Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 9: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:49, 9 April 2009 editJohnCD (talk \| contribs)130,355 edits Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/City of Paradise ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:51, 9 April 2009 edit undoLambmeat (talk \| contribs)121 edits transcluding my afdNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">		div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
	{\| width = "100%"		{\| width = "100%"
	\|-		\|-
Line 5:		Line 5:
	! width="50%" align="right" \| ] <font color="gray">></font>		! width="50%" align="right" \| ] <font color="gray">></font>
	\|}		\|}
			</div><div style="visibility:hidden">
	</div>
	<div align = "center">''']'''</div>		<div align = "center">''']'''</div>
	{{Cent}}		{{Cent}}

Revision as of 21:51, 9 April 2009

div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">

< 8 April	10 April >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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. Mgm| 09:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

City of Paradise

Article about a proposed film, which says only that it is "in development", but on this website we read "what we are trying to do is raise finance for the 'Core Package' " and "First Phase is to raise $100,000k of the $10,000,000 budget through Investors." Fails WP:NFF which requires that a film has been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Google News search reveals nothing close to a movie of this name, and neither does normal Google search. The production company doesn't even have its own article. Tim meh ! 23:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete I'm not even convinced this exists, Google doesn't turn up anything except a facebook Japan entry looking for donations. No production company website, no film website, not even an IMDB entry. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It's a movie proposal, an idea, an inchoate project. Article fails by virtue of WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:46, 16 April 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 result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pawistik Lodge

AfDs for this article:

It is not notable, just a fishing cabin lodge, and other reasons are made on it's own page: advertisement, orphan Airmain (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. No particular claim to notability - not in itself or even accrued notability from other sources. Reads like an advertisement to me. It would appear from the discussion page that there is a distinct conflict of interest involved, lending weight to my distinct feeling of spam being not very far away. The article has been around since June 2008, but still only is linked to a Misplaced Pages article about an airport that only has one sentence in it - and doesn't mention the lodge at all. Probably there as a way of telling people how to get there. The other reference linked is the company website. Possibly this is because there are no references to be found other than directories and adverts - which merely establish probable existence. Do I need to say more? Peridon (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete in the absence of some clear demonstration of notability. DGG (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete There doesn't seem to have been any improvement or demonstration of notability since the last deletion nomination. Tim meh ! 23:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was Speedy G6, non-controversial cleanup deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Charismatic Christianity/version 2

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charismatic Christianity/version 2

There already is a page Charismatic Christianity which provides much more information and substance than does this minimal page. Creator of the page is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —John Carter (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png
Delete Odd article, I don't see why Misplaced Pages needs two versions of Charismatic Christianity. Delete as redundant. 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - We ought to wait until the article creator comes in. This looks distinctly like a rewrite-in-progress, so maybe it ought to be userfied. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Voting delete per Anthony Appleyard. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete as it is redundant and contains nothing but links to other pages. As for Grandmartins comment, if the creator wishes to shed insight onto why this article was created it would be welcomed, but as it stands now the page should be deleted, if the creator desires for it to be userfied I have no objections. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Two versions of an article? Is there a competition for best version or something? If so, this version's definitely not winning. Tim meh ! 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I agree this is an odd duck of an article; looks like it was recently moved to this spot. Seems like a good candidate for G6 or G7 once things get straightened out. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unless there are significant changes to the article's content, I don't see a strong reason in defending V2.0 -- especially when the original article is more than adequate in covering the subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not a duplicate version, or an "odd duck". This is, quite simply, Anthony Appleyard fulfilling a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. This is the page that used to be at the title that was the target of the move. The "version 2" is Anthony Appleyard's, and you'll notice that this is simply xyr standard practice for requested moves. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

*Close this nomination per Uncle G's explanation, and let Anthony Appleyard complete the merge process. Rklear (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Anthony Appleyard. Rklear (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

At 10:45, 2 February 2009 when I obeyed a request to move Charismatic (Christians) to Charismatic Christianity, Charismatic Christianity already had content, which I moved to another name (Charismatic Christianity/version 2), as, if pages X and Y have parallel edit histories, and I delete Y and then move page X to Y, the result is liable to accidents if the new Y (which was X) must be temporarily deleted for history-merging or history-splitting, as the new Y is sitting over a deleted parallel history. OK, delete Charismatic Christianity/version 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ultimately delete, but not at once This looks like a disambiguation page to me, at present. If it has merit as such, it should be renamed to Charismatic Christianity (disambiguation) and the present title deleted (rather than left as a redirect). Alternatively, it should be merged, probably by providing "main" or "see also" links from Charismatic Christianity. In either case the outcome will eventually be to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Page Charismatic Christianity contains all the matter (the links and the info in the leading line) that is in page Charismatic Christianity/version 2. There is no text-merging work that can be done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hot Hail Comics

Declining speedy per article talk page; taking to AfD and notifying WT:COMICS. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete largely for no citation. I guess some small amount of notability exists since they apparently published one (although only one) issue of Captain Canuck, but per WP:COMPANY an organization or business is only really notable if it has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independant secondary sources". A quick google search and I find the exact phrase "Hot Hail Comics" only appearing on website that sell comics, in association with the one Captain Canuck issue. This article needs to demonstrate that the company has been covered by the media, not just that it exists. -Markeer 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. No reliable sources talk about it or even mention it as far as I can tell. Tim meh ! 23:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete-it's crapYourname (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

that is not a reason for speedy deletion; at worst, the company is merely non-notable. Speedy delete only applies for the reasons given in WP:CSD . DGG (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:N and WP:V. (Emperor (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A Garagem da Vizinha

AfDs for this article:

It was proded earlier today, but I removed it as it has been nominated for AFD before (result was no consensus.) As it stands now the article doesn't establish notability through outside sources, and for the majority of its existence the article has contained copyvios of the songs lyrics (they are removed and then placed back in.) I do not feel that there is much from this article that can be merged with the artists article, and thus it should be deleted out right. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: the previous content had been merged after the last afd, so we're left with a non-notable stub. JamesBurns (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete It's a non-notable song stub. I see no assertion of notability. Also, there were no !votes to keep it in the last AFD nomination. Tim meh ! 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete It's absolutely non-notable as are many of articles regarding Portuguese Pimba musicians and their records/songs (you should see Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer)!!!) The Ogre (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete.. –Juliancolton | 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren Tanke

