Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 22#Ron Obvious (Monty Python character)

< 21 March 23 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Mercury

[edit]
Yung Mercury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm bundling five articles here, all related to a musician named Yung Mercury: his biography, a record label he formed (whose website is located on webs.com), one of his songs, and two of his future albums. I can not verify any of the claims in any of the articles. In Yung Mercury, it is claimed that two of his songs have Billboard charted, and in I Here You it claims that the song reached #12 on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles and #7 on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, which should make his existence easy to verify, which I can not. I have an overwhelming feeling that these are hoaxes.

Bundled articles:

Bald Eagles Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Here You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rise to Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spared One (Yung Mercury album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 23:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giordano Memorization System

[edit]
Giordano Memorization System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These mnemonic techniques appear not to be notable in themselves, much less so as a "System" (the only ghits are ads or self-published sites). The whole appears only to be an advertisement for this system and the books mentioned in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cicero Method. Goochelaar (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what the difference is between the Major system and Dominic system and this system? Many of the possible references and third party sources are in russian, since the system was developed in Russia and only translated to english. Thank you Zmemory (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009

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

The result was Snowball keep. BJTalk 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 FedEx Crash

[edit]
2009 FedEx Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems too soon to have an article for an incident that may not even be notable? I'm not sure about this one so it seems more appropriate to put it up for discussion, if I've made a bad call, it will obviously close as keep! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're so keen to have an article created literally minutes ago about an event that is still playing out. Yes, we don't know the full details or if it will turn out to be notable, but I think it's highly premature to be making such assumptions. It's not doing any harm by existing, and if it turns out to not be important, then it should be put up for notability review. --Resplendent (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:NOHARM. Wikinews is probably a more appropriate venue for this. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are reliable sources, so that's not an issue. Therefore I can only assume your problem with the article is its possible notability. How are you so sure it won't be notable when it literally just happened? By your logic, no articles on aviation accidents should be created until the investigation is completed. --Resplendent (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::::*Why are you so convinced that it is notable? I think it was a bad decision creating the article right after it happened, rather than wait for everything to pan out. At the moment, the correct place for this information is at WikiNews. Tavix (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We learned quickly that the pilots died and the aircraft sustained serious damage. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bad decision? Why's that. It's not like I wasted any of your time writing it. --Resplendent (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) WP:NOTNEWS also seems to apply here. If the event turns out to be notable, the article can be created then. Seriously consider writing something about this on Wikinews. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the "News reports" section you will see that some news events are noteworthy and some are not; the section explains it. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it should be there as well. --Resplendent (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did a lot of research on this one before making my decision. While the article suffers from recentism, I am convinced it fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:AIRCRASH's general and aircraft criteria. If something happens from this that results in the change of policy (which I don't think that will happen), I am not bias against recreation. Tavix (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A hull loss confers notability in an accident and incident. Tavix and Jenuk, the video of the incident shows a massive fire and structural deformation. Also the pilots may have died. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A hull loss confers notability in an accident and incident" - Where does it state that? What does the fact that pilots may have died have to do with anything? We don't have articles for every death! Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is where: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1404 - Look at this AFD. Look at what happened to it. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OTHERCRAP Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And OTHERCRAP says "However, a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." - This is CLEARLY a similar case (aircraft hull loss, injuries to passengers) and the outcome was a speedy keep. This section is not a blanket ban on referencing other deletion debates. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The nomination was withdrawn in that instance after about a day, the AfD did not even run its full course. I won't be withdrawing this nom unless I see evidence of notability. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please look at why the nomination was withdrawn and the AFD closed as Speedy Keep. The nominator of that AFD said 'Looks like the issues that led me to nom this article to begin with have been addressed. Per the aircraft's apparent writeoff and the "unusual circumstances" surrounding the incident (and the fact that the article is now quite a bit longer, more detailed, better-sourced), I say keep it.' - Look at how the debate evolved as time passed and more information became available. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Folks, this is why we have notability guidelines! Instead of arguing and speculating about whether this is notable, the guideline, which has been established with consensus, lots of discussion, and lots of evaluation of other AfD, should be the basic standard. Please refer to WP:AIRCRASH. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently notable accident. DGG (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly needs to be kept, I doubt the Owners, Insurance firms or the familys of those either dead or injured would consider it a non event, doubt boeing or the FAA would either, seems the main stream news agencys consider it a event also, fancy that! Moggiethemeow (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - any commercial jet crash is an important event in the history of civil aviation, and thus - notable.--98.243.175.76 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC) — 98.243.175.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - if we deleted it, it would just be reinstated at present. Leave it for a week and then have the debate, but at present would seem to pass basic notability criteria. Rgds, (pilot) --81.153.126.238 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, it is a large aircraft that has been destroyed at a major airport, with loss of life, substantial disruption to the airport's operations (if you honestly believe that an airport will be able to continue functioning normally with a burning upside-down MD-11 on one of its runways, I have a bridge to sell you), and possible implications regarding the design and safety of the aircraft (as two very similar accidents have occurred previously with the same type of aircraft). Also (because I know some Wikipedians have an almost slavish reliance on rules and no flexibility whatsoever), quoting from WP:AIRCRASH:"It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition." Last I checked, FedEx is a scheduled air carrier, and according to [1] and [2], the pilots are both dead. I don't see how this article's notability can possibly be in question. Nick L. (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Hull loss of a scheduled flight of one of the world's major cargo airlines. It's notable. -- Flyguy649 talk 02:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a major air crash at a major airport. Hard to believe this was even nominated. Kristof15 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets notability guideline (WP:AIRCRASH). Nom's reason "Seems too soon to have an article" is not a criteria for deletion. This is why we have a notability guideline, so that articles like this can be correctly evaluated, based on the outcome of many, many past AfDs. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kristof15.--James Bond (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Whitstine

[edit]
Sherry Whitstine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a blogger written by user:Sherrywhitstine. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It would appear she is notable, as per Google News: [3]. Pity about the COI problem, though. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Coverage in media is incidental, always commenting on other incidents. If this article does stay, convert to stub. The article, as it stands, does little more than air a selection of a blogger's views, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She is quoted, and she is mentioned, but I couldn't find any articles about her. And I agree with Chris Neville-Smith that the current article is a soapbox -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not straightforward. There certainly is news coverage relating to her, but it actually seems to fall foul of the BLP "one event" guideline: she appears in the newspapers for a single incident when Palin apparently asked her to stop blogging. At least 13 of the 18 GNews hits are syndicated copies of one original story in the Anchorage Daily News (the ones including the phrase "And last May, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor's career with an astringent eye, answered her phone...": NB some of the sources reproduce this phrase in another language). Of the five other reports, four date from the same period and cover the same event with original prose; the fifth, from 1990, appears to discuss Whitstone's role in a non-notable local organization. I don't think there's enough here to confirm notability, so I !vote delete. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious WP:ONEEVENT, and feeble even then. Her fifteen minutes never even came outside Anchorage. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Wins Game

[edit]
Laura Wins Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Classic case of WP:MADEUP. No notability or references. FingersOnRoids♫ 23:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This looks pretty good faith to me, not blatant vandalism. Just a page with a silly madeup game with no reason for inclusion, by an author with no experience on what is or isn't wikipedia material. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does WP:BLP apply here? FingersOnRoids♫ 02:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city‽ 04:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Soviet war in Afghanistan in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated two years ago. Barely crawled by. No improvement since. Just, as nominator stated before a dumping-ground for trivia, mostly in the form of a list. Provides nothing of value to the project. Bulldog 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are numerous sources that could be used to improve this article beyond its current state, including books on Soviet-era Russian literature, for which the Afghanistan war was an important backdrop (e.g. Brown The last years of Soviet Russian literature Cambridge University Press 1993), and commentaries on Western portrayals of the war (e.g. Black The Politics of James Bond Praeger 2000), [4], etc. Sources aren't hard to find for this one. JulesH (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-referenced, even if it does have a lot of trivia. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I can make an article about anything but it's okay as long as it's "well-referenced?" Bulldog 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if it also notable. References can prove notability. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But why is it notable if a video-game references the War in Afghanistan? Bulldog 19:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: gotta say I was torn on this before reading the ref'ed sources available online. Listing movies and video games does not lend notability to this topic: it lends notability to the Soviet - Afghan War itself. What does lend notability to this article are third party sources discussing the discussion itself of the war. Finn (10-20-2005), Kazemek (1996), and most especially Shulman (2007 taken on faith as it is not online) do demonstrate notability quite easily. I am also assuming, given the small industry discussing the "legacy" of the US-Vietnam war to Americans, that Russian language sources could easily render this topic the focus of a FA article. The lists would be fine on an article of such a scale. They look a bit much here, but they remain annexes to a notable and referenced topic, and so are fine. T L Miles (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nom: your nifty sig does not include the most important part of a sig: an internal link to User:Bulldog123. Might want to look at that. T L Miles (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Corporation#Closely held and public per WP:BOLD. Tavix (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closely held corporation

[edit]
Closely held corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This stub or "two sentences" is already found and explained in depth here.TechOutsider (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annex (Trilogy)

[edit]
Annex (Trilogy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:BK: unfinished book, unknown author. Hqb (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boyz in the Sink (VeggieTales)

[edit]
Boyz in the Sink (VeggieTales) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, non-notable subject. This fictional group appeared in only one episode of VeggieTales. Note that we already have Boyz in the Sink which redirects to Silly Songs with Larry. Nothing worth merging into that page though. ~EdGl ★ 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn (see comment below) ~EdGl ★ 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 09:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil monster list

[edit]
Resident Evil monster list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My own view is that Wikipedia is not a game guide. The language used smacks of OR (e.g. no references) and the whole article has a walkthrough-like tone. My PROD was de facto contested by an IP by suggesting a merge with an official character list, but no details were provided, probably because they have completely different contexts. I doubt anything can be salvaged from this article. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We have Mario enemies or List of characters in the Resident Evil series so I see no problem with having a list of enemies for a series as important as Resident Evil. However it's a "weak" keep because the article will need some clean up and be written in a more encyclopedic style if it were to stay. Laurent (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Starblind. Laurent (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton LiveUpdate

[edit]
Norton LiveUpdate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Account of Notability. Can be condensed into one sentence. All primary sources citing Symantec.%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FNorton+LiveUpdate%5D%5D&action=delete delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. TechOutsider (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/merge not present in the article doesn't mean they don't exist. There are plenty here which can be used to expand the article. Failing that, if not independently notable, a merge could be considered. StarM 22:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources you presented do not directly concern LU. TechOutsider (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
Comment at least the Tampa Tribune and NetworkWorld one do and in some depth, as do the Washington Post and zdnet. As I said, if it isn't independently notable, it's possible a merge could be considered. There's far too much coverage for outright deletion. StarM 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge I think a merge was probably the best thing to do... SF007 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I deprodded it; the prodder objected, and I suggested he bring it here. Norton's products are generally notable, butIam not sure this is best seen as a serparate product or as an internal utility. ~ At worst, it could be merged to other articles on the company's products.DGG (talk)

Keep! There are too many Norton ultilties that uses lu. It would be teadous to edit all of them. For example, Norton Ghost, Norton 360, Norton Internet Security, Norton AntiVirus are some of the Norton programs that uses lu. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 13:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to Tyw7 LU is found across all Norton products. Putting in on the company page would only make sense. The separate article is stubby. Incorporating it in every article, in your opinion, is too tedious. However, I do not think it is notable at all; no major news coverage. TechOutsider (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
  • Comment This article demonstrates -- as do several above it -- one of the critical weaknesses of writing articles on many computer topics: lack of reliable sources. That doesn't mean that the subject is not notable or worth an article -- just that the bar for writing a useful article is higher than for other topics. If any or all are deleted then I hope it would be without prejudice, so an editor down the road who can uncover the needed sources & create a solid article doesn't need to fight a bureaucratic mindset her & in DR to keep the article listed. -- llywrch (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator withdraw (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Gilma (2006)

[edit]
Tropical Storm Gilma (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I should start by noting I do not wish to delete the article, rather just to merge it in its entirety. Simply put, I do not believe the article is notable enough to exist. It was a weak tropical storm that lasted for two days without affecting land. There is only one source of information, anywhere, on this storm, which is the National Hurricane Center. Because of that, I believe it fails Wikipedia:Notability. There are other sources that talk about the storm, possibly such as news stories while it was active or info on the entire hurricane season that happens to mention the storm, but none of the info on this specific storm has a reliable independent source, other than from the people at the National Hurricane Center that issued 12 advisories on a random bunch of clouds.

