• I won't make a !vote as I have a significant CoI, having been the society's archivist. I'd just like to point out that I wasn't the article's creator. I found it in a fairly sorry state and expanded considerably. It is interesting to note that the list was created by splitting it from the parent article on the society. However it is probably too long to merge back. Modern productions (since the 1970's) have far less significance nationally than earlier ones, but setting inclusion criteria for a list of significant productions would be quite difficult. dramatic ( talk) 07:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - a list of every production is de facto webhosting. Bearian ( talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, though no objection of a smerge of the more notable productions into the article on the society (which is definitely notable but needs better sourcing). Grutness... wha? 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Semi-weak delete, per nom, but admittedly has some potential, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NOTABLE. Also fails on the not so recognized "Who cares" criteria. Nezzadar ( speak) 23:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • About 90% of WP articles would fail that latter criterion, so it's not that reliable... Grutness... wha? 00:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Indiscriminate list, WP:NOTDIR. Glass Cobra 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants

Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Whole article is WP:SYN. Steve ( talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete and redirect, per nomination. There are many references, but they don't appear to refer to a group of "self-consistent electromagnetic constants". Instead, they talk about the use of individual constants. Not quite sure where this should point to. Maxwell's equations seems to have the best overlap with the article's subject matter. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I see, you don’t like “ vacuum wave impedance” proposed by Stratton (American applyied physicist), so you want to delete the article..., and you are the theorist wich used the CGS units. Note that, the term “electromagnetic constants” was used in the first part of 20-th century (see Tamm). However, even Soviet theorist Tamm considering the LC circuit should to use the SI units..., but great Tamm considered the resonance frequency only, but not “ characteristic impedance”... The athours of lower scale, for example Сена Л.А. (Sena L.A.) even in late 80-ties wroute that “there are NO any WAVE VACUUM impedance”. You are with Sena, but not with delicate Tamm. Farthermore, even Zel'dovich, B.Y. (2008), one of the former Soviet talanted theorist now returns to the “characteristic impedance”... 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 06:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Strange to say, you Christopher Thomas are the applied phisicist engaged in the engeneering field “CMOS Image Sensors” and you don’t like electrodynamics constants in general and “characteristic impedance” partially, which are out of scop of your proffesional interest and education... 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 10:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I'm only an amateur scientist, but this seems to check out. At Wikipedia, there is going to have to have some degree of summarizing and synthesis in hard-core science articles like this one. Bearian ( talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Babble that adds nothing to useful physics. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC). reply

Good "babble" that opposites the "feeld theory" (an analog of "not even wrong")...

Note, that in the CGS units the standard field approach considers that

${\displaystyle \epsilon _{0}=\mu _{0}=1,\ }$

and electromagnetic constants are DIMENSIONLESS. This leads to "absence" of the characteristic impedance

${\displaystyle \rho _{0}={\sqrt {\frac {\mu _{0}}{\epsilon _{0}}}}=1.\ }$

However, in the article is shown, that electromagnetic constant plays the dominant role in electrodynamics and determine the vacuum properties. Furthermor, it is shown trhat in the CGS units these constants are not equal to "one":

${\displaystyle \epsilon _{0}=1/4\pi }$

${\displaystyle \mu _{0}=4\pi /c^{2}}$

${\displaystyle \rho _{0}={\sqrt {\frac {\mu _{0}}{\epsilon _{0}}}}=4\pi /c.\ }$ 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Original research is not acceptable in WP. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC). reply