Article about a museum technician most likely written by the subject of the article. Cites no sources that are 'about' this person. Although this person is certainly accomplished, I don't believe what's in the article establishes true notability. ike9898 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) ike9898 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete. Long list of publications, but a Google Scholar search showed no evidence of publications being significantly cited. Lots of unencyclopedic detail in article doesn't help. Some Google News results but not enough to be convincing for demonstrating notability. If the article's author would like to suggest a notability guideline that may be met, I would, however, be happy to reconsider.--Michig (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I'm swayed a little by the arguments below but this Google Scholar search looks a little marginal for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC) His work being cited in Misplaced Pages articles is not a convincing argument for notability, though, in my view.--Michig (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't use quotes around his name, as he's cited in many articles as Tanke, D., D.H. Tanke, D. Tanke, etc. If you click the link I provided below, you can clearly see that every link on the first nine pages (the first 90 Google Scholar articles, and some after that) are all paleontological works citing Darren Tanke. You'll get an artificially low Google Scholar result if you do searches within quotes on any paleontologist: "Robert Bakker", for example, returns only about 100 valid Google Scholar hits. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This article is linked from Allosaurus, Dinosaur, Tyrannosaurus, Tyrannosauridae, Daspletosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, and Majungasaurus, nearly all of which are Featured Articles. And in each case, Mr. Tanke's works are cited as sources on these rather important fossil genera. In other words, numerous FAs already point to Tanke's accomplishments in the field of paleontology. It would be a little strange to delete Tanke's article based on lack of notability while noting his scientific opinions in multiple (eight) Featured Articles! Subject has appeared in a televised documentary (someone found him worthy of notice), as noted by IMDB ; this is already stated in the article. Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics) clearly applies: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline, etc. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll also mention I found 4,260 ghits on Google Scholar for Darren Tanke, meaning his work is cited in many academic papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not using the right search term - can you provide some examples from Google Scholar where, for example, Darren Tanke is the primary author and a paper has more than, say, 20 cites? I can come up with 13 cites of my own work, and I certainly don't merit an article. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, and given that Misplaced Pages is not a valid reliable source, evidence of his work being substantially cited in other recognized academic works would be the most convincing argument for notability.--Michig (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, Michig: in your first message, you ask for "evidence of publications being significantly cited." I provided a link to Google Scholar. Immediately above, however, you ask for papers from Google Scholar where "Darren Tanke is the primary author and a paper has more than, say, 20 cites". You compare yourself to Mr. Tanke, but you've provided no evidence that you've appeared in documentaries where you were interviewed about your scientific opinions, so the analogy seems a little inapt. No offense is intended. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing myself to Mr. Tanke, merely pointing out that virtually anyone who has ever worked in a research role will result in Google Scholar hits. The measure of whether their work is notable is how widely it is cited by other academics. I would expect a notable academic to have published at least one piece of work that is cited by more than 20 others, as Robert Bakker does with ease even when enclosed in quote marks. The requirement for evidence of notability does not fall on me - my point above was solely about the notability of Tanke being demonstrated as an academic, which you would be well advised to address with regard to the appropriate guideline rather than questioning whether I have "appeared in documentaries".--Michig (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre. You asked for Google Scholar hits, and I provided a link to many. Your search didn't work because few Google Scholar citations are going to appear in the form "Darren Tanke"; do you normally conduct Google Scholar searches that way? You then changed tack and requested Google Scholar hits on a Tanke paper with more than 20 cites by other papers. You did compare yourself to Tanke by listing the number of citations you've got vs the number he would need to satisfy you, ignoring the fact that Mr. Tanke has already appeared in several documentaries as already noted in the article. I did not "question whether you've appeared in documentaries"; I said your analogy is inapt. And it is; since you haven't appeared in any documentaries, it would be hard to say that such comparison can be made. Simply tallying Google Scholar citations using an ineffective search term won't help us here. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Google Scholar search with quotes returns the same most-cited results as a search without quotes. You said to me "you've provided no evidence that you've appeared in documentaries" but now claim "I did not question whether you've appeared in documentaries" - your arguments are ridiculous, and a waste of both your time and mine. I must assume you having nothing to add to the article (which contains no evidence of notability - only 2 sources, one of which only lists his name and the other which doesn't mention him at all) or to this discussion, in order to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I find your arguments as ridiculous as you find mine, Michig, and I also find it ridiculous that you've changed your !vote to delete in a fit of pique. Clearly, your Google Scholar search methods are sub-par, and I question your methods of determining notability using Google Scholar. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling and come up with some better evidence of notability. The onus is on you to prove notability not others to disprove it.--Michig (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep clearly notable as an authority in his field. DGG (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG's comment. Although, the article is in major need of clean-up, IMO. --Spotty11222 (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Original nominator comment Let's say the result of this process is 'keep'. Are the any reliable sources 'about' this person? If not, then little of the article is supportable. I certainly would cut all sorts of stuff about his childhood love of dinosaurs and his maintenance of museum facebook pages. ike9898 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, trim material as needed; the article didn't have that stuff when I edited it in '07. But it makes no sense to me to delete an article on someone who has clearly had a major influence on current paleontological thinking. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when users zealously trim away everything that is not supported by a reference, even though that is allowable, so I certainly won't go overboard. BUT, if hypothetically someone were to do that, what would you be left with? You can't even really say that he's had a major impact on the field, because that would be a POV interpretation of his publication record. ike9898 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You can say:

Darren H. Tanke is a Canadian technician of the Dinosaur Research Program at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller, Alberta. Born in Calgary, Tanke became interested in natural history at an early age. In 1979, Tanke began working for Philip J. Currie in the paleontology department of the Provincial Museum of Alberta, originally as a volunteer. From 1979 until 2005 (when Dr. Currie left the Tyrrell to become a professor at the University of Alberta in Edmonton) Tanke worked as a lab and field technician.

Editor of Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: New Research Inspired by the Paleontology of Philip J. Currie, Tanke appeared in the 1998 documentary film Dinosaur Park, and the 1993 educational film Messages in Stone.

Tanke has authored several papers on dinosaurs; his recent work includes preparation of Pachyrhinosaurus fossils.