Usually, tropical cyclones are big enough or last enough time to affect land, or set a record to establish some sort of notability. Those storms have articles and aren't usually a problem. Storms like Gilma, and there are maybe a dozen other that fall into this category, are ones that I believe are not notable enough for an article. If it is merged, and the content might have to be summarized a bit due to undue weight, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have heard that any storm is notable enough for an article, which is clearly not true. If the same storm would have occurred 50 years ago, no would would have known about it. Think about this - if the same storm was not recognized by the National Hurricane Center, still no one would know about it. Should the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject really expect its writers to write meticulously about every bunch of clouds that a bureaucrat in an office decides to name? Personally I think it is a waste of time, since those storms are already covered in the hurricane season articles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here was the merger discussion, until the author asked me to take it here, as he found the discussion pointless with a small group of people, or something. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Major point violation. The user did not get his way at the merge and is moving to delete the page in order to make way to meet the article percentage for featured topic. He is abusive processes to get more "featured" items, which can only be seen as a status symbol. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you not read the first line? I'm not "abusive processes to get more "featured" items". I am trying to get more input. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your original merge proposal was unethical. This AfD is a furtherance of forum shopping to do that original unethical act. Featured items are not a status symbol. Editing is based on improving the Wiki. The things I wish I could say in response to your actions with this would get me banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade timeline

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Beyblade timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All fan service, no references, in universe, no claims to real world significance DragonZero (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wouldn't consider a timeline out of the question for a notable fictional universe, especially one with various properties (see Doctor Who timeline). However, a timeline by definition is the organisation of events in chronological order, which this isn't. This is more like an in-universe stats table: who fought who and what attacks they used. There might be a valid article that could exist at this title, but I'm not seeing it among the present contents. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't merge that much data over. So you'd just end up with a delete and redirect(note: when an article is deleted by merge, the history is still preserved). Dream Focus 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I believe it can. If merged into according episode and chapter summaries. If this article is to be kept, it needs to list the events in chronological order, not by team, and should list events other than tournament results and learned moves. Should it survive this AfD, it needs clean-up. However, as there has been no clean-up since last AfD, I am moved to vote delete. It is also too much plot with real-world info. I doutb any real-world info can be obtained. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Size really isn't that much of a limitation. Merge doesn't mean that you have to merge ALL the data, you just merge what's relevant to the pages you're merging to and delete anything that's redundant or irrelevant. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I watched the beyblade series, and alot of those attacks only appear once for a dramatic ending. A single appearance isn't notable enough to be wikied. If it is, then change the article to "What Beyblade characters shout at the end of an epic battle" or something along those lines, DragonZero (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial plot information arranged based on its importance to the fictional world, not importance to our real one. This conflates background details that might be important to someone in this fictional world with importance to the viewer; matches between minor or non-characters are mixed in at random with matches between main characters, with little distinction. This is not how this plot information should be presented, and this is so hopelessly confused that the effort involved in stripping out the content of any merit would vastly exceed the effort of deleting this and starting from scratch. Do not make articles like this please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a time line. This is simply a series of tables listing "attacks" which is trivial and has no context. Those in the previous debate that claim that there is no ban on fictional time lines were clearly judging the article based on its name only and not its contents. And even if it was a real time line, I question the encyclopedic value of a fictional time line. Especially in the face of WP:WAF and the need to present a time line from a real-world perspective instead of an in-universe perspective. But all in all, an episode list is a better way to present a fictional time line. It at least satisfied the need to maintain a real-world perspective. --Farix (Talk) 01:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with partial merge - This isn't a timeline and looking into the page history, it doesn't appear that it ever was a timeline. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Garrison 2

[edit]
Gang Garrison 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable video game. Blog entries, even entries on notable blogs, are not enough to qualify for general notability under WP:N. Entry into a non-notable competition does not qualify for notability. Chardish (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 22:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Kotaku entry, at least, counts as a notable and reliable source. It could also have other sources that need to be found. It's also a very small game, so you can't expect as many sources as a commercial one.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Big Download is part of AOL and is geared towards games of this type, so the significant coverage from them is good. Slide in John Bardinelli's "A surprisingly faithful demake of Team Fortress 2" [5] (Jay is Games) and Derek Yu's "GG 2.0 has more of everything – more options, more maps, more communication, and more explosions. Talking about it makes me want to go play another few rounds." [6] and this piece from 1up and there's a reception section with multiple commentators as well as a decent amount of coverage which confers notability IMO. The 1up source was posted 4 days after the article was created, having found it I've gone from wavering to convinced, so slap my thigh and call me Betty. Someoneanother 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shere Khan A Cappella

[edit]
Shere Khan A Cappella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical group, fails WP:MUSIC, unreliable references, one brief mention of performance date on MLB site MuffledThud (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criterion #6 for musicians and ensembles in WP:MUSIC states "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable...". Is that what you're referring to? You're right about the other groups though: they also look pretty non-notable, and I've just proposed one for deletion. MuffledThud (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, I meant #7. And btw, I just added information to the article about other notable performances (for the Mets and the Hawaii Legislature). If you want to enforce WP:MUSIC strictly, I would bet you'd find upwards of 80 articles on college a cappella groups that merit deletion.Bhilly (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your last point, but see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. These things are virtually always deleted when they show up at AfD, and for most of the rest of them it's really just a matter of time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I read this as no consensus to delete. Does seem to be borderline. DGG (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Operatic Society

[edit]
Southampton Operatic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article provides no independent assertion of notability Kbthompson (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the council's booking website. A clear argument was if a national newspaper covered the society - these are very local reviews of productions. Kbthompson (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a "Local Attractions" visitor site; I see no evidence it is a booking site. Either way, it is independent, provides coverage of the Society and makes the assertion that the it is the oldest in the city. There is nothing at WP:MUSICBIO which states that a newspaper must be national (indeed, the footnote says that the definition of published works is deliberately broad). Additionally, there are three Wikipedia articles about performers (Barry Clark (singer), Nyle Wolfe and Rae Baker) which refer to their tenure in the Southampton Operatic Society which may further assert notability under #6 of WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every large community theatre group has had notable alumni. These three are barely notable IMO, and I doubt that one could really call Wolfe notable. Also, so what if it's the oldest community theatre society in Southampton? Southampton is ranked as the 48th lartest city in England - should we have articles on the oldest community theatre groups in the 47 larger cities? What about those in the US, Australia, France, Italy, Germany, India, China, etc? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this was the sole claim of notability it would perhaps not be sufficient. But this misses the point; it is merely supplemental to the already met criterion #1 in WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the author of the article I have updated the piece in response to satisfying 'notability' and tried to quote the relevant citations. I accept that Southampton Operatic Society does not have 'world wide appeal' but the article was submitted in the spirit of recognising one of the many groups which strive to keep the works of Gilbert & Sullivan alive in this century. I would also like to point out that Southampton is the 16th largest city in England not the 48th - see List of towns and cities in England by population and the third according to density of population- see Southampton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bujurpb (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References to the society's own website is not an independent assertion of notability. In your 80 years of operation, has no national newspaper noticed you? Look at WP:ORG for the criteria for inclusion of your organisation on wikipedia. There is no intention to remove the City of Southampton from wikipedia. Kbthompson (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, those references are not suitable - but the ones I cited earlier are. The Southampton comment was, I believe, in response to User:Ssilvers comment of 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC) above. I would agree with you that notability was not met if WP:ORG was the relevant policy but it is not - WP:MUSICBIO is. This is explicit; it states that "a musician or ensemble ... includes a musical theatre group", which this is. If you are basing your opinion on WP:ORG it must be discounted. WP:MUSICBIO states that notability is established if the group has been subject to "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable ... This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles". I have provided several newspaper articles which have provided independent review of the group - there is no question this article meets inclusion standards. (Note: I am also independent of the group - I had not heard of them before reviewing this AfD; I don't live in or near Southampton; I am not an opera fan.) I42 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A borderline case, IMO, and having read it I think we should err on the side of caution before deleting. Tim riley (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hak Ja Han

[edit]
Hak Ja Han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

She is the wife of Sun Myung Moon, the leader of the Unification Church. However she herself has not be the subject of coverage by secondary sources as required by WP:N. This article has been used as a WP:Coatrack by both members and critics of her church to talk about other topics. It has very little reliable information about Mrs. Han herself. Redddogg (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge Weak keep (to True Family, per existing merge proposal). I made a major attempt at finding third-party sources for this article about a month ago, but found very thin pickings (most mentions were incidental to discussion of her husband). Since then there's been an on-going attempt to load the article up with UC-affiliated and questionable-reliability sources in an attempt to 'bulk it up' to give the appearance of sufficient coverage to be notable. Further, I have yet to see much evidence of prominent actions that were independent of her husband and/or received significant notice outside her church. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "UC-affiliated and questionable-reliability sources" have since been removed & more third party sources added. I do have concerns about the lack of weightiness of much of the material (much of which pertains to the topic's attempts at seeking publicity), but think that there's enough here to warrant keeping. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Han Hak-ja. The title as it is is an older style of Korean names in English. The article name as it is is amost never used. (I am a Unification Church member BTW) The other would at least be her correct name in Korean. She is more often refered to as "Mrs. Moon" in English. Incidentally the information that in Korean culture a wife does not take her husband's family name but keeps her birth name is not mentioned in the article. I mentioned it in article which mentioned her and it was moved to a footnote, and then (I think) removed. I will assume good faith and not think that editors were trying to make Rev. and Mrs. Moon sound "weird" because they have different family names. Instead I will assume that most WP editors are clueless about good non-fiction writing and don't know that a good non-fiction writer will try to put him or herself it the place of his or her readers and try to guess what questions they will ask and what things they would want to know. Thanks for putting up with a long AfD vote. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - The majority of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources refer to the individual under the current article's name. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all readers reading "Hak Ja Han is the wife of Sun Myung Moon" will ask "Then why don't they have the same family name?" What do you think of the article including a note that explains this point? Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, like I said, the vast majority of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources refer to her as "Hak Ja Han". Cirt (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an issue in other Korean bios. I added a small note to the article and a link to Korean names for people interested in this topic. p.s. Deletion would be silly for an article on this person who has attracted world-wide attention.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Recent changes to the article have had the effect of taking some coats off and putting some more on. Clearly there is not enough material to write an article about the topic. Redddogg (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, these were events organized by the subject of the article, directly prior to world tours by the indvidual promoting these organizations. Highly relevant. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then write articles on these organizations, world tours, and events if they are so important. Redddogg (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, they could be independently notable, but that does not preclude these events and organizations from also being noteworthy and relevant to the subject of this article, as well. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are all secondary sources, not primary. There is no original research in the article. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If each secondary source provides one sentence and you put all those sentences together to make an article, that would be WP:Original research.Redddogg (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. I have done a great deal of work and research to improve the article with secondary sources; WP:RS/WP:V sources which directly discuss the subject of the article herself. It was not an easy feat. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying. Your hard work, which really was outstanding, did improve the article but did not make the subject of it notable since she has not been covered in depth by reliable secondary sources as WP:Note requires. Redddogg (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging the hard work that I have put into this article. It is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, thank you again. Here is a quote from WP:Note: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Redddogg (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has some issues, including coatrackism as nominator mentioned. However the subject is clearly notable from the amount of news coverage as well as coverage in books. Borock (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per almost everyone above. Should never have been nominated. "Hak Ja Han" in quotation marks and "Moon" returns 31 books in Google scholar, mostly books by new religious movements scholars, over 6000 hits in Google, hundreds or thousands of news articles in English covering a 40+ year period, and who, together with Sun Myung Moon is considered "God's body," "The Second Coming of Christ," "Messiah" (try Googling "Hak Ja Han" "co-messiah"), "The True Parents of Mankind," etc by a worldwide religion - there's absolutely no question she's notable. Strongly oppose merge for the same reasons. Oppose re-name - This is English Wikipedia. Btw, Cirt and others have made tremendous improvements to the article. They should be highly commended. -Exucmember (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Célena Cherry. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celena Cherry