• Delete: This appears to be an attempt at a grand synthesis of concepts that are already covered in several Wikipedia articles. To the extent that verifiable statements or reliable sources in this article do not duplicate material already in other articles, they should be moved, and adapted as necessary, to the appropriate articles. However, this should not exist as a separate article in Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as original synthesis. - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Seems to be original synthesis without notability. Neither standard internet searches nor my printed reference materials indicate that this presentation of material is canonical, and it overlaps substantially with other articles which present related topics more clearly. Ben Kidwell ( talk) 15:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Ultimately this article would need to be drastically overhauled. I can detect an unequivocal point of view being pushed, in that I can't see the basis for the categorization of these constants into a primary and a secondary group. In my view, claiming that the speed of light is more fundamental than the magnetic permeability is akin to saying that the speed of sound in a solid rod is a more fundamental constant of the rod material than the density of that material. As for the 377 Ohms for vacuum impedance, this is the interesting bit. I have seen it derived in relation to the space in the immediate vicinity of a transmission line. The derivation involves inductance in relation to a phenomenon that primarily involves capacitance, and if my memory serves me correct, the derivation depends on the geometry being two long wires that are very close together. As such, I most certainly can't see the 377 Ohms as being a more fundamental constant of free space in general, than the electric permittivity or the magnetic permeability. Nevertheless, the 377 Ohms of impedance in free space is a very interesting concept, and it is sourced. It is a thorn in the neck for anti-aetherists due to the fact that it implies a dielectric nature for space, and I would hope that this isn't the real motive that is driving those who wish to delete the article lock, stock, and barrel. Perhaps an attempt should first be made at neutralizing the article. Failing that, if the article is finally deleted, I would like to see the 377 Ohms being placed in an alternative article, perhaps about transmission lines, if it is not already mentioned there. David Tombe ( talk) 02:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The speed of light is more fundamental than magnetic constant by traditions from the one hand (so it happens by historically). From the other hand, the speed of light is the "upper limit" of velocity in our Universe, and it is connected with other dielectric and magnetic constants by relation ${\displaystyle c=1/{\sqrt {\mu _{0}\epsilon _{0}}}}$. Ulternatively, the electromagnetic vacuum impedance ${\displaystyle \rho _{0E}={\sqrt {\mu _{0E}}}/\epsilon _{0E}}$ and gravitational characteristic impedance ${\displaystyle \rho _{G}={\sqrt {\mu _{G}}}/\epsilon _{G}}$ doesn't LIMITING the characteristic impedances in both cases (electromagnetic and gravitational). And the last, but not the least. We have the TWO upper limits for wave's speed: ${\displaystyle c_{E}=1/{\sqrt {\mu _{E}\epsilon _{E}}}}$ - for electromagnetic waves and ${\displaystyle c_{G}=1/{\sqrt {\mu _{G}\epsilon _{G}}}}$ - for gravitational waves. Furthermore, these values are equal to each other: ${\displaystyle c_{E}=c_{G}=c}$! 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 06:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

This is one of the limiting cases of characteristic impedance, and is already described at impedance of free space. The derivation is presented in pretty much any electromagnetics course. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 02:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Note that, the article characteristic impedance considers “classical case” only. Furthermore, the transmission line is the partial case of general LC circuit, or “electromagnetic resonator” (see Feinmann lectures for example). The QUANTUM case is considered in the article Quantum electromagnetic resonator. There are NO any DERIVATION in the article impedance of free space..., but DEFINITIONS only. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. In short, I consider this a useless essay. One can write numerous articles claiming some constants are more "primary" than others, but they would not help the physical theories (which are the primary goal, not the constants they use). The mere fact that some systems (and most theoreticians) set ε₀ and µ₀ = 1 speaks for itself (that they are not primary or self-consistent constants). Materialscientist ( talk) 10:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, for reasons given; essentially that notability is WP:SYN, assuming it is technically correct. This person could become a good editor, but needs mentoring, and a neutral POV. Faulty English is a complication, making his articles difficult to parse. A clear and compelling summary of the need for this innovation, summarizing arguments referable to reliable external sources, would address the original synthesis objection, and would help make the material more accessible if it can be provided (which I doubt, alas). I think such a motivational summary ought to appear as an introduction, and precede the details. Wwheaton ( talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:SYN. As you know, the physics models and theories are based on axiomatic method which use the strongly Mathematical logic. Therefore, when A = C and B = C, then A = B! Farthermore, when we suppose that CGS units are equivalent to the SI units then should be some transformation RULES that transform physical values from one system to another. For example, ${\displaystyle L_{SI}=L_{CGS}}$, ${\displaystyle C_{SI}=C_{CGS}}$, ${\displaystyle \epsilon _{SI}=\epsilon _{CGS}}$, ${\displaystyle \mu _{SI}=\mu _{CGS}}$, ${\displaystyle \rho _{SI}=\rho _{CGS}}$, etc., but that isn't the case! So, the theorists considering the LC circuits and electromagnetic waves goes to the SI units! 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The pieces may all be correct and not WP:OR, but the WP:SYN rule still requires the pieces to be explicitly combined in a reliable external source. Without such external sourcing it is OR, not externally verifiable, and therefore not notable. A harsh rule, but there it is, and it is probably even necessary. Get it published by a reputable refereed journal, and accepted by the community, and it is OK. Otherwise, it's an innovation, and as such not encyclopedic. Wwheaton ( talk) 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete Does indeed seem to be original research. Glass Cobra 16:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete. I would say that the author should start all over again. As it stands now, it reads more like a thesis, than like an encyclopaedia article. There is good material here, but it needs to be re-organized and the opinions removed. There is no harm in principle in having an article on this topic. It is a good idea to have these constants all discussed together on one page. David Tombe ( talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