You can include some of the lab and field work stuff. You can mention his naming of the new Pachyrhinosaurus species (there are press releases, if an independent citation is needed). Then you can add:

Tanke has also authored papers on Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, Majungasaurus, Chasmosaurus, Stegoceras, Centrosaurus, Eoceratops, and various other hadrosaurids, ceratopsians, and tyrannosaurids. (This is not an exhaustive listing). Source each of these either to his own papers, or use the Paleobiology Database or DinoData.org This avoids a POV statement that he's had an impact on paleontology, while demonstrating his impact on current paleontological science. Include his bio here

You can mention his preparation of parts of The Dinosauria (2004), one of the most important works in modern paleontology (easily sourced). You can keep his list of publications, cite some of it, or trim as needed. Include a link to the Dinosaurs of the Deep site, and the Royal Tyrrell Museum.

I say you in a generalist term only, just responding to the hypothetical question you posed above. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

List of algal culture collections

AfDs for this article:

This article was nominated for deletion a few months ago as a pure external-link farm, but ended as no consensus. Several editors asserted that it could be salvaged by reformatting.

A few months later, no substantial edits have been made to the article apart from to add further external links. Misplaced Pages is still not a web directory or a list of external links. There is no salvageable encyclopedic content here, and I feel the original arguments made to delete it seem only more relevant. Lists are useful as a means of navigating and summarising Misplaced Pages articles, but it's really not the function of an encyclopedia to provide directories of all the web sites on a topic.~ mazca 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Notable in the first place. these are probably almost all of them worth an article, but die to the absence of people here in the subject they may be a long time in coming. In the meantime we have at least this. DGG (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, or in the alternative merge to Algaculture#Algal_Culture_Collections after pruning. I don't agree that these are all notable in and of themselves.--Aervanath (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete as an article serving as a directory that lacks any independant sources or encyclopedic material. I see this article as containing nothing but spam. Misplaced Pages is not a link farm! Them From Space 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per arguments at previous AFD. Nothing has changed since then. Per WP:DELETION we only delete articles if it is felt that we can't make a valid article on the topic, and there is no reason at all such an article cannot be produced on this one. JulesH (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete a classic violation of WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Russavia 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I believe this is one of thoes few instances where WP:IAR would tell us to use common sense. The links are directly relevant to the article and are equal to Citations proving that each place does house a collection. (Feel free to convert them to actual Citations, they do seem somewhat brutal in their current format.) Just because the Article is sparse on prose (at the moment) is not reason to delete a encyclopedic list that would not be found anywhere else. Exit2DOS2000 07:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If there was a significant article and those links were present in the "external links" section, I would remove them per WP:ELNO #13 # Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. As this would be the same as page-blanking, there is absolutely nothing worth saving in this article. The sources aren't third-party sources, so they don't assert notability, nor are they the preferred sourcing for verification. Them From Space 07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to start quoting... you missed the bold first sentence "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject"... also WP:EL (nutshell) "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". all satisfied. Exit2DOS2000 08:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, its not. The article is about a list of algae collections, not a specific algae collection. If there were an article about each of these collections, than the link would be relevant as the official link, but in a list collection like this there really isn't any one "official" link. The links aren't directly relevant to the article at all as they are about a different scope altogether. Them From Space 08:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not an Article about a list ... It IS a list. Each link is to an official page. That is my application of common sense. Exit2DOS2000 09:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Misplaced Pages is not a linkfarm. - Mgm| 09:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Useful, notable, subject of international conferences (), a number of the collections are described in peer-reviewed journals (, , , to list a few). Colchicum (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep I am in agreement with DGG and JulesH. Also, there is no time limit on how long it takes to spiff up an article. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I see where the WP:NOTLINK concerns are coming from, but I think that the basic existence of an article at this title is justified. It would be nice if someone who knows about such collections would format it more like List of herbaria, where the significance of the entries is established by the scope of the collections' holdings. Deor (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. This is a sourced, useful and properly annotated list.Biophys (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 15:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian Lawther

This is an article about a living musician who appears to fail WP:N, WP:MUSIC, and WP:BIO. His only full CD is self-published and is sold through his website. He has appeared in individual tracks of other CDs, but I can't find any professional criticism of his playing, or any in-depth discussion of him as a person, which makes him fail WP:N and WP:BIO. No suitable coverage can be found of him on google news (note that there's a football/soccer player that shares his name). The minimal coverage that he has recieved is trivial. Also note the possible conflict of interest with the article's creator: User:Bagpipediscs. Them From Space 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It fails the general notability guideline, and almost no reliable sources say anything about this guy. His recording isn't even sold on sites such as amazon.com, walmart.com, etc. Tim meh ! 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC and bearing a stagnant whiff of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Michael Schmitz

A blatant autobiography. The references are the subjects own site, and what appears to be examples of his work, not reliable sources. My own search for reliable sources did not return any better results. Fails notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: sounds to me like a classic case for Userfication. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MuffledThud (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dyanne Iandoli

This BLP is about a child actor only known for her performance in a made-for-tv movie. I can't find any discussion of her in a nontrivial manner through reliable, third-party sources. She isn't very newsworthy and notability can't be established through a regular google search. Them From Space 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - One incident. One insignificant mention a very long time ago. The last paragraph sounds crystal-ball-like. Non-notable. BusterD (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete she also appeared in an episode of Law and Order:SVU. But that's not enough to overcome the conspicuous lack of reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Egypt-Japan relations