[edit]
Celena Cherry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Person is not notable. Fails WP:CREATIVE Untick (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no significant coverage LetsdrinkTea 16:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I usually keep out of pop discussions, but looking at this set me wondering how limited a limited edition is? http://www.celenacherry.co.uk/celena/album/index.html seems to be still selling it. Mind you, the latest update on her website is January 2007 so you might be too late after all. If they've not run out yet, it's either not very limited or not selling very well. The info about the CD is contained in Célena Cherry already. I don't think all this track listing for every minor CD by every minor entertainer is really necessary, but obviously some people do. In this case, as the material is cover versions of her own stuff with Honeyz (who did achieve some chart success and failure - I suppose having four singles and one album disqualifies them from being one hit wonders) or old standards, I feel the coverage in her own article is enough. There is a conflict of title, as well. This is the way most people will enter her name in a search. I presume the é spelling is the correct one. Peridon (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. No significant external reviews. LK (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article: "only available through her official website". It would be very unusual for something not generally released to be notable even if the artist otherwise is: falls under same category as demos, promo releases, bootlegs, mixtapes, etc. Oh, and *Redirect to Célena Cherry, obviously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Célena Cherry as an alternate spelling for her name, not a a self-published album. This work fails to meet our criteria for albums as it has not charted, has not received independent media coverage, and there is no assertion of notability. HOWEVER, if Ms. Cherry's solo career takes off with another album and a charting single, we absolutely should bring this article back as the first LP of a notable musician. Until then, please delete. JRP (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original character

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Original character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from the fact that the article is comprised entirely of self-assertion and original research. The article is misleading as well, since it seems to be describing a "fan character". From my understanding, the term "original character" usually means a character in an adaptation (such as a film version of a novel) that was not in the original media or even a character introduced in a sequel to a previous work. Either way, the article is full of misleading information uncited assertions. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child Support (song)

[edit]
Child Support (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable and non-charting song fails WP:NALBUMS Untick (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you deprod it?? Untick (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6Gate

[edit]
IPv6Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable web proxy. Google brings back 825 hits for "IPv6Gate". Most of the hits are directly related to the company's site, the Wikipedia article, or web postings by the owner of the site (who also happens to be the author of this article it appears). The two SlashDot references also seem to be posted by the owner of the website, so it's not exactly independent coverage of it. For an Internet-based program, I would expect a lot more than 825 hits to show its notability. either way (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing web notability guideline, also is a bit too spammy LetsdrinkTea 17:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that you did note that the same single user (See User_talk:Saint-billy, User_talk:82.6.12.186,User_talk:81.102.44.250 and User_talk:67.165.228.224) was adding those tags to the pages. Also, the reason why you do not find many hits in Google (or for that matter in Baidu as there are a lot of Chinese users) is that there is an explicit robots.txt blocking robots from indexing the pages it refers to. It is fun to see that WP "Admins" do collaborate in getting links to sixxs.org properly closed so that it can't be used for spamming and then want delete the Talk:IPv6Gate talk page so that the whole history of that is gone. That Talk page describes WHY those links are blocked. But maybe that should be part of the main article? Jeroen (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note there is that IPv6Gate serves a LOT of Wikpedia users in regions where IPv6 is available but where Wikipedia is BLOCKED on IPv4. Indeed, you won't find many hits in Google about that either, try searching on Baidu though and various other Chinese and such region search engines and you will find a lot more links and information about it. That something is not 'notable' for you, doesn't mean it is not notable for the rest of the planet. Jeroen (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB I'd expect a heck of a lot more hits than that on something specifically about the web. More importantly, just 1 google news hit, and that's just a passing mention in an anonymous comment on the Chinese slashdot site. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB clearly spam, we can't have a wiki page for every kid and his proxy. Moggiethemeow (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)— Moggiethemeow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been blocked as a sockpuppet. either way (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Francesco Carotta

[edit]
The result was No consensus. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third wheel (expression)

[edit]
Third wheel (expression) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems much more of a personal essay/original research than a valid topic for an article. Biruitorul Talk 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowball Keep and cleanup. SeanMD80talk | contribs 23:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in Haiti

[edit]
Christianity in Haiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is one of a group of problematic "school project" articles most of which are now at AfD. It's a poorly written synthesis failing WP:OR; it's irretrievably POV (e.g. "The churches in Haiti are more holy then anything") and so badly written it's impossible to safely rewrite because there's no clear distinction between verifable fact and opinion.

I've managed to rescue one of the other articles in this project but there seems to be a clear consensus that the others are beyond redemption. This one is no better than the others and experience has shown that any attempts to sort it out will be resisted.

See also for information Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taoism and death, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and civil rights. andy (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ironic (and hilarious) that the nomination about a religion article speaks in terms of "rescue" and "redemption". That aside, the topic of the spread of a religion, whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc., is a legitimate topic. The article does attempt to do sourcing for its points, so I don't understand whatever the point is about original research. I don't agree that the writing on this is as badly written as to be impossible to improve, or irretrievably awful. Yes, the writing needs to be improved, but I see no reason why the topic of the article is violative of a policy. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who said the topic wasn't notable? AfDs are nominations of articles, not topics. The article stinks andy (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject of the article isn't inappropriate, then I must point out that AfD is not cleanup. If "the article stinks" is the reason for nomination, I can only say that Wikipedia welcomes all writers, even those who lack your level of literary skill. Mandsford (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to agree with me but please be civil, thank you. andy (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry... I mistook your comments about what AfD is as hostile. I actually think that you're correct on the other articles from this project-- Buddhism and the body, Taoism and death, etc.-- because those are armchair theology. On the other hand, Christianity in Haiti is more of an historical topic that can be addressed in a neutral fashion. Now if someone in the class tries to write "Haiti in Biblical prophecy", that's another story... :) Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree that Afd's are about articles and not topics. In 30 seconds we can fix whatever is wrong with most articles by finding three sources on google, and striping this to a stub. Things need to be deleted when the topic is unencyclopedic or not notable enougth to be turned into a decent decent stub. This topic is notable and encyclopedic in the minds of the community, as demonstrated by all the "[Religion] in [Nation]" articles and given that most Haitians are Christians. If the current article content is crap, we edit. T L Miles (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please edit then... andy (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'd like to do that I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. But despite lots of fine words no-one has actually stepped forward to do it. It is no doubt a profoundly important subject but don't you think the fact that the actual article is utterly incoherent militates against its being kept? andy (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 18 (Primeval)

[edit]
Episode 18 (Primeval) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. Nominator's rationale was, "This article about a future TV broadcast contains absolutely no verifiable information". SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webaroo

[edit]

Disambiguation page. One of the two entries has just been speedied, the other one currently has a prod tag. Delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and the body

[edit]
Buddhism and the body (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, redirection to a better article declined, so unfortunately AfD is all that's left.

This is one of a group of extremely poor articles written as part of the same "school project" apparently under the guidance of Vote Cthulhu (talk). Three of them are currently at AfD and this one probably should be as well - it's original research, POV, content-forkish and a general mess. As with the others the idea of the article is fine but the execution is unacceptably poor and there's nothing here that can be salvaged. Most of the topics in the article are already either directly covered at Noble Eightfold Path or can be easily accessed from there.

Fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV

See also for information Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and science, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taoism and death, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and civil rights. andy (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see any indication of either POV or OR in this article. I note that andy is the one editor responsible for having suggested all of the articles he uses as examples here for deletion, and so this is no indication of consensus. He appears to be on some crusade against articles associated with my name. The redirect that andy employed here was completely senseless as the material in this article is presented in a way completely unrelated to the Noble Eightfold Path. This article and others certainly require further editing, but there is no reason for deletion.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... we keep them, it seems! Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity in Haiti. If you can figure out what's going on there let me know. andy (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think redirect would be the term which Eldereft is seeking. Aleta Sing 18:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is, but I do not at present have any useful ideas for a logical redirect target. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhism? Aleta Sing 02:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This could be a very resourceful article i don't see any pov added in my opinion,I don't see anything wrong with keeping this at all.Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has much promise and should be left to experts in the topic to merge into our coverage of this major religion. As an example of what can be done, please see Women in Buddhism which I saved at AFD after a less-promising start but which is now a substantial article. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using attitudes towards 'the body' as an interpretive frame is very popular in religious studies these days, but this article doesn't really do much in that direction. The sexuality section might be useful, but it's already being moved elsewhere. The introduction doesn't introduce the topic or frame the article; the Eightfold Path section is summary of material that belongs elsewhere. Addiction section is mostly generalizations. Some of the suicide material might could be merged into the Religious views of suicide article. Not focused enough on the topic, not enough material on topic to be worth keeping around. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A poorly thought out synthesis, but section "The Insignificance of a body" could be edited into a defense of this topic very easily. Sexuality, Addiction and Buddhism need to be removed: they are tangential at best and are covered elsewhere. The Suicide section should remain only as it deals with the topic, "handling the body after death" might be a helpful addition. What do folks editing Buddhism make of this? Would these editors welcome a fork such as this or not? In short: edit the hell out it and keep the topic. T L Miles (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say: topic is worthwhile, nothing from the current article can be salvaged. In the section you propose saving, the introduction should be completely excised as not related to the topic; it's primarily general intro material, unreferenced, and makes too many generalizations. The Eightfold Path section is... primarily a summary of the Eightfold Path, with little to no specific application to the body as an interpretive frame. There is scholarship that has been done on the place of the body in Buddhism, but the current article doesn't reflect that at all. The only thing that I would say should stay is the title; it's a valid topic, but it needs to be re-framed, and written to reflect sources that focus on this topic, rather than trying to apply principles from general introductions to Buddhism to this topic. It would have to be edited to the point that there was nothing left. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm convinced by the arguments of User:Mitsube and Clay Collier. It could be immediately recreated if someone stepped up, but I'm convinced (in part also by examining the Buddhism article) that there's nothing in the current article salvagable. I also don't see any indication that this is either a needed fork from Buddhism or that there's anyone who wants to create a decent, non "personal essay" article on this topic. I hope someone does, eventually. T L Miles (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's the whole thing about "can be edited". You see, I don't know how to edit such a mess into a real article and no-one else seems to have any ideas. Meanwhile it sits there as a blot on the landscape, squatting heavily on wikipedia policies. Squelch. andy (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Pure Land view of the body, Peter? Mitsube (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with PL. Modern/Western Buddhism is a distinct form of Buddhism from all the various traditional forms. See User:Peter jackson#Buddhism in the modern world for citations. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clay Collier. The only other alternative is to blank the article. I will add that all the matters about sexuality, suicide, addiction etc would not properly belong in an article titled "Buddhism and the body". In Buddhism, taking a stance on these issues is not a matter of primary concern and the positions do not come from a doctrinal stance on "the body" in the abstract, in relation to some absolutist conception of ethics. The role of the body in Buddhist thought is more technical and is related to other Buddhist concepts such as the aggregates of clinging and clinging itself. As such an article on "Buddhism and the body" if written correctly would look like the latter articles and anatta. On a more pragmatic level, allowing this teacher to have children write original research articles on quite difficult topics sets a bad precedent for the future of wikipedia and for wikipedians who are concerned with maintaining a certain level of adherence to wikipedia policies. Mitsube (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must try reading the article which User:Mitsube recommends instead: skandha. No doubt it is very profound but it quite fails our guidelines by being quite incomprehensible owing, in part, to its extensive use of non-English words. Please compare the two articles and then tell us which is the more accessible, as required by our policy: A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.. One may start this comparison by consideration of the articles titles: Buddhism and the body vs Skandha. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two articles are related but distinct. Buddhism and the Body should cover largely contemporary research in academia which focuses on issues of embodiment, gender, sexuality, and physicality in general. Skandha is a very precise technical term that comes out of the scriptural and commentarial tradition. While the introduction should be improved to give a clearer idea of the concept, realistically, there is no way to explain skandha without reference to some prior knowledge of Buddhism, just as you can't explain what a quark is without reference to some other concepts in physics. Neither article can really substitute for the other; Buddhism and the Body should answer broad questions about the attitudes of various Buddhist traditions and scriptures topics like gender, mortification of the body, body image, sickness, etc., while skandha is really just about a very technical term from Buddhist metaphysics. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remember, deletion should be done as a last result. The article's topic is valid, and any problems with the content can be edited over time. Discuss what you think is wrong with it on the discussion page for the article, and add some tags if you deem it necessary. It has enough content in it of encyclopedia valid to remain. Dream Focus 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is misconceived. It should be deleted and then you can start it from scratch. Mitsube (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It seems to be recognised above that the topic(s) covered in this article are entirely valid. The only other argument being made is one regarding whether the article can be edited and cleaned up or not. Obviously, this is a problem across Wikipedia, but it is one that is being remedied daily as editors do their work. There is a lot of useful information in this particular article, which has also been noted in comments above. Deleting all of this simply makes no sense when the topic is good and much of the content is good. That some of it is messy indicates only that it should be tagged as such in order to draw those editors who are interested and capable of editing it do so.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reluctantly as the name should probably be changed, but an article describing the physical aspects of Buddhism, rather than spiritual ones, is more than welcome and I'm sure numerous studies have been taken about this. ThemFromSpace 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the comments by Mitsube earlier in this debate, arguing that the article is conceptually flawed. andy (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read his comments and while this may not be a part of Buddhist theology, the effects of Buddhism on the body are important in a more scientific way. Buddhism goes in, what comes out? ThemFromSpace 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not what the article is about. andy (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sexuality, addiction, suicide... all these are the basis of many scientific studies. I never said the article doesn't need fleshing out and expansion, but the topic that its aiming at has clearly been commented on by the scientific community as well as regular sources. ThemFromSpace 17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, really, you have it back to front. This article is mainly about the spiritual dimension, if it's about anything at all (which I doubt). It's definitely not about the scientific aspects of "the effects of Buddhism on the body" and there's no way it could be unless you rewrote it so heavily it became something other than what it is (whatever it is!). Mind-body interactions are a whole 'nother subject. andy (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not profess to present a theological argument. Mitsube's comments are valuable, but are not the end-all here (for one thing, the editors of this article have not been children as far as I know, and further, Wikipedia is meant to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so what does it matter if they were?). What the Buddha taught and what Buddhists believe are not necessarily the same thing, as indicated already by Peter jackson. So, Buddhist attitudes towards issues like suicide and drug addiction have aspects that are scientific, theological, social, cultural, etc. This article, as rightly noted by Them, points to just such socio-cultural elements of the effect of Buddhist belief upon such areas of human concern as suicide and drug-addiction. There is no logical flaw to the way this material is presented, though obviously the article needs cleaning up. I further note that other editors above have also acknowledged the value of at least some of what is presently written here. That recognition alone should be enough to indicate that neither blanking nor deletion of the article is called for.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break to introduce a suggestion

This is my attempt at creating a compromise solution to the problems with this article. I took the current article, cut out anything I felt was original synthesis or unrelated to the topic, and re-organized the article. I've added very little myself, except for a couple of introductory sentences and a new introduction to frame the topic. I have references for things I've added in the form of a couple of EOB and other articles, but will add them later. My question is: what do we think about using this as a replacement for the current article?
Great job! Mitsube (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some significant improvements over the original article, though obviously still needs some fixing up. I am happy to see the topic being maintained and that the sources and some content are being kept in this version. This is precisely the kind of work that can be done to improve articles rather than simply deleting them out of hand. Thanks.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chernobyl disaster. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge of Death (Prypiat)

[edit]
Bridge of Death (Prypiat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see why this place/event is noteable in itself - there's no hint that this has coverage in external sources. Like this, it appears to be no more than an anecdote.

I suggest to simply add a sentence to the Chernobyl disaster article instead - if it can meet WP:V; at the moment the only reference is a private web site. Averell (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 09:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Obvious (Monty Python character)

[edit]
Ron Obvious (Monty Python character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think that this article is notable, or that the sketch is any more remarkable than the hundreds of others. PROD removed without rationale. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nomination says "I don't think" but this is contrary to the proper deliberation required by our deletion policy. By following this policy, I was soon able to find a reliable source for this character which demonstrates notability. More is required but this is just normal improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much as I hate to say "as per"...as per Colonel Warden. While not perfect, it can certainly be improved to a reasonable status, maybe even GA if enough effort is put in. Cheers. I'mperator 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the moment, rename to Ron Obvious (Monty Python). Precedent is that Monty Python stuff is named for the sketch, not the character; cf Category:Monty Python sketches. To cut down on repetition I'd ask the nominator if he wouldn't mind withdrawing his individual Monty Python nominations and, if he feels there might be a consensus for deletion, discuss what to do with the whole category in a single, coherent AfD/XfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no sources which demonstrate notability, nor any content which gives us any reason that this character/sketch is important enough for an article. Looking at our fiction guidelines, delete is the appropriate choice. JRP (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outright deletion isn't really an option. There's established consensus that plausible search terms should not be redlinks, and Monty Python sketches are certainly plausible search terms; so redirect is the most extreme outcome consistent with convention; see also WP:ATD.—I've got a lot more to say about this, because I think the notability policy is yet again being fundamentally misapplied here. But that's properly the subject of a userspace essay rather than a reply here; I'll work on that essay tonight. For the moment, suffice it to say, merge to List of Monty Python Sketches.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*merge to episodes he apears in.  rdunnPLIB  10:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Lesson

[edit]
Italian Lesson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think that this article is notable, or that the sketch is any more remarkable than the hundreds of others. PROD removed without rationale. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added another citation to the article to demonstrate notability. The idea that Monty Python sketches are not notable is laughable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it meets many of the criteria of notability for films and such. It definitely meets criteria 1 ("the film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") and most of criteria 2 (Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release./ The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release). In addition, while not stated on the article, this sketch has been awarded, thus meeting criteria 3 as well. :D Cheers. I'mperator 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocational Guidance Counsellor

[edit]
Vocational Guidance Counsellor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This sketch seems to be no more notable than any other of the hundreds of Python episodes, it's completely unsupported by reliable non-self-published sources, and does nothing to assert its notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nomination seems to have done nothing to satisfy WP:BEFORE. In a minute or so, I was able to find a good source for this material which I have cited and there are several more. Monty Python material is usually highly notable - the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch was front page news the other day - and this is no exception. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fear I'm going to be repeating myself today. This article does not assert the notability of the subject, does not have external reliable and unbiased sources, and doesn't pass our fiction guidelines for inclusion. Delete or merge in with an episode guide. To Warden's comments above, I cannot consider a Monty Python-specific source as establishing notability for a Monty Python-related sketch. Can you find a source in the New York Times, Time Magazine, or a similar source which mentions this article. JRP (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your principle is not sound. Many topics such as mathematics are only covered in sources which relate to that topic. Your requirement that topics be mentioned in general newspapers too is absurd and would leave us only with articles about current affairs and celebrities. Also, it is difficult to retrieve newspaper coverage from the 1960s online - the UK library I use only goes back to the 1990s. This is why I searched for books and the book I found in this case seems an excellent source. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significant difference between a peer reviewed technical magazine that specializes in a topic such as mathematics and a limited compendium of trivia about a work of fiction. I will be happy to agree with you if you found an article in a general book on television history which discusses the sketch, but a book specifically on Monty Python shouldn't be considered in this case. JRP (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, trivia. In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not! But, for example, there is rather intense guides written for many cultural icons and often more than one. I have half a dozen guidebooks to every aspect of writing and filming Doctor Who for example, and I've seen books on Harry Potter, Tolkien, Piers Anthony's Xanth, M*A*S*H, Seinfeld, and others. Although those works get published and have tremendous information, everything covered in them can't be notable. You can't argue that we need articles about every Hobbit (mentioned) in the shire because they're all written about in the various Tolkien reference works, and similarly just because Monty Python elements are written about in Monty Python references doesn't make them notable. The fact that these references are written is an excellent indication of the importance of the subject matter and will help us to produce absolutely fabulous Featured Articles someday, but we do have limits. And this one happens to be mine. JRP (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilimanjaro Expedition

[edit]
Kilimanjaro Expedition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This sketch seems to be no more notable than any other of the hundreds of Python episodes, it's completely unsupported by reliable non-self-published sources, and does nothing to assert its notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article was merely imperfect and it was not difficult to add a good source for this notable topic. The nomination is over-hasty, contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it meets many of the criteria of notability for films and such. It definitely meets criteria 1 ("the film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") and most of criteria 2 (Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release./ The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release). In addition, while not stated on the article, this sketch has been awarded, thus meeting criteria 3 as well. :D Cheers. I'mperator 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep, but not for the reasons above. This one stays because it was used in a Python film in addition to the series, making it not eligible to be merged into an episode guide. JRP (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to And Now for Something Completely Different. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons ImperatorExercitus mentioned. Seems to meet the requirements. Dream Focus 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are plenty of reliable sources covering this, including The Cambridge companion to the modern German novel (ISBN 9780521483926 p. 74) discussing how the sketch was influenced by The Castle, a paper in the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute (doi:10.1016/j.orbis.2005.10.002) and Entertainment Weekly listing it as one of the top 20 Python sketches [7]. The fact that this sketch has entered into public consciousness is demonstrated by the fact that a Daily Telegraph report of a football match over 30 years later assumes that the reader will be familiar with it [8]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 06:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live from the Grill-O-Mat