You have some expierence in discussions on the theme speed of light... What do you mean by saying “it needs to be re-organized and the opinions removed.”? 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 06:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I was specifically referring to your opinion about the two categories. We can state the relationship between the speed of light, the magnetic permeability, and the electric permittivity, but we cannot make an opinion as to which of them is more fundamental than the other. And yes, I did indeed get caught up in a major controversy about how the speed of light, when expressed in terms of modern SI units, fits into that relationship, which is why I am interested in your article. I am advising you based on my own experiences. You have got good material in the article, and it is a very interesting topic. At first I was suggesting that you needed to make a major overhaul. But seeing the hostility that your article has received, I am now advising you to just let it go, and start all over again. Make sure you keep copies of the draft material so that you can copy and paste the difficult equations with ease. Then start a new article. Concentrate on the inter-relationships, but drop your own opinions. If you remove the opinions about relative fundamentality and set out the inter-relationships clearly, it will be interesting to see if your new article is still opposed, and on what basis. If it is opposed the second time round, at least you will know that it is not over the issue of 'opinion'. I support your idea of having an article that deals with the inter-relationships between these quantities, but as this article stands right now, you have left yourself wide open with your opinions. David Tombe ( talk) 08:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank David. What means "your own opinions"? It seems to me that there no one... So, what in your mind should be deleted concrete? 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 08:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

You should remove the 'two categories' classification, because that classification is your own opinion regarding which of these quantities are the more fundamental. I doubt if you would find a textbook that ever presents this point of view. You need to narrow it down in order to find out what is the offending material. Also, my advice is that you need to write it more in the style of an encyclopaedia article as if it were in something like Encyclopaedia Britannica. Just stick to the facts and lay out all the inter-relationships clearly. You will soon discover whether or not it is the actual inter-relationships themselves that are the offending material.

Also, the title had a word 'Selfconsistent'. You need to get rid of that word. Pick a more general title like 'Fundamental constants of electromagnetism'. David Tombe ( talk) 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

More thanks David. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 10:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

195.47.212.108 Here's a source that you may find useful at some point in the future [2]. The author obviously shares your opinion about which two constants are the most fundamental. But I have to confess that I see them all as being equally fundamental. David Tombe ( talk) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

"Apeiron" is a reliable source? Further more thanks David. Note that Bishop presents the viewpoint from the West, and I - from the East. But both approaches lead to the same result. 195.47.212.108 ( talk) 14:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes indeed, I found that interesting. Until I traced your IP server to the east, I thought that maybe you were Forrest Bishop. Forrest Bishop comes up with some good ideas. I don't agree with him on that particular point, but I can put you in touch with him if you like. There is a debate on right now at WT:PHYS which is discussing the controversy surrounding the inter-relationships between these constants. You should take a look. I'll be fascinated to see how your new article tackles the post 1983 SI units hornet's nest. That may well turn out to be its achilles heel. David Tombe ( talk) 14:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• delete SYN William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Michael J. Wagner

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

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

Disputed PROD, does not appear to meet notability requirements ( WP:BIO, WP:GNG). Two sources have been added, but womansday just shows a listing of the book, and nydailynews.com is a comments piece which quotes a couple of lines from the person. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources.  Chzz   ►  20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment Motivational speaker... Abductive ( reasoning) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete His book is essentially self-published (by Book Surge, a vanity publisher) and in almost no libraries. just as would be expected. Nothing else to indicate any notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and DGG. Glass Cobra 16:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yelptini

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

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

New mixed drink, nonnotable despite being mentioned in passing in one story in Forbes magazine. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete, 85 total Google hits suggests this thing hasn't taken off. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I get "about 1,600" per google, which is still pretty low for something invented in 2007. To be fair, 400 are on the Yelp.com site and many seem to be Wikipedia mirror sites. We ought to check some real bartending books. Perhaps among some of these sources there is more than a passing mention. - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Go to the end of the search results; 85. Abductive ( reasoning) 23:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, interesting. Thanks. What does it mean when google says there are so many results but produces only 5% of them? I'm guessing that means most are duplicates in google's eyes, likely yelp.com pages, copies of the Wikipedia article, spam pages, and so on. Wikidemon ( talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I think it also looks at close strings. Abductive ( reasoning) 02:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete But this weekend, try ordering a Yelptini, and bring your laptop when the bartender says, "What the fuck is a Yelptini?" Mandsford ( talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete I was unable to find any significant mentions in any reliable sources; google just spits out non-independent, trivial or unreliable citations, and wasn't able to find much via ProQuest either. Martin Raybourne ( talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oh dear - this is not looking good. Wikidemon ( talk) (article creator) 03:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It is not so bad! I realize now that my first article should have been deleted on sight (which it was, so...) Ok I guess I was not going any where with that comment. Martin Raybourne ( talk) 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Abductive. Glass Cobra 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Spill.Com