This is yet another stub in a long line of stugs (all unsourced) being created about non-notable international "relationships." There are no sources that discuss the Egypt-Japan relationship in depth, and anything of note that happens between the two countries (i can find nothing but cordial exchanges at conferences and some bog-standard trade stuff) can be mentioned in articles about those counties, i.e. Foreign relations of Egypt and Foreign relations of Japan. I would also like some support from other editors for stopping the serial creation of unsourced stubs; the encyclopedia has enough unsourced articles as it is. Adding more with little hope of expansion is damaging. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of any relevance under WP:N. Content is merely dates and routine presidential visits between the two countries without any reflection of underlying relations work between governments and ministries. No indication of the significance of these two countries' relationship compared to any other random pair. "References" aren't even actually cited from the text. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - notable in the usual way. No argument has been presented for why this is a highly exceptional article that needs to be treated in a highly irregular way. . All the bits are here. Over $1 Billion/year in trade, high level political exchanges, cultural and technology exchange ... Wily D 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, $1 billion in trade is less than 1% of Egypt's GDP, and less than .01% of Japan's GDP. That's a pretty set of links to press releases and news briefs you've got there, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not as pretty as using arithmetic to argue that one billion dollars is pocket change. Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, percentages and arithmetic that show the comparitive worth of things are cool. I mean, someone who is poorly informed might think "$1 billion DOLLARS!" means something in international trade. But the cool thing about fancy dancy percentage calculations is they give us a sense of scale and notability -- and in this case help us find out that not only is Egypt an insignificant trading partner of Japan (not so surprising, given the size of the Japanese economy) but that even relative to Egypt's teeny, tiny economy (yes -- $130 billion may sound like a lot to you, but for GDP it's chickenfeed -- per capita Egypt wouldn't be in the top 100 nations) the trading relationship is microscopic. So if there is some reason to have a stand alone article on "Egypt-Japan relations" that reason is not to be found in their tiny trade relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And when I compare 13 people to the population of Binghamton, 0.0003 percent isn't that significant. Cool! Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, yes, but the Economy of Japan is not exactly scrapping the bottom of the notability barrel. "Less notable than the economy of Japan" is not exactly a convincing deletion rationale. Wily D 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete From this article, you find out that Japan recognized Egypt's independence (and so did every other country), the fact that they make trade with each other (not that notable of a fact, more trivial than anything). And various government officials making visits to the countries. In case someone doesn't know that: government officials make visits to other countries all the time. There is not something that is magically notable in this case. Tavix | Talk 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Of the sources cited by Wily, the most significant is :EGYPTIAN-JAPANESE TRADE EXCHANGE HITS $1B (5 June 2002 "Japans ambassador in Cairo Takaya Suto said the Japanese-Egyptian relations have witnessed large leaps especially in the trade exchange which currently hits $1 billion including Japanese exports worth $730 million and Egyptian exports $150 million")... a billion dollars! If stuff like that had been in the article to begin with, it wouldn't have been nominated. Relevant also are

JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF EGYPT'S ROLE

EGYPT ENHANCING ECONOMIC COOPERATION WITH JAPAN

Egyptian ministers comment on trade with Japan ahead of Koizumi visit ("Cairo, 19 May : Official and private-sector economic circles in Egypt welcomed an expected visit by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi slated for Saturday and Sunday , expecting a strong qualitative leap in bilateral cooperation in the political, economic, investment, technological, tourist and cultural domains."). Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

- Thank you thank you Mandsford! A strong qualitative leap -- ooh, my inner copywriter thrilled to read this! I clicked to read more. I was then only given a sentence or so, and asked to click to read more. That I did, and was offered the chance to Meet Japanese Ladies Beautiful Japanese Women Seeking Love & Marriage. Join Free Now! Damn, I can hardly wait. I can picture her now, my little Cio Cio san; our bilateral cooperation will have strong qualitative leaps. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Considerable possibility for expansion, as shown by Mandsford. One would expect that of two countries as important as these two. The indiscriminate manufacture of articles about really borderline topics is not a good way to improve Misplaced Pages. The indiscriminate nomination for deletion of all those so created without looking at individual notability is also not a good way to do things. DGG (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Seems like a notable relationship to me, I have seen numerous articles like this on the chopping block today. Two larger countries both notable for their extensive amount of trade who seem to have established relatio0nships makes a keep in my book. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Goodness vote keep. But please, it's painful to see someone refer to $1 billion dollar as "extensive" for a bilateral trade relationship. It's peanuts (there may or may not be good reasons for this notability -- but the bilateral trade is empirically non-notable at that level).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's peanuts, then do be a good chap and fax it to me fast. I need it to keep my Cio Cio san (see above) in kimonos and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep per WP:RS found by Wily D and Mandsford to document at least some notability. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC) See my new standards. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I'm with DGG here. A fuel exuding nation of 83 million people, a fuel guzzling nation of 127 million people, neither of them constrained by much of a democracy: I see an exciting relationship here. The face of it may be mostly a matter of professionally honed bovine byproduct but there's more going on and sources are sure to come up. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. The sources presented here appear to satisfy WP:N. Article creator notified of our conflict of interest guideline. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jet Set Zero

Reads like an advertisement; non-notable podcast without even a standard TLD. Also, was previously deleted and then recreated. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable podcast. JamesBurns (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep one really good source that's a heck of a source and saw wide distribution in papers. It is solely on the topic, goes into detail and easily enough to build an article on without using primary sources. , which is also reprinted here , and . There is a weaker one: (a RS that seems to meet WP:N's requirement) as well as the typical list of blogs and non-independent sources. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The nom was asked on the talk page to identify the "ad-like" issues with the article and didn't respond. I did respond and someone addressed the issue I raised quite nicely. Finally, I will note the article creater went to DrV to ask if he could recreate the article. Hobit (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep Source in article and those presented by Hobit are more than enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil–Vietnam relations