[edit]
Live from the Grill-O-Mat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This episode seems to be no more notable than any other of the tens of Python episodes, it's completely unsupported by reliable non-self-published sources, and does nothing to assert its notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All Monty Python episodes are notable as I have demonstrated by adding sources to this article. This seems to be a cookie-cutter nomination made without proper consideration of the topic in accordance with our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as it meets many of the criteria of notability for films and such. It definitely meets criteria 1 ("the film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") and most of criteria 2 (Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release./ The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release). In addition, while not stated on the article, this sketch has been awarded, thus meeting criteria 3 as well. :D Cheers. I'mperator 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep because it's an episode article and not a sketch article, but I question the notability and importance of episode guide articles for this series on Wikipedia. JRP (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I am in agreement with JRP. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edib Kürkçü

[edit]
Edib Kürkçü (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prod reason "Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition" still stands. Rettetast (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 02:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic License

[edit]
Poetic License (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete and redirect to Artistic licence (per Sjakkalle suggestion). This is an interesting and fun license however it doesn't appear to be notable in itself [9] and no notable softwares seem to be using it either: [10]. So basically I think it fails WP:N. Laurent (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (talk page comments disagreed, but provided no useful information) Tedickey (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get Love!! Field no Ōji Sama

[edit]
Get Love!! Field no Ōji Sama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable manga series; fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, no extensive reviews, no awards, nothing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I have yet to do my own evaluation of the subject yet, being written by a notable author is not among the criteria for inclusion (WP:NOTE, WP:BK). Only the works of a historically significant writers, such as Osamu Tezuka, are given such blanket assertions. --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess that's true, but they at least deserve a merge to an author article. Otherwise the guidelines stop us from covering these authors comprehensively. To write about an author properly, you can't avoid discussing their work. The only point of contention is really whether it should have a separate article or not. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per guidelines, in an author biography, works are primarily just briefly listed with release date and title, not plot summary. This is already included in her article, so it would be a redirec over a merge. I'd also really question just how "notable" Ikeyamada is. No significant works thus far, none ever licensed, only two with articles both of which are now up for deletion, and no significant coverage on her at all (none at all really). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well she obviously doesn't have the notability of Osamu Tezuka but, on Anime Network, one of her manga appeared twice in the top 10 and once at the 13th position in the Japanese Comic Ranking: 1 2 3. Additionally, the article is not just about one manga but a series of 7 volumes that have been released over two years so it can potentially be expanded and improved. Laurent (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sale ranks has already been rejected by WP:BK a few weeks ago. But also, that is a different manga series. The notability of one manga series does not transfer to all other manga series by the same author. But I didn't cite Osamu Tezuka just for his notability. I cited him because if his historical influences on both anime and manga. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seem to received very little buzz at all. Definitely no reliable sources. In fact, the number of GHits are not impressive at all.[11][12] --Farix (Talk) 02:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 4,760 hits for "フィールドの王子さま" seems impressive enough to me. This is clearly a notable manga, from a notable creator, who has published several at least seven volumes in books and DVD comic collections formats. Dream Focus 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can someone who speaks Japanese look at the Japanese wikipedia? I think there is a translation error using Google. [13] It says that the 5th book "Premium Edition (Digital Comic Memorial topped 100 million copies with a DVD)". I don't think it would've sold a 100 million copies. Dream Focus 14:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed this too, but whatever it says there's no source for it so we can't use it. I've also searched for "million" and "get love" in Japanese on Google but couldn't find anything. Somebody with some knowledge of Japanese could probably help here. Laurent (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking any position here but i can answer the number issue. The number is in tens thousand unit (10K) google can translate but can't do unit conversion. --KrebMarkt 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Babelfish translates it as: "The sale broke 1,500,000 section at 7th volume sale point in time" --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 09:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW as a hoax. Technically, hoaxes can not be speedied. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karli, North Dakota

[edit]
Karli, North Dakota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This has absolutely no links on a search engine. Maniamin (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 06:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational potential

[edit]
Gravitational potential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article as currently written if you check the references is a collection of self-cited WP:OR data and tables. I'd suggest restoring the redirect to Potential_energy#Gravitational_potential_energy. Q T C 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I must be looking at the wrong article. The only thing I see cited that's not from the author is two very very generic formulas, and one constant. The rest is articles and software from the author. Q T C 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DavidWTalmage(talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Comment Ron Hatch (NAVCOM) comments received via email: Very interesting. You might make your point even stronger by considering the point between the earth and moon or else the point between the earth and the sun where the gravitational force is balanced--like balancing a pencil on its point. By their definition the potential energy is canceled since there is no net restoring force in either direction--but there certainly is still the sum of the two gravitational potentials.[reply]
DavidWTalmage(talk) 23:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Comment (primary author) Remove WP:OR, Improve/Add References, Improve synthysis[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of the Game (EP)

[edit]
Rules of the Game (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on demo with no indication of notability and no sources. Prod removed for pointy reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Beach Line

[edit]
North Beach Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Incomprehensible "translation" from id Wikipedia, fails WP:NOTE and WP:SOURCE Davidelit (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC) *Delete Not only does this article not have reliable secondary sources, it is completely incomprehensible, bordering on patent nonsense. Unless someone has the patience to rewrite this article, with proper sources, I believe it cannot be called encyclopedic material and thus should be deleted. Antivenin 06:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd tend to agree - I can't find anything on the subject anywhere, and I can't understand the article sufficiently to actually know what else I could look under - and I'm a native English speaker. Orderinchaos 06:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've rewritten this into a readable whole: it appears to be an Indonesian federal highway, and national highways are considered notable. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the tags before the afd were for the standard problem of Indonesian editors with no english using invented english creating translations from WP id - we at WP Indonesia (english) categorically discourage transfer of material from WP id on the basis that there either never any or inadequate WP:RS to justify the translation across - for all my post grad research on obscure aspects of Javanese history I cannot for the like of me ever remember 'North Beach Line' i think I can remember something like the 'great post road' perhaps - it might be notable but what is the point of saving it if the name used does not extract WP:RS from somewhere? SatuSuro 14:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Good to be proved wrong after the good work of nyttend - well done! I still have my reservations about cross project translation and the finding of mainly Indonesian language reasonable sources SatuSuro 02:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements by Nyttend. There are many sources under its Indonesian language name. [14] An article of a highway of this scale that's over 1,300 km in length and connects major cities would be easily kept if it were American or European. There's no reason to start systemic bias against southeast Asian highways with this one.--Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the improved version, as a federal highway of this length is certainly notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well done Nyttend, but the comments about this being a "federal highway" miss the point, and are either WP:POV or WP:OR. There is no federal highway system in Indonesia - hence no mention of it at Transport in Indonesia. And there are still no sources. Davidelit (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hurt (band). –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Spatola

[edit]
Paul Spatola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability outside band Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect If I could quote from WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Since Paul Spatola already has a mention at Hurt (band), and has not shown individual notability, I'd recommend the article be redirected. Antivenin 06:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, the quote you use to support your argument says redirect, yet you vote delete!!!!! Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 08:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I meant redirect. I deserve to be whacked. =( Antivenin 13:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 06:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saasonomics

[edit]
Saasonomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Matt Shlosberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only mention of this topic is on saasonomics.com and a self-published book bearing it's name. Mblumber (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, as you've effectively nominated both your vote counts - mine obviously does too, but I've pinged Wperdue just in case. OTOH they were the one who suggested we look at the author's article so this is perhaps unnecessary - just don't want to have any problems with due process (which is why I didn't link it in in the first place). -- samj inout 06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My vote, too, applies for both articles. Matt Shlosberg fails WP:BIO, but for future AfDs, could we avoid putting two articles under one AfD? Antivenin 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Smedley (developer)

[edit]
John Smedley (developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is a developerPresident at Sony Online Entertainment. Of the article's two sources, one is the subject's biography at SOE's website, which is not third-party, and the other one is not online. While this is not a problem per se, from its title it seems to be and article about SOE and not about the subject itself. Therefore, I contend that the article does not meet WP:N in that it has not received non-trivial coverage in multiple WP:RS. In addition, the article has been a target for disgruntled Star Wars Galaxies players. Firestorm Talk 05:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that? There is a clear distinction between having sourceable professional work, and being notable for that work. And I don't understand how being president of a division of Sony is notable. If it was, he would have numerous references in Google, for example, which he does not. Antivenin 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, he actually does have very numerous references in Google. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet operations by Russian secret police

[edit]
Internet operations by Russian secret police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a WP:POVFORK of web brigades...pure and simple. There is a system in Russia called SORM, which is used by police, but this article as it stands is a specifically created fork in order to further promote the web brigade conspiracy theory. There is also original research going on here, such as the so-called "Persecution of cyber-political activists", the details in that section have absolutely nothing to do with any conspiracy theory of Russian super-secret internet police. "Disruption of political blogs" and "Public discussions" is a word for word copy of edits in web brigades -- either as that article stands now, or in the past (and which this article creator is resurrecting). Note, I am not for a second saying that there are not internet operations by police; one of the most visible aspects of this type of operation is fighting cybercrime and child pornography/paedophilia. But this article is nothing of the sort, and WP is not a venue to engage in advocacy and pushing of original research and synthesis. Russavia Dialogue 04:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also note the degree of this synthesis/original research. Such as the lead which state "which is currently a part of the FSB but has been formerly a part of 16th KGB department". The KGB was disbanded with the dissolution of the USSR, nearly 20 years ago, and it was only at this stage the internet even began to be known. So WP:REDFLAG also comes into play here, in that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Not OPED type sources. --Russavia Dialogue 04:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This matter has been already debated here. Main point: "Internet operations" is a much wider and encyclopedic subject. Operations include promotion of disinformation over the internet, hacker attacks, suppression of "cyber-dissidents", and so on. Web brigades is a more narrow subject. This is Russian version of Chinese 50 Cent Party, the teams of government-paid political bloggers (Russians were chronologically first).Biophys (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wouldn't Internet activism in Russia be a more succinct title, as then it can also clearly include internet activism by all parts of society in Russia. Particularly as internet operations by Russian government still has the same POV problems, it's still all conspiracy theory. But by moving to the "activism" title, the conspiracy theories can be included with UNDUE in mind, but more relevant non-REDFLAG information on actual internet activism can be included, which will at least give the reader an understanding of the conspiracy theories and why they may exist in the first place. --Russavia Dialogue 14:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Activism" denotes a spontaneity and grass-roots (not from the top) organization which is not at work here. Such a title also blurs government-run and other activities by removing the presence of authorities from the title. PetersV       TALK 15:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Peters. Activism is something that the government as an apparatus is pretty much incapable of doing. The only grey area is when the computer geeks in Kremlin IRCed about the August coup -- in a sense, they were government officials, but of course, the special circumstances made sure they were acting spontaneously. In another sense, it might make more sense to liken those geeks to whistleblowers. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and keep per Alex Bakharev. I do not believe this is a POV fork, as this article discusses activities of the Russian authorities, the other, Web brigades, discusses activities done by groups and individuals outside the authorities, whether or not organized by or otherwise aided. For example, I myself have run into such editors on WP, pushing the Russian position, who were subsequently revealed to be paid propaganda pushers. PetersV       TALK 14:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Too little evidence. I think former KGB/FSB officers who had moved to live in other country can't be trusted. Why? Because they are betrayors. I do not mean anything personal with these words. But given the Oath of Servicement all of them had given, they can't simply change the side without betrayal. And I think such people who'd crossed the red line in their mind can't be trusted, because such things as "lie" or "truth" just mean nothing to them after the act of betrayal. ellol (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But even if you trust such people, there's just too little evidence. The article is based on information from two or three people, and noone of them brought any evidence, so it can be treated as rumours, nothing more serious. The rest of the article is the criticism.
There's actually no point for discussion. There are only MAY BE and I THINK and nothing like I CAN PROVE. ellol (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Regarding Russavia's "red flag": Please also note the degree of this synthesis/original research. Such as the lead which state "which is currently a part of the FSB but has been formerly a part of 16th KGB department". The KGB was disbanded with the dissolution of the USSR, nearly 20 years ago, and it was only at this stage the internet even began to be known. There is absolutely no original research here. It's completely clear from the sentence that what has moved is signals intelligence, which far predates the Internet. If Russavia had only included the words right before where they started their quote, "some... are coordinated by Russian signals intelligence, which..." there would be no basis for advocating red flags, extraordinary claims, etc., etc. PetersV       TALK 14:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have no issues with deleting articles which do not belong. I regret being blunt, but let's not build cases based on removing the subject from a quoted article passage, replacing it with something else, and then contending the passage is making extraordinary claims. Furthermore, as a result of this sort of apparent editorial gamesmanship, I have no expectation that I could ever have a calm reasoned discussion with Russavia regarding this topic, which is unfortunate, as that's the first step in building articles based on editorial consensus. PetersV       TALK 14:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. By the way, I have been on the Internet, privately, since 1991. At that time, and prior, the Internet, better known as ARPANET, was a network of universities, governmental agencies, and leading technology firms (one of at which I was employed). Our own company's manufactured equipment and software was running illegally, smuggled into, the Soviet Union (not by our company, of course!). Trust me, the KGB was on the "Internet" 20 years ago. Russavia would do well to acquaint themselves with the facts before leaping to contentions which, aside from being fabricated where the article is concerned, are additionally rather uninformed at best. PetersV       TALK 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.P.S. For the techno-dweebs, somewhere I still have the overheads for the presentation on VAX/VMS which I created and delivered to a roomful of the captains of Soviet industry at our corporate New York showcase. That's 25 years ago, so I do know of these things first-hand. PetersV       TALK 14:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much noise out of nothing. Yes, there's FAPSI, signals intelligence, which develops national cryptography standards -- it's the most important of its goals -- but there's no evidence it's involved in anything different like spreading disinfornation, stuff.