Spill.Com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable website. No reliable sources covering site. Fails WP:WEB. Gogo Dodo ( talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Plenty of reliable sources. Did you click the News link in your AfD? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. And a million and a half hits on Google for the site (excluding the half million index hits of of the site itself). -- Odie5533 ( talk) 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment: See WP:BURDEN and WP:GHITS, but since you asked: #1 valid ref; #2 and #5 valid ref, but seems more about parent company; #3 and #4 seems to be be a restatement of a PR piece so appears to fall into the WP:WEB#Criteria 1b) exception of "trivial coverage"; #6 does not appear to reference Spill.com. So that leaves one valid ref and two sort-of refs, which doesn't meet WP:WEB#Criteria 1). The other News links are reprints of PR from Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thinking about it more, it seems to be a popular site but not have enough reliable coverage. Until more reliable sources cover the site, I'm inclined to agree that it should be deleted. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Would this CNN coverage citing a Spill.com article [9] The Austin Film Critic Association [10] and references from /film.com including this one [11] as reliable coverage? It should also be noted that while the previous 2 & 5 (from the Motley Fool) focus upon the stock of the previous parent company MIVA, the articles themselves are about the stock of that company based upon the content and popularity of the site in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.103.212 ( talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The X-Men Origins: Wolverine references are about the leak itself, not about Spill.com so I do not think that would be enough to establish Spill.com's notability: CNN was just in passing as a background screen shot, /film just reports somebody from Spill.com said it was an old version so it not really about Spill.com. Being a member of the Austin Film Critics Association does not make one's website notable. The Motley Fool content is more about MIVA, not Spill.com. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• I strongly disagree. It is nonsensical to delete the page "untill it cites more reliable sources" as more reliable sources cannot be added to the page if it has been deleted. The best thing to do is to simply leave the website up for the time being and if it doesn't have more reible sources and citation by an alloted time, then it should be deleted. 92.251.175.206 ( talk) 19:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• We are not proposing deleting the page because it doesn't cite enough reliable sources, we are proposing deleting it because its subject (Spill.com) has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Spill.com is a suitably large movie review site with full time reviewers working for it. As such it is a legitamate website and is worthy of a short entry. Several movie pages have their grades in the Reception sections and thus has recieved enough coverage. It was also featured on network news over the Wolverine/Fox piracy debate in may -- Davidbray2 ( talk) 23:22, 9 October 2009 (GBT) — Davidbray2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• It does appear to be reliable, but I am not sure reliability is the same as notability. -- Odie5533 ( talk) 22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• It's notable enough for many people to want a wikipedia page about it. It's a short entry, and people will use it because so many people actually use that site (spill.com)and tell their friends about it. And it did appear CNN, which is one of the biggest news networks. I'd say that's notable enough for a short wiki page. -- EspioChaos ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC). — EspioChaos ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment: JoBlo, Cinema Blend and other film sites that are less notable and have NO sources on their pages aren't up for deletion, why should Spill.com be singled out? PittJames ( talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) — PittJames ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; articles should be judged on their own merits, and not be contingent on the existence of other articles. If you feel that the ones you have listed (JoBlo, Cinema Blend, etc) are unworthy of having articles, you may put them up for deletion as well. See the steps at WP:AFD. Glass Cobra 20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Well, said article also states that saying automatically dismissing the "other stuff exists" argument isn't a valid response. Spill is a well-known website, as are sites similar to it that have pages. I don't understand the debate here. Especially since much of it was started by Flesheater, who is a well-known spammer on Spill, causing grief and insulting various members of the site because he thinks its fun. PittJames ( talk) 00:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• "Well-known" is a subjective term, see WP:BIG. Wikipedia judges notability by the amount of verifiable coverage in reliable, third-party sources; the debate here is to determine whether this article passes these standards. As for your other point, I don't see anyone named Flesheater here, nor am I aware of anyone by that name on this site. Glass Cobra 01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• He's all over the discussion page saying that Spill is a virus and other nonsense. PittJames ( talk) 01:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Someone identifying as Flesheater has indeed posted on the talk page, though his comments are not that egregious, and do not appear to intend to start any discussion, as you state. Furthermore, whatever comments were made on the talk page do not affect the debate here at all. Glass Cobra 02:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete References provided here could be used to demonstrate the notability of the parent company, Miva, but not this website. Still lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan ( talk) 23:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — PC78 ( talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and RadioFan. Glass Cobra 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was deleted ( CSD G3) by Xezbeth. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

London Annabele de Rothschild

London Annabele de Rothschild (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Contested prod. Nothing notable about the person that I can see Declan Clam ( talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• comment. this is an unsourced putative BLP, with google giving no evidence that the "fashionista" in question even exists. Adding: what's the drill for hoax articles? -- Paularblaster ( talk) 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as hoax. Edward321 ( talk) 03:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Five9 Inc

Five9 Inc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Released September 24, 2009, fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Five9 Inc. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#A7. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

My rationale for creating and keeping the page are documented on the talk page for the article: Talk:Five9_Inc The press release links have been removed. There is a feature article specifically on the company in the regional media, and several analyst and media mentions of the company. The products are not specifically mentioned by name, as they are in Avaya which evidently is not a candidate for deletion. There is an academic reference provided supporting the notability of the company's technology as a whole, and thereby the notability and significance of the company. It's not a WP:SPA account - take a look at call centre to which I contributed an academic citation in support of the various types of call centers, and added encyclopedic, not promotional, information about premise-based versus virtual call centers, supported by the academic reference, thereby improving the article.