This is yet another stub in a long line of stugs (all unsourced) being created about non-notable international "relationships." There are no sources that discuss the Brazil-Vietnamese relationship in depth, and anything of note that happens between the two countries (i can find nothing but cordial exchanges at conferences and some bog-standard trade stuff) can be mentioned in articles about those counties, i.e. Foreign relations of Brazil and Foreign relations of Vietnam). I would also like some support from other editors for stopping the serial creation of unsources stubs; the encyclopedia has enough unsourced articles as it is. Adding more with little hope of expansion is damaging. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - notabile in the usual way. I see no argument for this being a highly exception article that needs a highly unusual treatment. and so forth. Highly notable and encyclopaedic, as we would expect. Wily D 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Scope of the article is broader than can be represented by a handful of news articles spanning a mere five years (barely a quarter of the time relations have been established, according to the article), some of which are no more than political backscratching at the UN or routine state visits and several of which cover the same event. Simply not notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep If there arethis many news articles for just 5 years, then certainly there will be enough material for an article. DGG (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Fucking edit conflict! Anyway, in trying to expand on WilyD's citations, most of the articles cited show cooperation on several levels between the two nations. To me, it does not matter whether the extent of the cooperation is smaller in comparison to someone else's cooperation (not that the President of Vietnam has visited the White House). The gist of the articles is that trade between Brazil and Vietnam has increased over the last several years, and that there have been multiple state visits between the presidents of Brazil and Vietnam in the last several years. The issue is whether this is notable enough for its own article. I believe that the fact that the two nations have been cooperating on many levels demonstrates that the relations between the two are notable; some will disagree, but we're all entitled to an opinion. Mandsford (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Of these, I think the most significant is "Vietnam, Brazil agree to boost multi-faceted ties", a 2008 article, shows that the combined trade rose from $43 million in 2002 to $323 million in 2007 and is projected to reach $1 billion in 2010. Other articles reflect meetings between leaders in 2004, 2006 and 2007. Ideally, an "X-nation/Y-nation" article should only be created if the two countries are actually conferring with each other. When it is established that there is something to write home about, then, ideally, an article serves its purpose if it can keep the reader accurately informed. Mandsford (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, A pickup in Xinhua, the Chinese government's official state news agency (propaganda), of an article in the Vietnam News, the english language outlet of the Vietnamese government's official press service (propaganda). Is this really the most significant of those?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to support the proposal for preventing the creation of unsourced stubs, or unsourced articles of any kind.Hilary T (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - The Xinhua article and others show that we have reliable third party sources available. Also I don't see how it is Propaganda, it is from a news outlet outside of Vietnam and whether or not it is state run has nothing to do with its facts. So per WP:RS I go keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the arguments for keeping this stub, Xinhua, an official press organ of the Chinese State (which is not known for accuracy and fact checking) is unreliable for almost everything on wikipedia. It has been called the "worlds biggest propaganda agency" (reporters without borders), its directors are appointed by the Communist Party of China's Propaganda Department and it is empowered to censor international news reports distributed in China. It is in a classic, anachronistic sense, a propaganda organ. As is the Vietnam News. They do not have any reputation for fact checking and accuracy; in fact, they have reputations for deception, censorship and fabrication. Whatever the course of this AFD, to hold up these propaganda organs as reliable sources is to fully misunderstand why some news outlets are trusted, and others are not. To marcusmax -- to write whether a newspaper is controlled by a government or not "has nothing to do with the facts" is an unfortunate misunderstanding of how to evaluate accuracy and reliability in reporting. Here's a pro-tip: State Press agencies are typically far less reliable than independent news outlets with their own editorial controls.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of other reliable sources than just the one from Xinhua as Willy D shows with his links. Those in a way can help verify relationships between the two countries. ~~Might I add that if you are quoting me on your userpage I will even sign for you.~~ -Marcusmax(speak) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, that was a bit uncivil of me. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep Seems to meet WP:N, though it would be good if the material in the above references was incorporated into the article (and not just as a list of links). Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The many news articles serve as reliable 3rd party sources which satisfy WP:N. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep External sources provided clearly cover WP:RS and WP:N. This one seems pretty clear cut. I know its frustrating with all the international relations stubs created, but look at which one you nominate next time- because this one isn't even close to being a delete. -M 05:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Characters of the Order of the Stick. Redirecting as the consensus is to merge and redirect Fritzpoll (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Roy Greenhilt

This article and all related articles consist entirely of plot summaries, with no indication of notability. The first 50 hits on a google search failed to turn up anything besides forum posts and links to various wikis, indicating a lack of notability. McJeff (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all character articles with the same issues as the initially nominated one:

McJeff (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- I' 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Merge to Order of the Stick The characters themselves ARE pretty notable. At worst, I would suggest slapping on a tag requesting for more information other than the plot. Cheers. I' 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, for those interested, I would suggest first adding a section on influence on common culture, whether it be mentions in magazines/book/etc or slogans adopted by many. Cheers. I' 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge All to Order of the Stick article (in extremely reduced form). The telling point for me is that all of the 'citations' are to individual pages/strips of the webcomic, so no specific notability has been established about these characters beyond their source. The Artful Dodger has a cultural identity beyond the book Oliver Twist. Roy Greenhilt, based on this article, has nothing of the kind. If, as ImperatorExercitus suggests, a cited section can be added justifying this character beyond TOtS, great. Until then, delete the unnecessary plot summary and (probably OR) analysis of personality traits, and merge what's left back to the main article. -Markeer 21:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I will need to think about this one. These articles are all terrible targets for cruft. I somehow got Vaarsuvius onto my watchlist, and pretty much all I ever do there is revert fanboy junk. But being a target for cruft (or spam, or vandalism, or anything else) is not in of itself a rationale for deletion, so I'll sleep on it and weigh the various stuff. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I've slept on it, and the answer is Merge together (as opposed to merging upwards into the main OOTS article). The OOTS article already has a long and, frankly, somewhat messy characters section, and merging all this content there would be a disaster; to shorten these enough to make a merge appropriate, we'd be essentially shortening them down to what's already there, which would be no different than deleting. On the other hand, merging into Characters of Order of the Stick or something like that would be workable. We could do it something like the Megatokyo characters articles (which are also atrocious, but whatevs). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into a much shorter single article. I don't believe that this information belongs in the main article, as that is about the correct length, so a seperate plot summary article makes sense. I am absolutely against deletion, that's a very heavy handed approach to articles that obviously have a tremendous amount of editor support (look at the logs) and have a tremendous amount of peer review. I will grant that every one of them is far too long, and could use some radical editing, but deletion - no. Timmccloud (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge all into either the main article or an article on the characters--in reduced form. Quite sufficient coverage for the subjects. Anyone wants to know more, they know where they can find the material. DGG (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge all to a list of characters Heck of a comic, but I don't think sourcing or actual notability requires that much coverage at this time. I'd rather keep than merge to the base article however. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect all to Characters of the Order of the Stick, where interested editors may merge relevant information from the page history. It would be too much to ask from the closing admin to trim the character articles to WP:DUE length and merge. – sgeureka 11:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect all to Characters of the Order of the Stick. I like the series, but[REDACTED] articles are not the place to painfully go over every detail of the plot. Once you remove that and trim the rest, you are left with 2-3 paragraphs top. (for doing the merge you can copy/paste the lead and "Personality, traits and abilities". The "The Order of the Stick Adventure Game" section should be merged to The_Order_of_the_Stick. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wildr

Not notable as per policy. No content edit since creation mid-2007, so stayed as stub. One album, no links. No references. Likely the article's focus is on the article creator himself. Dancraggs (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I' 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Could potentially be speedied, probably. Seegoon (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I don't find him on the external links, and a search doesn't suggest he meets WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb 02:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Diagnostics Laboratory