The most controversial of its activities is the SORM. But of course, Russia-bashers do not care to investigate technical details. It's easy from their viewpoint: Bloody Putin, KGB Rule, Totalitarian Regime, Go Get A Pulitzer. ellol (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Lenticel (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Flea 88.2

[edit]
The Flea 88.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN low power FM radio station - literally running off a 12V car battery out of someone's house. Only coverage is in The New Zealand Herald, a local Auckland low-circulation newspaper. Zero Gnews hits. Article created by someone with a coi with the station.

Good point. Consider this AFD nomination withdrawn. Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This station is broadcasted out of the Ferry building in Devonport. The station has expanded quite a bit since 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomWikiNerd (talk • contribs) 06:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Wasilla, Alaska. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Wasilla, Alaska

[edit]
List of mayors of Wasilla, Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no reason to have lists of the mayors of every small town in America. Clearly, this list is part of a coatrack based around Sarah Palin, no effort has been made to be thorough, no sources are cited, and Vern E. Rupright's article was just deleted as non-notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep, Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin close)Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne M. Keller

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dianne M. Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to have an article mostly because she came into office as mayor right after Sarah Palin. Most coverage is related to her (tenuous) relationship to Palin and a local scandal that did not receive widespread attention. One of several pages created using Sarah Palin as a coatrack. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Withdrawn Clearly, we have a WP:SNOW situation here, and honestly I had not noticed when I nominated this that it had already been here once, and had closed as a clear keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearshoring

[edit]
Nearshoring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems thinly disguised spam.  Chzz  ►  02:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, spam LetsdrinkTea 02:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this is spam, it's not very good spam, since it doesn't sell a product and doesn't do a very good job of advertising who can sell that product. The term is notable--here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor, "So-called 'nearshoring' could generate a reverse globalization that brings manufacturing back to Mexico." Much more in a Google News search, see here. There is no doubt in my mind that the term is notable. The article needs some help, to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and change the content As I mentioned before Nearshoring is not a common term, "Nearshore Outsourcing" much more recognizable and adequate for today's needs, as it derivative term from "Offshore Outsourcing". That's why this article doesn't take high positions in SEPR. Also, this article seems like focused only on Latin America while Nearshore Outsourcing is more wide-spread in Europe. So I propose to add sub-section about Nearshore Outsourcing to Offshore Outsourcing page, and after that to rename this page and correct the content. If we leave this page we need to sort information: Nearshoring in Europe and Nearshoring in Latin America.(Sergeyl1984 (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • It's not clear that nearshoring is a less common name than nearshore outsourcing. It is clear, however, as this Asia Times article and this Radio Praha report evidence, that this is a subject that has been documented in depth in multiple independent reliable published works. (They are only two of the many things available. Note that they both use both names for the subject, seemingly arbitrarily.) The PNC is satisfied. Whatever the "spam" concerns, they are addressed by taking such sources in hand and editing, to make the article better. Drmies is quietly demonstrating exactly how this is done, and xe is using no more than the ordinary editing tool that xe, Chzz the nominator here, and every other editor, all possess. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And leave the title as-is, per news citations above. Article has been heavily improved and pruned since nomination. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Emerson College. MBisanz talk 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EVVY Awards

[edit]
The EVVY Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school awards program. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Of the 4 sources, the first is to the official site (primary source), the 2nd appears to be a reprint of a press release (primary source), the 3rd points to IMDB trivia (not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). Only the fourth which is from the student newspaper is a reasonable reference here, but even that doesn't show notablility. These references do not equal significant coverage in 3rd party source and do not meet WP:N as a result.--RadioFan2 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.I. Waggoner

[edit]
C.I. Waggoner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined A7 (schools explicitly excluded). However, this appears to be a non-notable elementary school with a bad roof. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry24

[edit]
Ancestry24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined G11 nominee. References have nothing to do with the article, making it slip beneath the standards for WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Schur

[edit]
Marvin Schur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete This is a news story, not an encyclopedia item. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS LetsdrinkTea 02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This issue has already been decided by administrator MBisanz. This is WWGB's third attempt to do away with this article. Once after redirecting it to an article of his own, second after trying to delete the same article that he created after redirecting Marvin Schur (which was decided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Marvin Schur by administrator MBisanz) and now after having repeatedly losing the debates is trying to delete the original article that he has failed to have removed so many times before using the same misleading information and failed arguments that he has tried in the past. If you feel that the article is presented or written in a way that displeases you then help edit and clean it up. Do some of your own research and constructively add to it. Don't just go around passing judgement and opinion on others efforts without fully understanding the story or the Wikipedia policies that many throw around so loosely in a vain attempt to support their arguments without reading them first or researching the precedent that supports this articles continued existence. --Simpotico (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I can appreciate both Simpotico's and MBisanz' points of view. MBisanz was after all the deciding arbitrator in this debate to delete WWGB's article and from the looks of it he concurred with my assessment and recommendation to delete WWGB's article/topic entitled "Death of Marvin Schur" and redirect it back to the original article, Marvin Schur. And I believe that I even went so far as to agree with WWGB in principle that the article they created, Death of Marvin Schur lacked "notability/not news" within the narrow context that they represented it. But WWGB has only presented half the story and in a manner that may have taken the administrators words slightly out of context.
MBisanz' comments to your question were in the first part, "The article Death of Marvin Schur was clearly determined not to be notable..." I couldn't have agreed more. Like I said, the context in which WWGB presented the material it was clearly not notable and inappropriate for Wikipedia. But in the second part, the part WWGB left out, MBisanz stated, "the discussion did not express any view on Marvin Schur, although it looks to me like a weak article." I agree, it needs work, but he did not say that it was "not notable" as per the argument WWGB makes in this debate and the standard to which it should rise to in order to justify deletion. Which is likely why, in good faith, WWGB moved the article in the first place in order to help justify their position. Nor is this a case of nobody working on it WP:NOEFFORT. But as for the sake of debate here again is my argument in chief, again:
Looie496, your statement fails to raise any standard or articulable fact to justify deletion other than to express your lay opinion with your vote. See, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC
LetsdrinkTea, likewise, your statement and direction to a not news policy fails to raise any standard or articulate fact to justify deletion other than to express your lay opinion with your vote. See, WP:JUSTAPOLICY.
WWGB, I disagree with your "not notable" argument and redirect you back to the policy you cited with your vote, WP:NOTE.
Under Wikipedia's, General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Marvin Schur has clearly met this burden as well as the criteria for notability including; significant reliable coverage from sources independent of the subject to include but not limited to the AP, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the BBC for a period of time in excess of three months including a March 18th story on CNN.com during the debate over the deletion of the article "Death of Marvin Schur."
Under Wikipedia's, Notability requires objective evidence WP:NOBJ, Marvin Schur has again clearly met the burden of notability via, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources" such as to constitute "objective evidence" per repeated and continued coverage in the; AP, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the BBC.
I believe that any application of Wikipedia's WP:NOT#NEWS policy is incorrect for this argument. I quote, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event..." Marvin Schur's death and the events surround it were hardly routine news nor was it tabloid journalism. And yes, the event was notable and Marvin Schur was the unfortunate central figure of the story. Articles have not been created about other individuals central to the story such as the mayor, city manager or power employees involved because their notoriety are all incidental to that of Marvin Schur. Additionally, the story of Marvin Schur's death extended past his demise from hypothermia and into continuing coverage of criminal investigations, political action and legislation including Michigan State House Bill 4384, public discourse and acts of charity just to name a few.
Precedent does exist on Wikipedia for individuals either solely or partially notable for their method of death; such as, convicted murderer John Albert Taylor who was executed by the state of Utah by firing squad (yes, and I know that there is a Wikipedia policy that provides guidance for criminals).
Precedent does exist for an individual solely famous for one even such as Jessica McClure who ,nearly 23 years ago now, as an 18 month old child fell into a Texas well and was rescued after much media attention.
I could go on. But Wikipedia's policy on deletion, of articles about "People notable only for one event", Wikipedia:Notability (people), as cited in other user's arguments is clear and goes further as to illustrate the circumstances surrounding the appropriate deletion of a biography of a person of only minor notoriety such as the camera operator of the Rodney King beating, George Holliday. Marvin Schur's death and the obvious role he played in the story, is hardly minor or insignificant to the story and the fact that the events surrounding his death led to multiple, multiple news accounts cannot be ignored. Also, the fact that the article on Marvin Schur has received so much attention and debate within the Wikipedia community and among users on its relevance within the Wikipedia project because of the very nature of the media attention and notoriety only further supports its continued existence; not to mention that Marvin Schur's Wikipedia entry received mention in national media coverage itself.
There is significant enough information to support an entry on Marvin Schur within the Wikipedia project. I direct your attention to the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators policy under Deciding whether to delete, number 3: "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it" (MBisanz has been dragged into this one whether he likes it or not) and number 4: "When in doubt, don't delete."
But hey, stranger things have happened, you have to agree. We're still having this debate and articles on topics that have had books and "real" journal articles written about them have gone on to be deleted, go figure. I realize that this project is a playground to some but the honest efforts here being made by all parties in this debate are only helping to strengthen the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. --A. Poinçot (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see where, potentially, Death of Marvin Schur might come back as an article by A.Poincot if the incident leads to reforms to prevent power companies from disconnecting the juice without checking on the customer; and in that event, I don't think a nomination by WWGB or anyone else would go very far. There is no relevance to the outcome of the prior debate on the other article, and I don't see any evidence that MBisanz actually made a "decision" at all, and here we are again. While the article about the incident was plausible, the article about Mr. Schur himself would not be. We owe a debt of gratitude to all of our vets, particularly to the veterans of World War II. Being a medic during the war, winning a Purple Heart, and serving his country, Marvin Schur was a good man. However, we have no policy of inherent notability for all veterans of WW2 or any other war. I can only suggest that the incident be mentioned elsewhere, such as an article about death from hypothermia. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject is non-notable as discussed here and per WP:ONEEVENT. Very few biographical details are known about this person and only his death received coverage. The article about his death has already been deleted, if the event was not notable, certainly the biography is not notable as well. Additionally, the biography article was only recreated to evade the imminent deletion of the Death of Marvin Schur article. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bay City, Michigan#Notable Events in City History. This may very well be a legitimate search term, and the fundementals of the story are already covered there. I don't see this supporting a separate page per WP:ONEEVENT (as already cited) and WP:NOTNEWS. 71.192.250.255 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Planetouched. MBisanz talk 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daemonfey