Also, the criteria in WP:CORP seem to be at odds with each other, on the one hand, it suggests that multiple minor media mentions are sufficient to establish notability, but when I added those in, they were either edited out by someone else or decried as "PR" in violation of WP:CORP If a media outlet wants to do a story on an industry, it's quite likely they are going to talk to marketing or PR reps for the companies they cover in the story. [[User: Predictive ( talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)— Predictive ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Delete. Per nomination, the sources are trivial mentions or PR releases. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:CORP defines "trivial mentions" this way: "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." If you read the references, it is more than simply reporting meeting times, shopping hours, publishing telephone numbers, etc. There are no references to press releases (PR) in the current article. Predictive ( talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. This would also include quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.-- Hu12 ( talk) 13:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per NawlinWiki. No substantive sources found. Glass Cobra 16:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

2000s in Young People's fashion

2000s in Young People's fashion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This article appears to be one person's opinion; it is certainly unreferenced. I42 ( talk) 19:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Someone's POV. Joe Chill ( talk) 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill ( talk) 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. No sources cited to verify against. The article presents what appears to be one writer's opinion and original research; it certainly isn't global in scope. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete violates almost every rule we have. Doc Strange ^Mailbox Logbook 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as it fails all of the guidelines that Doc Strange listed with flying colours. Wikipedia is not your blog, nor will it ever be. talking birds 18:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: quick delete! -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 20:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Doc Strange. No objection to SNOW close. Glass Cobra 16:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Box & Ship a Bicycle

Box & Ship a Bicycle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. {{ Prod}} denied by article owner without edit summary. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete as WikiDan61 said. -- Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! ( talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete not much else to say, this is not an encyclopedia article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, WP:NOTHOW. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, This is a how-to, not an encyclopedia article. Magician3545 ( talk) 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I had added a prod2, agreeing with the argument that this fails the WP:NOTHOW guideline. Gonzonoir ( talk)
• Delete: A how to guide. Joe Chill ( talk) 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete this: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. The instructions were also pointless. James1011R ( talk) 21:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom. Jolenine ( Talk - My Contribs) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• delete -- Unsalvagable "how to". Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Bahahahahahaha! -- Triadian ( talk) 05:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTHOW, Wiki isn't a how-to guide. Glass Cobra 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G4 as no new information after last Afd.. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

James Duke Mason

James Duke Mason (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not yet appear to meet WP:BIO requirements. Though the article cites an interview, I can find no other significant coverage in reliable sources. Because notability isn't inherited, being the son of notable parents ( Belinda Carlisle and Morgan Mason) is not enough. Gonzonoir ( talk) 18:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Matthew Yeo

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

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

The article's subject is known only for his membership in a quiz team; I can find no evidence (in e.g. a Google search for "matthew+yeo"+-"university+challenge" "matthew yeo" -"university challenge") that he is otherwise notable. I believe WP:BLP1E applies and that the subject does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Gonzonoir ( talk) 17:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Declan Clam ( talk) 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete for all the same reasons gone over ad nauseam at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble. Pure BLP1E, and all the "these people are all going to be famous after this" voices seem to have gone strangely silent. –  iride scent 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It was the Trimble precedent (heh, sounds kind of like a Forties detective pulp/Coen brothers title) that made me bring this here rather than PRODding. The smaller volume of coverage here makes this seem clearer-cut, too. Gonzonoir ( talk) 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above, WP:BLP1E. Glass Cobra 16:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I Am... Sasha Fierce era Singles

I Am... Sasha Fierce era Singles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I'm not sure what this is, but it surely doesn't need to exist, since there is already I Am... Sasha Fierce. Very unlikely search term for a redirect. Wolfer68 ( talk) 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article consists of a duplication of material at I Am... Sasha Fierce, with the addition of chart positions for each of the singles. That information should be merged to the I Am... Sasha Fierce article. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no point to this page, when everything written here is also on the "I Am... Sasha Fierce" and "Beyonce's Discography" pages. 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I do not see the need for information to be spun out at this time. Guest9999 ( talk) 22:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: An unnecessary duplication. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill ( talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Redundant to information in the article Beyoncé Knowles discography. Doc Strange ^Mailbox Logbook 18:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above, redundant to existing discography article. Glass Cobra 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Brandon Buchanan