Article currently exists only as self-promotional WP:SPAM. I have found no independent reliable sources to allow the substantial rewrite needed. The only coverage on search are press releases and self-published information. Even with a rewrite, it doesn't appear this could pass WP:CORP. — CactusWriter | 19:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - spam. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tehya Rice

Non-notable student. All sources are limited in coverage and local. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I' 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - awful gushing unencyclopedic tone could be fixed, but there is no indication of notability - references are school listings, searches find nothing. A7 candidate. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was : Speedily deleted. It looks like a hoax, it sounds like a hoax, it feels like a hoax, it smells like a hoax, it tastes like a hoax. What is it? ... A hoax, perhaps? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Fascinating Tales of Lauren's Lunches

Likely hoax (or utterly non-notable at best). No Google hits for the book's name. (I wasn't able to find any mention of it at the linked website, either.) If there are plans at Warner Bros to pick up the book for a TV series, I suppose there'd be a mention of it somewhere - wouldn't it? Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Having seen a copy of the book, I would say it is perhaps unlikely that Warner Bros. is going to make a tv show, but it definitely exists. I think if you check any of the local used bookstores in Atlanta you'll find copies. Maybe people just don't want to read it twice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdawgatlanta (talk • contribs)
Yes, this is a real book. The author lives in Atlanta, and it is only being locally published (for now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.7.106 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take your word for it, but you have confirmed that a) Warner Bros. aren't going to make a TV series based on the book (and note that deliberate addition of untrue information to Misplaced Pages constitutes vandalism), and b) the book isn't notable in the slightliest. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  - I think there are likely a lot of books on here that aren't remarkable, I'm just excited about the attempt to amass all of human knowledge on one website!
    - Misplaced Pages is only a compendium of encyclopedic knowledge; it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It has its inclusion criteria, which your book doesn't meet. If it even exists, which you make me gradually less and less certain about. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this reference to the book, though it's a minor reference. Seems to only be a popular book in Atlanta: http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/falafel/Content?oid=767259 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdawgatlanta (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- ... which "reference" is actually a discussion board post, perhaps by the author of the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  - And aparently posted just a few minutes ago. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The author of this page also created Lauren jacob lunches with the same text as this article and with fake interwiki to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. I am thinking of nominating the article for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- That other "Lauren Jacob" was my fault. This is my first crack at building a book page and was trying to build one for a book I saw in Atlanta and heard about in CL but never saw on wiki when I looked it up. I didn't realize you couldn't change the title so I had to create a new wiki entry. Sorry bout that! Though the book is certainly legit. And funny to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdawgatlanta (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I' 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I find no record of it on Google, and as it stands the current article smacks of hoaxishness. _{Is that even a word? Seriously.} --User:AlbertHerring 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No it is not a word. I personally loved the book. It was light in satire, and just a great read in general. I recommended it to my book club friends also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.7.106 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete A book of 3 pages in hardback and 4 pages in paperback? Published by 'Vanity Press'? This is a 'novel? I don't need to go to Google. If anything of it exists at all, totally unnotable. Student fun and games, probably, or an attack on someone. If it doesn't exist (my personal opinion), this is vandalism. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment If a book of this length is regarded as a great read, I feel there is something seriously missing in certain parts of the education system. Or we have a case of puppetry of some sort. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ProFIT-MAP Methodology

The result was delete. Arguments for retention focus overly on giving the benefit of the doubt to the editor and do not fully address the issues of the stated WP:MUSIC violations. I am, obviously, open to a userfication request for further work Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas R. Vozzella