[edit]
Daemonfey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about a fictional race contains nothing but in-universe content and plot summary with no analysis of how it has made an impact in the real world. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. This race hasn't made an appearance on the news or in scholarly journals. A standard google search brings up no reliable sources that are needed for verification. As this article currently has no reliable sources it is likely to be original research. The only proper procedure would be to delete it for failing WP:V, and WP:N, as well as WP:NOT. ThemFromSpace 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there's some big list o' D&D monsters to merge it to. Unlikely any non-primary sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant content into Planetouched (an article which, admittedly, has similar issues at this time, but one which will be much easier to improve should anyone get around to it), and redirect the article. The D&D WikiProject has been trying to get articles like this properly merged into better locations, since they really aren't notable on their own, and this is just one we haven't done yet. Thanks to the nominator for doing some research regarding the topic before nominating it; there really aren't enough people that do that. :( Anyway, I don't think that it's original research, since it should all be verifiable using primary sources, but because of that sourcing issue a merge would probably be the most appropriate course of action, in my opinion. And besides, for a patently WP:ATA reason, what's the point in deleting content if it can be preserved with a merge, or even a redirect? –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to look for a suitable page to redirect to but there weren't any encyclopedic pages that I found where that could fit. As you mentioned the Planetouched article isn't the greatest either. ThemFromSpace 02:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that the Planetouched article should be much easier to establish the notability of and make it encyclopedic, as it is a much more encompassing term in the D&D universe and so should have more references, once someone really does some work on it. On its own, this article's notability cannot be established, but if its most relevant points were merged it can probably strengthen Planetouched so that it is easier to work on in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge the first two paragraphs and then redirenct per Drilnoth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Drilnoth. BOZ (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Drilnoth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above or to some other relevant target. Preserves info., and while this seems quite arcane to me we have detailed articles on all sorts of fictional creatures from a variety of media. JJL (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut heavily and merge. I agree this is a remotely plausible search term, so it probably shouldn't be a redlink. Consider doing this speedily per WP:SNOW because I think we may already have a consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How many books, games, or other sources, have these things been featured in? Are these books bestsellers? Dream Focus 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not many novels, to many knowledge, and no bestsellers. Just a handful of Dungeons & Dragons supplements. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A small number of game books, and apparently at least one novel. I'd personally be fine with Keeping, but I figure this is one we would have gotten around to merging sooner or later anyway! BOZ (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough information to warrant its own article. Merging it would mean most of of the information would be lost, it getting no more than a paragraph, and perhaps no more than a single sentence. Dream Focus 19:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz talk 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poochandi

[edit]
Poochandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This confused entry is not sure whether it wants to be a wiktionary entry or an entry for a Tamil song that seems to have gained some sort of cult status on YouTube. Either way, there are no references to notability. My speedy deletion request was denied hence I am opening it up for debate as to whether it's a keeper or not. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not if they are notable in context with English language. --Docku: What's up? 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in notability guidelines that says subjects have to be notable "in context with English language". The word "English" in "English Wikipedia" simply means that it is written in English, not that it's only about the English-speaking world. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this belongs in wiktionary. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictionary entry; inappropriate here. To keep this article it is not sufficient to find sources that verify its meaning (which seems possible). Firstly, we need to be clear if we are talking about just the word poochandi as a synonymn of boogeyman, or the concept of pochandi in Tamil culture. If the former, then the article belongs on Tamil wikipedia, with an interwiki link added to the boogeyman page. If the latter, we need sources that discuss the origins of the concept, the etymology of the term, and its linguistic and cultural significance. Such sources seem to be unavailable in English, and we perhaps need the help of Tamil speaking wikipedians to extend the search; I will reconsider my vote if such sources are found. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tourism in Karnataka. MBisanz talk 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in North Karnataka

[edit]
Tourism in North Karnataka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am listing this article per WP:NOTTRAVEL. All the notable tourist destinations are covered in their own articles and there is no additional encyclopedic information here at all. There are large, unencyclopedic sections such as "Top 10 Tourist Attractions of North Karnataka", and the whole thing is extremely WP:POV and peacocky. The same subject matter could possibly be covered in an encyclopedic way: it could talk about economic significance, tourist demographics, and objectively present a summary of the main destinations (supported by relevant information such as visitor numbers). However, this just looks like promotional material from a tourist board and there is almost nothing here that could be salvaged.- Papa November (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Papa,
Thanks for your comments on the article "Tourism in North Karnataka". I am ready to take your suggestions; I will try to modify the article to meet the standard of wikipedia.
As you already know North Karnataka is known for the historical places associated with Chalukyas, Rastrakutas, Kadambas, Vijayanagara Empire and others.
This article is necessary to provide the information related to Tourism in North Karnataka. I hope you will not suggest this article after modification.


Thanks and Regards
Manjunath Doddamani Manjunath doddamani Topics (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


last line correction :
I hope you will not suggest this article for deletion after modification. Manjunath doddamani Topics (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for your reply, Manjunath. At a bare minimum, all peacock terms and point-of view statements would need to be removed. The unencyclopedic sections like "Tourism Circuits in North Karnataka" and bare lists of places to visit would also have to be replaced by encyclopedic information such as the effects of tourism upon the economy and the environment. In short, it may be easier to delete it and rewrite it completely as I think it takes the wrong approach to the subject. I'll try to strip out some of the most problematic parts and we can see how it looks. Papa November (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggestion: How about stripping out all the WP:POV, WP:PEACOCK terms and tagging all the unreferenced material, converting it to list format and moving it to List of tourist attractions in North Karnataka? Papa November (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete each piece of this to the articles of the districts of North Kanaranata such as Uttar Kannada, Dharwar.... No need to have them in a separate article such as this. You are duplication.. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Tourism in Karnataka, which is probably what this is spun off of. There is no state called "North Karnataka". The Indian state of Karnataka is slightly smaller in area than the American state of Nebraska. Although eastern Nebraska has more exciting nightlife than western Nebraska, I would not support articles for either of those two sections of a defined area. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tourism in Karnataka and clean up to remove the excessive peacockery. No clear justification for cretaing this subpage + it anyways needs to be rewritten to comply with wikipedia's sourcing and NPOV policies. Even the official organizations for tourism promotion ([19], [20]) deal with the whole state rather than this region alone; and encyclopedic content like number of domestic/international tourists per year is also compiled statewide AFAIK. Abecedare (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Alberto Cristofani della Magione

[edit]
Marcello Alberto Cristofani della Magione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is without reliable, secondary sources about the topic. He doesn't seem to have any WP:Notability. --Yopie 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tier 1 Group

[edit]
Tier 1 Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This has been a problematic orphaned article for quite some time, and currently looks like a sales brochure. However even if you look at the last good version there are only three references, and two of them are very light on content indeed. Searching through the Internet it becomes apparent that this article is unlikely to meet the notability guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and so I propose that it is deleted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored a superior version of the article including sources like this one [21] that clearly indicate notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SkillStorm

[edit]
SkillStorm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This organization does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for "Notability" as stated on [[22]]. Speedy deletion has been proposed before on this article, but was declined because an individual indicated that this page met "Notability" criteria because it had a published article in Entrepreneur naming the company featured on this page as a fast growing corporation. Notability criteria, however, requires that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." This article falls into the latter. Furthermore, the criteria requires that, for the source being cited: "The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." The vast majority of the sources cited refer to both primary and secondary sources that have an extremely narrow and highly industry-specific audience. Finally, when considering whether or not "demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" exist substantially, the only possibility would be on the national economy, as this company is described as a national company. However, a gross revenue of $20 million is arguably insignificant to the national economy and, since the company is privately held, information on revenues generated in taxes, etc. is not publically verifiable. RJSampson (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Funny thing is, now that the spammy sections are gone, the article entry is mostly a list of other articles on the web, not very encyclopedic. Perhaps if somebody could generate notable text from those other articles, then can this article stay. --Emana (Talk) 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Emana about it being a list of other articles on the web, but I think with a little rewriting the page is a good contribution. I've rewritten the section where it listed the awards and deleted some of the items listed in the news section. Adiaza2181 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- With some small work done to make it read more encyclopedic, I believe this company is noteworthy enough to keep this article/contribution. Smarie180 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The references provided don't really provide evidence of notability which isbeing the subject of a non-trivial third party source. A couple are blurbs that support some minor fact in the article, but don't clearly demonstrate notability. Spammy but that can be helped if references and sources were there. At this point, they aren't. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete but I've added tags for the problems mentioned in this discussion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teen sitcom

[edit]
Teen sitcom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Filled with original research, POV and large sections that aren't actually about sitcoms. If all these were cut, you'd have no article left to improve. Therefore I recommend deletion Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly disagree! The article actually does have good content if you really read through it rather than just skimping through it. It mentions the history of the teen sitcoms, some of the first ones, and a description on what a teen sitcom is. And besides, there is an article on teen dramas, why not there be an article on teen sitcoms. I say keep the article --Mr. Comedian (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research means someone put in personal opinions or drew illogical conclusions. Without reliable sources, it's impossible to tell which, if any, of the material is good. I'm not arguing that teen sitcoms shouldn't have an article. I'm arguing this isn't the article we should have because it violates policies. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. It's about a notable subject and keeping this version doesn't hurt anybody. That being said, it should be cited, cleaned up, and expanded. ThemFromSpace 01:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Google Books and Google News searches indicate that this is a term that's in actual use. Now, Comedian's comments on the content of the article are either wishful thinking or something else: the article IS entirely OR, without a single reference, and all of its needs to be cut or at least cropped. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He Tian Hao

[edit]
He Tian Hao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a hoax. It was created by a single-use account two years ago (literally the only edit), and has had only superficial changes since then. No references are cited. On the comment page, somebody else has suggested it may be false, as the instrument involved did not exist in its current form at that point. I can find no non-Wikipedia references on the web to this person. Rigadoun (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't help much, but it's worth noting that we have an article about his "wife" too, Wen Peixin. No sources there either, though. The two articles were written three months apart, by different accounts. And by the way, erhu says that the instrument has existed for 1000 years, although used mainly for accompaniment before the 20th century. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails the smell test, & combined with the other concerns Rigadoun raises would lead me to submit it for deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darling (ESTK song)

[edit]
Darling (ESTK song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant--QuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of evidence that the songs have any strong claim to notability on their own, merge all four songs to their parent albums. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Springs Kids Playhouse

[edit]
Yellow Springs Kids Playhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removing from db-spam queue; not overly promotional, and I see a number of Google hits in newspapers, but notability is in question. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved to Joe Brooks (singer). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Brooks

[edit]
Joe Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish notability. The main claim to fame seems to be popularity on Myspace. There are local radio/press promotional interviews but that seems to be all. His own YouTube page describes him as "Just another bedroom musician" which seems to be a fair summary. Previous attempts at establishing articles - Joe Brooks (Singer) and Joe Brooks (Pop singer) have been deleted. Lame Name (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response

According to the notability guidelines listed under music, an artist is notable if they meet ANY of the criteria listed. Joe Brooks meets two criteria points:

1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
As linked in the references section, Joe Brooks has been on BBC radio, interviewed for the Birmingham Mail, AND Magazine, and other sources.
4) Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
Some of the articles referenced point to his sold out UK Tour from February/March 2009.