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

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

Fails the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 17:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Completed for ( User talk:98.248.33.198) ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete, city council member in small city, doesn't belong in a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete City council member, just not a major metropolitan area. Eau Claire is one step too small. Royal broil 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment-if Brandon Buchanan runs for the Wisconsin Legislature or even Congress and wins-the article can always be recreated. As it stands now this article is premature.Thank you- RFD ( talk) 12:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per NawlinWiki and Royalbroil. Does not meet WP:BIO. Glass Cobra 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Insufficient coverage in secondary sources for WP:BIO, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ray ^Talk 03:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The Word Alive

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

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, but I'm not convinced the band is truly notable. So bringing it here for further evaluation. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 16:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep - needs work, but they are signed to Fearless Records which seems to be major enough. Dincher ( talk)
• Delete - I'm actually the speedy deletion nominator. My bad. But, regardless of the fact that I absolutely LOVE this band, I do not believe they meet notability. They don't even have a full length album, and their EP did not chart on any charts of any kind. And Dincher, I'm afraid being signed to a record label does not make a band notable. Please see the notability guidelines. Krazycev 13 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete - they lean towards notable with the record label and touring, but I can't find references that really get into the band as much as I'd like, and just having one EP suggests this is early. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Being signed to a label is insufficient. They may become notable in the future, but not now. --- Whpq ( talk) 15:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Lopez

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

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

subject and author requested deletion. too much other editing for speedy by author request. questionable notability. no evidence awards are major, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep. One, there've been plenty of edits over the past couple of years since the article was born, aside from the primary contributor - so I'm not feeling like undoing the work. Second, I remember there's no real allowance, office actions aside, for "subject requests deletion". Third, he seems OK for notability, ergo weak, but I do recognize the problem posed in re the awards. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 20:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 16:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Igor Krajcev

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

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

Non-notable writer; article created as autobio; article creator has been unable to provide reliable sources beyond two local newspaper articles that mention him promoting his novel; instead wages a revert-war through anon IPs to remove the unsourced-BLP warning tags from the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete It has been 2 weeks and the author(s) of this page has still not been able to provide sufficiant sources/references to justify its notability. The two only(same)sources are written in macedonian that does not seem quite pertinent. Notability is questionable and not sufficant coverage (Google search has practically no pertinant hits about this person. Jolenine ( Talk - Contribs) 14:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment but leaning towards deleteDelete - I'd like someone who knows the language to look at this to see if the award would count as a notable award or honor per WP:ANYBIO. If it's not notable then it's a delete and there's no other case made for notability per WP:N or WP:AUTHOR. -- Marc Kupper| talk 04:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I had invited Apcbg who understands Macedonian to take a look and am leaning towards delete from what I see on the updated article in terms of references and potential qualifying points for notability. -- Marc Kupper| talk 06:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment but leaning towards delete changed to Delete as the underpinnings for notability are not strong enough to hold this article up. See reply to Apcbg below. -- Marc Kupper| talk 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The article is better sourced now, I believe. Moved to 'Igor Krajčev' as is the correct transliteration of the name. Apcbg ( talk) 08:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you Apcbg for the tidying. Could you please explain the 9th November 2008 Award of Merit award? I'm trying to see what points on WP:N, WP:GNG, or WP:AUTHOR he's qualifying under. The award seems like a city government award and not one of national importance that would have been reported widely within Macedonia. In other words, would this award be "notable" in terms of coverage about it from reliable secondary sources? It appears the coverage of the author is trivial. Игор Крајчев is only mentioned once on each of the cited refs and usually as part of a list of names. It's hardly the detailed coverage from reliable secondary sources that WP:N wants. If I'm reading this correctly his only qualifying point for notability would be the award win under WP:GNG if it's a "notable" award. -- Marc Kupper| talk 06:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment: Here is what I gather from the available sources. Igor Krajčev is a young writer whose work has already got some notable recognition and nationwide media coverage. He was listed by Dnevnik Daily (an important national newspaper) along with few other writers from the city of Veles (one of the major cultural centres of the Republic of Macedonia) in an article on that city’s public library. Krajčev’s novel Warriors and Heroes was considered of national significance by their Ministry of Culture (sourced), and was presented publicly at a national (in fact international) annual cultural event (Racinovi Sredbi); the presentation was reported in a separate article by Večer Daily (another important national newspaper). I don't know much about the award in question; what I see is that that award along with Krajčev’s receiving it was regarded as notable enough to be reported by the country’s official information agency; by the way, Krajčev was not one of many to receive that award for 2008, as a matter of fact he was the only writer among them (the others were a folk group and three sportsmen). It is my opinion that this is notable enough as well as NPOV and adequately sourced now (all the sources mentioned above are reliable secondary ones); therefore, I confirm my “Keep” opinion. Apcbg ( talk) 09:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I see the Dnevnik Daily coverage as trivial as Krajčev is one of a list of names and there's no significant coverage per what WP:N asks for. The recognition at Racinovi Sredbi is stickier. WP:ANYBIO includes "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." It seems plausible that it is notable within Macedonia and thus would qualify Krajčev under WP:ANYBIO. I wish there were language or country specific WP:INCUBATORs as this article looks like a good candidate to park off to the side pending someone with the time and language skills to evaluate if Racinovi Sredbi is notable and to create an article on that which would then allow both the Racinovi Sredbi and Igor Krajčev articles to be moved into mainspace.