Non-notable performer and arranger. Only 264 Google hits, and apparently most are websites which sell his arrangements. The editor who created the page only contributed to this article, plus a few composer biographies where he tried adding links to said commercial websites. Jashiin (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to fix my mistakes on this article. I am doing this for a friend of a friend. Some said to put external links, so I linked his compositions to composers of the compositions. Now the article is up for deletion. Some newbies could use more help and patience from experienced users. Not everyting that is done is on purpose, just don't know what to do. Help, and patience, please? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not the authors’ intent to break Wiki rules. It was purely an attempt to do what another suggested. Everyone wants to be helpful, but sometimes the assumption is that there is some overt intent to get away with something, etc. that needs to be exposed. Well it was a pure mistake. This article has been challenged prior, with regard to its worthiness on Misplaced Pages, and was retained. This was the authors first attempt at an article, a mistake or two were made, and it is being put up for deletion again. A little help would be nice, rather than condemnation. This author has done every suggestion, or at least tried, although wrong, without suggestions to fix is a pretty difficult when you are new to Misplaced Pages, and or have very little experience at writing articles, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the AfD process is not a "condemnation", as you put it. It is a discussion on whether to keep the article or not, and the result of this discussion still may be to keep it, depending on the consensus. Second, you didn't make any "mistakes". This discussion is here not because of how the article is written, but because the subject of the article may not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. So there is no need to appeal for help and patience, noone is judging you. We're merely trying to determine the subject's notability. So the only way you can help here is by citing more reliable sources: published reviews of Vozzella's work, articles on him from other encyclopedias, references to his works in publications by others, recordings of his music, etc. --Jashiin (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional material was added in support of this article. Just as a note: Just because submissions cannot be proven via the web, does not denote their non-existence. Many of the Journal references, etc. are not available on the web. Old fashion library research is required. All of these references, etc. are sited. In order to prove the existence of compositions links to these sites are required. They have been removed as they have been said to be commercial. Some of this is a two edged sword; wrong if you do, wrong if you don't. This person is highly involved in the choral conducting field, because of his work in the church; visibility on the web is minimal (but in terms of those in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great). Having choirs perform and ACDA and MENC events is not a small accomplishment. Having choral compositions published is also a huge accomplishment in the choral field. Dr. Vozzella, is notable, and his achievements supersede many in the field. If he were an orchestral conductor and did not work in the church, his visibility would be increased ten-fold. I do hope you will re-consider removing Dr. Vozzella for deletion, in consideration of the above. Also, this author is open to corrections, suggestions, etc. and has, to his detriment followed the suggestions of others, as can be seen in the history of this article.MusicTex (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) MusicTex (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicTex (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I would prefer to give the article's author the benefit of the doubt in his claim that web-based content relating to the article's subject, as a means of validating notability, is minimal. However, I would point out that listing the subject's 'private label' recordings and private commissions do not establish any claim. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The author of this article has added additional references, and deleted compositions that have no web based references. The published compositions had links previously. However, it was suggested that these links were too commercial in nature. Thusly they have been removed. The recordings have been up-dated to include the distributors of the recordings. If this is not acceptable, they will be removed. Each thing that this author does is to follow the suggestions of the many people that make them. There might be too much help coming, as everyone has their own ideas and thoughts. Probably after all the suggested changes, additions etc. are made, the article may revert to the one originally published. That article did not have this much attention, and/or suggestions. Again, this author is making all the changes, etc. that are suggested. I respectively ask that it be left, and allowed to develop. Thank you! MusicTex (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Based on the article in its present state in line with Misplaced Pages:Notability (music). The key criteria here is that the subject has " been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician . . . and reliable." If there are bona fide independent reviews of the subject's work, I'd be happy to reconsider. --Klein zach 10:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Jashiin, Kleinzach. Eusebeus (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Said compositions are published by firms that specialize in choral music. The articles and published reviews are in the Choral Journal. News paper articles, where available, have been link to support claims. Maybe looking at the items and fixing things would be helpful. Isn’t anyone free to edit. Well edit, and check the sources. Just because you haven’t heard of them, doesn’t constitute their validity or lack thereof. There seems to be a push to delete without true discourse. MusicTex (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain. I'm rather concerned by the original author's recent behaviour, and I'm inclined to recommend delete, as well, but I'm going to spend a bit of energy cleaning it up until it's inevitably done away with (yes, I really do expect its deletion). I must be going soft or something. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep This person seems to be notable in his field, having performed in the White House, etc. If someone wants to form a "gang" to delete all articles that do not really meet WP's strict notability standards please let me know. I will be glad to join. Soon 90% of WP will be gone and that will be a great thing all around. Until then there is no reason to single this article out for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is everyone who performs at the (Washington) White House automatically notable? To Steve Dufour: all publications need to decide what they should, or shouldn't be covering. That's unavoidable. What we are trying to do here is apply rules that are fair and even-handed, and lead to objective decisions. Do you want to take part in the process? --Klein zach 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I take part in AfD and other discussions.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep or Userfy to User:MusicTex/sandbox/Thomas R. Vozzella and let it be brought back when it gets cleaned up. No need to discourage new editors. Schmidt, 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, the user in question started editing in early November 2008. Hardly a "new user". --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. If there are paper based sources, then surely these could be listed. I'm inclined to believe that that Vozzella has minor notability and that a poor article is not reason alone for deletion. Fol de rol troll (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain/very weak keep so that the article can be improved. Per above comments, I feel that the article's subject could potentially be notable, as long as references are found. If references are not found, then the article can be deleted, and right now, that is the case. Hopefully someone from the Article Rescue Squadron can come and fix it: the article has potential, but again, only if sources are found. The Earwig 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, seems to meet WP:BIO based on the sources provided. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete - The "My West Texas" article, which seems to be one of the few truly independent of the subject, if not the only one, looks to me as if it might qualify as a trivial mention. If that is true, then there is a serious question of the subject's notability. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me share, once again, that in the choral field, the number of compositions he has published, journal articles and reviews, as well as major performance venues is more than many of the bios in Misplaced Pages that have gone un-challenged. Ones field, publications, etc, may vary. In the field of church music, Dr. Vozzella is a leader in the field. Choral conductors and church musicians, as stated above are not as high profile as orchestral conductors. However, on the merits of having 29 years experience, and his accomplishments, he far exceeds in the field of church music, which seems to be his primary field of practice. In choral music, a single choral composition that is published is equal to one recording (1,000’s of copies, and used by 1,000’s of people). He performs weekly on radio, television, and live web casts, and pod casts. And, again, many who challenge this article are relying solely on web references. There are numerous references that are hardbound that will be added. However, that takes a bit more time than just surfing the web, as has much of his research and published works taken. He is the sole authority on the music from T. S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. All of these achievements together are more than enough notability in the field of choral and church music. MusicTex (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You've repeatedly stated that choral composers, arrangers and conductors are "not as high profile as orchestral conductors", that "in the church music field 200+ hits on Google is great", etc.; and from your words it seems that church and choral music are fields shunned by most, obscure, and difficult to study using online resources. However, some simple Google searches produce, for instance, choral composer/arranger John Rutter: 346,000 Google hits, a great number of compositions and arrangements, recordings produced by various artists other than Rutter himself, published compositions, reviews.. anything you want. Or here's another choral composer/arranger/conductor, less prominent: Alice Parker. There are 82,000 Google hits for her, and again, massive lists of compositions, recordings, reviews, etc. And both Rutter and Parker are living persons. Seems to me that contemporary choral music isn't that obscure, and that 200+ hits are not particularly great.

According to you, plenty of paper references exist that "will be added", but when will they be? Your article is 6 months old, plenty of time to add some. Suppose you didn't know you should provide references. But this AfD is 11 days old, so you've known about the references problem for more than a week, AND you have an opportunity to ask Dr. Vozzella personally - but the article is still not referenced properly. The "Worship Arts Journal" seems to be something really, really obscure - there are five Google hits, two of which are to your mentions of it on Misplaced Pages and CPDL. And what are the Choral Journal articles? Does "James Jordan review" stand for a review of Jordan's work by Vozzella, or a review of Vozzella's work by Jordan? None of the issues cited are available at the Choral Journal website. If those are reviews written by Vozzella, they're not really references showing his notability.