Those points alone meet the guidelines set by wikipedia for notability.

As for the "bedroom musician claim," there is no reference to it in the main article. Therefore any reference to it by the user who marked this article for deletion is irrelevant.

The user that market this for deletion says that his only claim to fame is myspace popularity. However, myspace has over 5 million bands/artists [1]. So the fact that Joe Brooks is listed as often listed as the number one artist means that he is very notable. Myspace might not be traditional media yet, but as digital downloads and streams surpass physical sales, Myspace has become more and more important [2]. Evilkarrot (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Catching Up with Myspace Music, CNet, March 11, 2009
  2. ^ CD Sales Drop, Digital Downloads on the Rise, ZDNet, March 17, 2009
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The references above are just to illustrate that Myspace and digital downloads are a force in the industry. This is in response the question about whether myspace is relevant posed by the original user who marked this article for deletion. 75.56.210.213 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The Myspace connection is irrelevant without substantial coverage elsewhere as was the case with, for example, Lily Allen. Lame Name (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GGV Capital

[edit]
GGV Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sources are either press releases, passing mentions in reliable sources or coverage in a marketing newsletter not meeting WP:RS, especially when it is the main source of "significant coverage". I could find no news coverage that could be used to establish notability. Flowanda | Talk 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Firms of this type can have quite a lot of private money under their management but still be too poorly covered in RS sources to support an article. As with US mutual funds, UK investment trusts and OEICS, etc, these things are not individually notable (except when hit by scandal). --DanielRigal (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This passes the notability threshold as set forth in WP:CORP. The criteria there is the "company ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". The article currently has listed several third party sources that provide articles about the firm. I don't think a claim can be made that any of these constitute trivial coverage. The commentary about whether the AltAssets news service meets the criteria for relaiability, per WP:RS, I think it pretty clearly is (1) reliable - the news is accurate, comprehensive on this sector and presented in a factual non-biased fashion, (2) third-party - there is no affiliation with the firms it covers or any claim that it covers this firm more because of some relationship and (3) published source - this is a widely available source that has been used and accepted in many other places in wikipedia. If we establish this is a WP:RS then I think it is difficult to make the case that the article is not properly covered.
Additionally, this firm is a major investor in the venture capital space, among the larger firms with over $1 billion of capital under management and a portfolio of investments in notable companies. Unlike a mutual fund which invests passively in public companies, venture capital and prviate equity firms typically own and control the notable companies in their portfolio. A mutual fund is simply a pool of capital, and compares more closely with the individual funds that this firm manages. I do not propose coverage of individual funds. This firm is an asset manager, more akin to a mutual fund company (The Vanguard Group, Fidelity Investments, etc. Additionally, the article is in a very clean / unpromotional form and should be kept for other users to contribute.
I also find the idea that these firms are only notable when hit by scandal to be an unfortunate commentary. I think the coverage of a limited number of individual, notable private equity and venture capital firms is beneficial to wikipedia and this article meets requirements for notability.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: What I meant is that investment vehicles tend to live quiet, blameless, non-notable, lives unless something (usually something bad) happens to them to get them coverage. Most of them will never be involved in a scandal. A very few of them will achieve notability in other ways. I agree that we should have coverage of the few companies that are notable, whatever they are notable for. I am unconvinced that this company is one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question But then what are your criteria for inclusion? I think if you took a smaller venture firm it would not be covered like GGV in reliable industry related publications like AltAssets and would have a very hard time establishing notability at all. I have in my two years on Wikipedia been involved with the deltion of many of non-notable private equity related articles and have tried to adhere consistently to the guidelines for notability. Over the last few months, I have tagged several non-notable articles and later suggested proposed deletion. Additionally I have proactively created articles on firms that I believe are notable and valuable additions because of historical signifiicance or size and prominence. This article was not one I had proactively included in my list of articles to be added but since it was added by another editor, I think the question is (1) does the subject meet notability requirements set forth in WP:CORP and does the article conform with other guidelines. based on my assessment, I think the article does meet these criteria and should be kept. I would be more than happy to discuss other less notable articles that are more apporopriate candidates for deletion.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment size is relevant. There are two figures given, & only one of them is real. They firm has $1 billion of assets under management. It has invested them in companies worth $35 billion. The relevant figure of course is the $1 billion. If I buy a share of Microsoft, I do not thereby become a billionaire. Now, if there is an assertion that this gives it a controlling influence on the companies, that, if documented, would bee meaningful, but a 3% interest is not usually controlling. DGG (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only $1 billion is relevant. The $33 or $35 billion number is somewhat less informative in that it refers to the value at exit so it includes both a return on investment and their respective % ownership of the companies. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Size is relevant how? And sourced where? What am I missing in WP:N that gives this article as it stands any notability other than a comment from a top admin? Yes, no, I really, truly, don't care, but please declare one way or the other. Flowanda | Talk 08:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Size is sourced in the references on the page. I agree - this discussion has drawn relatively limited discussion other than the nominating editor and a major contributor. I think there is very little concensus to delete. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is always a little unsatisfactory when an AfD ends like that. Please let me put a some delsorts on it and give it another day or so. We might yet get somewhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references listed don't meet WP:RS, and I couldn't find any others that did.-- that's why I nominated it for deletion. This isn't just an argument between editors; either the article stands, or it doesn't. If there are other sources that can be found to establish the notability defined in Wikipedia policy/guidelines, then I'll be happy to help look for them, but so should the other editors and admins who've contributed to this discussion. Flowanda | Talk 07:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given any reason why the references in the article do not meet WP:RS. There are already 8 references listed on the page, these are third party, unrelated, broadly circulated publications. The firm is notable and notability is established. But we have been over this territory already01:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Them Hear Foundation

[edit]
Let Them Hear Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a nonnotable organization that fails WP:ORG as there is not any "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" to be found. Name-drops are common on google but none of the sources analyze the foundation itself in any detail. The foundation hasn't made the news at all nor has it been the subject of major academic studies. Themfromspace (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Avatar: The Last Airbender#Promotion and merchandising. No consensus to delete. Closing as "redirect" with no prejudice against reversion. Consider this a "keep" close with an editorial decision to redirect (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender Trading Card Game

[edit]
Avatar: The Last Airbender Trading Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Un-notable article with no citations to establish notability; written in a completely in-universe manner, describing only the game rules but nothing else. haha169 (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The NYT one looks fairly trivial, but I agree, Scrye would certainly have something, probably a lot of something. [25] indicates that Scrye had an article in issue 93 on the topic. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. The links provided describe the way the game is played, and the rules, but nothing about its history, creation, and development. The article does list a few sentences on the subject, but so does the main article. As the nominator, am I allowed to withdraw and redirect? --haha169 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know exactly how you know what the Scrye article has in it. I strongly suspect various articles from that will cover much of that information. And you can certainly withdraw, but I don't think a redirect is in order at this point. Hobit (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Husain

[edit]
Abbas Husain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is not notable. Article contains a lot of namedropping, but in the end we have a teacher and director who runs workshops (for which the only reference I can find is two brief mentions in a source whose reliability and notability I doubt, [26] and [27]) and a Development Center, for which I could find one reference, also of questionable authority and notability. Much of the article is concerned with an article the subject wrote in 1992, which has never been published academically, as far as I can ascertain (judge for yourself with the Google results), an interview in an online source, and an alleged textbook (without bibliographical information--a search on the OUP site gives no such results for "Abbas" or for "Husain," nor does the LoC. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Torres

[edit]
Jesse Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kole Black

[edit]
Kole Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't look anywhere near notable enough as an author, but I cannot tell if there's enough notability is a subgenre to allow it here. The only interview I can find is here which links to Lulu, a self-publisher (although the books are available on Amazon). And yes, the MySpace page claims he's 100 from Tokyo, Japan but that's the page linked from the interview so I don't think it's a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spaulden Publishing appears to be Kole Black's own publishing label, as no other books seem to be published under this label. Self-published books are not notable unless they are widely distributed or otherwise grab the attention of third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Alder

[edit]
Allen Alder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biographical article about non-notable individual. The article creator, who appears to be a SPA intent on building notability for members of the Alder family, has provided no references in support of any of the claims made in the article. Russell A. Alder, a similar article, was previously deleted because a prod citing lack of notability was not contested. This and another article, R. Ashley Alder, have been tagged as needing references since December 2007 but none have been supplied. I added prods to all three articles. The page creator deleted all three prods but provided no references to any article. Without proof of notability these articles should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - After re-reading the above it appears that I may have implied that the three articles I added prods to were R. Ashley Alder, Allen Alder and Russell A. Alder. In fact, the third article is Russell A Alder, which was created two months after Russell A. Alder was deleted. Russell A Alder has also been nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID\TBWA

[edit]
ID\TBWA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is little more than a "business card" for this Brazilian advertisement agency, who created a Wikipedia page in order to copy another agency who refers to Wikipedia instead of having a regular website. Their entry at the Portuguese Wikipedia was already deleted. -- LodeRunner (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPOOFEM.com

[edit]
SPOOFEM.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksons Fencing

[edit]
Jacksons Fencing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rescued from speedy, but unconvinced it's notable. Has a claim re the Trident system, but is the source reliable? Dweller (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newshouse

[edit]
Newshouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell A Alder

[edit]
Russell A Alder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biographical article about non-notable individual. This article was originally created at Russell A. Alder and was deleted there because a prod citing lack of notability was not contested. The article creator, who appears to be a SPA intent on building notability for members of the Alder family, has provided no references in support of any of the claims made in the article. Other articles created by him/her (specifically Allen Alder and R. Ashley Alder) have been tagged as needing references since December 2007 but none have been supplied. I added prods to all three articles. The page creator deleted all three prods but provided no references to any article. Without proof of notability these articles should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 17 March 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, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emulation Galaxy

[edit]
Emulation Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's obviously used to self-promote a website. While I believe that this might have some significance in Serbia, this doesn't strike me as worthy of a non-Serbian article. There are too many spell errors, there is absolutely no citation, and the article is far from neutral. Yes, there are two (Serbian) TV Show mentions, but I'll remind you of Wikipedia's Notability standards: [Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.] Evil Digim0n (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find much about this website on the internet. Even outside of Serbia, I'm not sure this website would meet WP:N. It may be well known within the emulation community in Serbia but probably not outside of it. Laurent (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please remember that the comment "While I believe that this might have some significance in Serbia, this doesn't strike me as worthy of a non-Serbian article." does not have a place in Wikipedia. We only write in the English language, but other than that, our language puts no restrictions on the content we cover. If it's notable in Serbia and verifiable in their language we should cover it; whether it is actually notable is up for debate, but the georgraphical issue mentioned is something to be avoided in deletion discussions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable (except for unverifiable TV mentions on its birthday). -- samj inout 16:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Express

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company with poor references that do not ascertain why this is notable, other than the owner started the business and had a feud with Greyhoud. Fails WP:COMPANY. Previous nomination was no consensus, article has not grown. Let's see if there is consensus now. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not be a strong article, but it was improved after the first nomination. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.