I'm still with delete and hopefully someone who later takes an interest in Igor Krajčev will spot this AFD and first work on Racinovi Sredbi before asking that the Krajčev article be undeleted or userfied. -- Marc Kupper| talk 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

"I see the Dnevnik Daily coverage as trivial as Krajčev is one of a list of names" - Well, Dnevnik is listing Krajčev as one of five notable writers from the city of Veles; do you believe that he ought to have been listed as the city's single notable writer in order to see that publication as nontrivial? :-) Apcbg ( talk) 07:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I should explain the list of names thing better. When checking to see a subject has significant coverage per WP:N I make notes to myself about each search engine hit. "list of names" explains the hit and that the subject was not covered in any detail. -- Marc Kupper| talk 08:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete as there don't appear to be multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. As mentioned above by Marc Kupper, the only mention of the subject appears to be in lists of award recipients (where the award is of unknown notability). While the cleanup is an improvement, there still don't appear to be sources discussing the subject, outside of passing references. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment to closing admin - If consensus is delete please be aware that the article was moved during the discussion. I suspect the best way to handle it will be to first move this page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Krajčev and then to delete Igor Krajčev. That way the links to this AFD discussion will be valid no matter how someone seeks this article and/or AFD. -- Marc Kupper| talk 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Wayne Sanderson

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

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

Subject of the article requests deletion per WP:BLP, OTRS ticket#2009100610065474. I am neutral. Stifle ( talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per the subject's request and seeming lack of notability. Dincher ( talk) 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• GS gives h index = 15. Could pass WP:Prof #1 but Delete if(?) subject wants it. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC). reply
• delete a marginal case for passing WP:PROF, outweighed IMO by subject's request for deletion. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 05:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, agreed with Pete.Hurd, notability is marginal. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The awards aren't at a level that would lead us to keep the article, so notability would seem to rest on WP:PROF #1. Given that the case there is not strong either, I'm happy enough going along with the subject's request. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete In cases of marginal notability such as this, subject's request tips the scales. Glass Cobra 16:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Social Security Texas school district controversy

Social Security Texas school district controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This article appears to fail WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of long-term notability. As far as can be determined, the government reported a discrepancy, some newspapers and websites briefly discussed it, and then it fell off the radar. Why do we need an article on this? *** Crotalus *** 13:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete, agreed. This is a local scandal; it might be worth a slight mention in some larger article about Social Security regulations - the Social Security (United States)#Fraud and abuse section is rather brief - but does not seem to be a subject with "legs". - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep. This has been a long-running issue with national news coverage including the New York Times [12]. The article does need lots of work from someone with access to the relevant news sources (best coverage is likely to come from regional news operations). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, standard WP:NOTNEWS case. Stifle ( talk) 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's local news confined to one region and this won't be a long-term story. WP:NOTNEWS. Nate • ( chatter) 04:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill ( talk) 15:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, as noted above. Glass Cobra 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Ann Keselman

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

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

The article is about an undegraduate student, which is very far from meeting the Wikipedia notability criteria. Goudzovski ( talk) 09:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete as not (yet) notable. The article sounds like a self-written bio in tone, and the linkedin link is telling as well. There is assertion of notability (the awards), but it's quite thin. If Ms. Keselman becomes notable at some point, an article would be in order - but there isn't enough there (yet) to meet our standards. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I've notified the article's creator about this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 13:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Forget linked in, they didn't link her Facebook! That would be helpful for male engineers, I think. Note it does appear she's a graduate student now (not an undergraduate), but i can't find any sources other than a mention or two of her being part of a student group at CERN. -- Milowent ( talk) 16:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can't find reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above, fails WP:BIO. Glass Cobra 15:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song ( talk) 22:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

David E. Goldberg

David E. Goldberg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

• Delete. Sounds like a self-written biography of a random professor. Omsairamom ( talk) 05:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete very much like a resume Dincher ( talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. His top five publications in Google scholar have over 400 citations each, and over 1000 each for the top two. That's a clear pass of WP:PROF #1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Top GS cites are 36503, 1304,1181,1050. How can that not pass WP:Prof #1? Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC). reply
  • Oops, I see I missed a few. The numbers are even stronger than I thought, and I already thought they were very strong. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I note that this AfD is the only page ever edited by the nominator. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC). A sock-search may be appropriate. Xxanthippe ( talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC). reply
• keep I saw this in the Academics and Educators deletion list, and thought, "what, the David Goldberg?" Pete.Hurd ( talk) 06:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, in case it is not yet obvious. You can also try to search for "genetic algorithms" in Google Scholar: 3 of top-5 hits are Goldberg's publications. — Miym ( talk) 08:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Someone with 10 papers cited nearly 500 times each, and a book cited 36503(!) times, is a bit notable, I'd think. Shreevatsa ( talk) 19:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well.-- Eric Yurken ( talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In addition to what others have noted above, he also holds a named chair appointment at UIUC. I have added a reference regarding this to the article. This seems to satisfy criterion 5 of WP:PROFESSOR. 98.212.63.90 ( talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• I note his book gets more cites than the greatest hits of Noam Chomsky, Charles Darwin and John Maynard Keynes - combined - so he just barely ekes out a weak keep in my view. :-) John Z ( talk) 09:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was deleted ( CSD A7) by Graeme Bartlett. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 20:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

James P. Morrison

James P. Morrison (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Delete no evidence of notability. Boleyn ( talk) 06:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Anon user has added to Talk pg; I saw revert only in edit summary with no reason given and missed the response on the Talk page. If the editor manages to show some notability soon, that that will be acceptable. But so far, there's a lot of information, but doesn't convince me it meets WP:MUSIC. Boleyn ( talk) 06:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

AfD template removed by anon user. Below I will copy the reasons they put on Talk page of article: Okay, consider this, Boleyn: The mission of the Wikipedia website is, as all who love and enjoy it know, to compile the sum of all available human knowledge into one, easy to use and search-able database, free-of-charge and as impartial as is humanly possible. The sum total of all human knowledge does, by definition, include knowledge of and/or pertaining to James Paul Morrison, regardless of how famous he may be. So if you think about it, this article isn't out of place. Nothing in the article is untrue. I guess what I'm trying to say is... just let us have this one thing on Wikipedia! It's not hurting anything... Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.46.149 (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines for notable musicians at this point. Come back when he's signed to a notable label, touring and has a full-length album out, okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete really an a7 deletion. claiming credit for something he has done before he was born?? salt. autobio of someone who wants to be someone. anon user is not anon and does not understand the mission of Wikipedia. Duffbeerforme ( talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, nothing in the article indicates how/why the subject meets WP:MUSIC. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy deleted under A7 15 yo kid. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, website with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Okidoki

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

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

I can't find any notability. I can't even find hits on Google. Alexa Traffic Rank is 581,832. Haakon ( talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Fails CSD#A7 immediately, as well as WP:WEB. DMacks ( talk) 20:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - what DMacks said. Dincher ( talk) 17:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT ( talk) 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Verifiability concerns have been adequately addressed. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Vadakkanadu

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

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

This article about an alleged village has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested prod.   — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 13:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom.Keep per the hilarious additions and comments by SpacemanSpiff.-- TParis00ap ( talk) 14:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sure that if you lived somewhere where the possession of a change of clothes was a matter for comment you wouldn't find the subject hilarious. Phil Bridger ( talk) 22:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The hilariousness of the comment was based on the fact that it was the only source to prove the existance of the village. However, keep in mind that many people have different senses of humor and I may infact find such a thing funny considering my own poverty as a kid. Although I am heartbroken about any suffering child (or animal), I still find the sole source funny. This is because I compartmentalize my feelings and I am not going to bow to political correctness. When I run for President of the United States, please feel free to bring this up (I am considering the 2032 or 2036 races).-- TParis00ap ( talk) 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Spaceman Spiff 16:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. According to this the aquaduct mentioned in the article is situated "in Mathoor, hamlet of Aruvikkarai revenue village in Thiruvattar Panchayat Union" - no mention of Vadakkanadu or any similar spelling. Phil Bridger ( talk) 14:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's a verifiable village, I don't know how many people live there, but I know how many people don't have a set of change clothes (sadly), per the refs I've added. - Spaceman Spiff 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a verifiable village, per SpacemanSpiff's excellent work. Phil Bridger ( talk) 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per SpacemanSpiff (good job). It's a verified village.-- Oakshade ( talk) 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Chenkody

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

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

This article about an alleged village hashad no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested prod.   — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Spaceman Spiff 16:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Verifiable, inhabited village with a high school and a post office. - Spaceman Spiff 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Per SpacemanSpiff. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Withdrawn given the recently-added references.   — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 04:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Dependent statement

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

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