To recapitulate, your main points are that (1) choral composers are generally obscure, and (2) plenty of references for Dr. Vozzella exist, only not available online. However, (1) is easily disproven with Google, as I have demonstrated. As for (2), we have only your word for it. The way things are now, it looks like Dr. Vozzella has composed two choral pieces (and produced a dozen arrangements) and released some self-published records of own works. And the entire situation looks like a textbook example of WP:COI, complete with tries to advertise the subject by adding commercial links. --Jashiin (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone’s assistance. If it is still here when I get to a library, I will work on it, if not, it will be gone. I tried, oh well, lesson learned. Thanks! MusicTex (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

keep per , , and author's wish to contiue improvement. Schmidt, 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again? MichaelQSchmidt: You've already given us your opinion once before (see above 17 April). --Klein zach 23:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Struck earlier userfy vote based upon continued good faith wish to improve. Schmidt, 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lean towards Delete here, doesn't quite tick all the boxes and seems to rely too heavily on one source I'd call questionable. I think we're into areas of wondering if the article is a little self-serving. Hiding T 13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sister Sin

~~Non notable band fail WP:BAND no reliable sources can be found only trivial coverage.~~ BigDunc 18:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. The following sources may prove sufficient for establishing notability: German album review, Swedish article. There's also this which suggests the band have had a minor hit of sorts in the US. The band have released two albums, and ther's a fair amount of coverage out there from sources of varying reliability, e.g.: , .--Michig (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So one album bestows notability according to WP:BAND it is 2 and a chart position of 107 on Top Heatseekers which according to the wiki article only goes to 50 is not notable. BigDunc 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The band have released 2 albums, as I stated above (Dance of the Wicked (2003) and Switchblade Serenades (2008, Victory Records)). The Heatseekers hit is of course too minor to indicate notability on its own - the articles on the band may be enough, although I don't know the sources well enough to be certain that they would be considered reliable - a German or Swedish editor could help out here.--Michig (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. BigDunc 19:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Swedish article is actually from Göteborgs-Posten, which is a major Swedish newspaper, so should be fine as a source.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also this review.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep No problem with this stub. Heavy metal bands don't get a lot of mainstream coverage, that's true but on top of the Göteborgs-Posten article there are multiple interviews out there. Not in the NYTimes or Rolling Stone of course, but well-established websites devoted to the genre , covered by websites in French , Italian . They've had gigs in Germany, Sweden, Romania, Norway, as well as a three month tour in the US . Active since 2002, signed to Victory Records, per article on sv.wiki and band's website, 3 full length albums (though only the latest on an important indie label). I don't think there's any question the band is notable. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Generation

Article about a band that does not cite sources to establish notability per WP:BAND. According to the article, their entire output so far seems to be home-made "street" DVDs and mixtapes. Astronaut (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete does not meet WP:BAND's guidelines. If multiple non-trivial secondary sources can be added, I would revise, but not before. I'm uncertain about the one (brief) UKHH link, although I'd be willing to hear an argument of it's reliability as a starting point (although it's a stub review on it's own, and "muliple" would still need to be demonstrated). -Markeer 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete - this will need a lot more better cites to keep it. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb 02:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 06:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Roy Samuel Ferré

Non-notable filmmaker. Although notability is asserted by the winning of a Film Festival award, it can be seen that this is not a major film festival, and that this film was one of MANY so honored at this particular festival. Links to IMDB do NOT assert notability. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Per WP:AFTER, IMDB links have now been removed and the article properly sourced. Its weak, but he has received an award at a (moderately important) festival and has particpated in another that won awards. Schmidt, 07:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please refer to WP:NOTFILM for the guidelines of notability for films. The salient prerequisite here is a "major award" in some aspect of filmmaking. Being one of 48 films to receive recognition at a non-major film festival doesn't quite seem to meet this criterion. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 13:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Response that exact argument about being "one of many" can be made for every film festival. The salent point HAS been addressed in that it HAS won a major award. Not all film festivals are the highly commercialized and self-serving such as Academy Awards or Grammys, as some actually award quality and not simply popularity or consumer sales. Schmidt, 15:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, all 48 films that were awarded this dubious award should merit Misplaced Pages pages, even though no one has ever heard of them outside of this festival. I may be mistaken here, but I think the criteria of WP:NOTFILM are a little more stringent than that. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP in any depth at all? No blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how an award which a film festival (and not a particularly prominent one -- we're not talking about Cannes or Sundance here) gives to 48 films in the same category in the same year could be considered a "major award". At this level of film festival, I would tend to think that a film would have to at least win a "best in category"-type award to be considered to have received a "major award". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Comment" His early film, which he disowned, is selling for 99 bucks at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Prusmack-Schroeder-Christian-Hutchinson-Stanton/dp/B000MX6ACW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1239959413&sr=8-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.8.56 (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Comment" hello guys, the information on his page is great, he doesn't plan to update it until after his feature Drive Forever is out at festivals. I just added the Mexico film fest and the DVD on Amazon because his page is still up for deletion. He's done alot more projects, he directed two features by the time he was 21, etc. Thanks alot guys, I appreciate it and wont take any more of your time. Have a great day. Nic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.8.56 (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Offenburger FV players

No need for this page, even as a redirect, as nobody will search for it. The content has been moved to the team's page. Over The Desk (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy that it be deleted, unless anyone is willing to take on the task of making it what it claims to be. But it should not have been moved to the club article in this way. It is now a Notable players section, which, when it has no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, is POV, OR and unverifiable. Indeed, it was removed from the club article for precisely that reason on 15 March. If OTD's intention is to make a merge, then that is what he should have proposed. Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a discussion suggestion deletion, the final consensus may be "merge" but this is not an Articles for Merging discussion, and there is no need to wait for a "Merge" outcome before merging content. Over The Desk (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the removal of this information from the club article was done with clear edit notes which cited several policies and preceding discussions, and the act of merging was essentially an unexplained reversion of that edit. However, User:EA210269 has since given it a heading that provides inclusion/exclusion criteria, and references as to why the two players involved should be on it. So long as the list is complete, or there is the intention to make it so, I now think that delete and merge is entirely appropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop being so pedantic. I explained why I was putting it in the article. It was not a major change and hardly controversial. If you agree that it was actually the right thing to do, why are you continuing to harp on about tiny details of how it should have been done? Rather than complaining in the first place, perhaps you could have made the changes that EA210269 made instead. Let's focus on getting stuff done rather than moaning about whether it follows the letter of whichever obscure code of conduct you think we should be following. Over The Desk (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep article needs expanding and improving, not deleting. Lists of players ARE notable. Giant Snowman 17:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree that it should be kept if there was more content, or recreated when there is more content, but I would suggest that with only two players on the list, that list should be in the main article, until such a time that it is expanded. I don't think it should be created in the expectation that it might be expanded. Over The Desk (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete as it stands with no prejudice of recreation if someone writes an actual list. Punkmorten (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I withdraw my earlier 'keep vote'; a quick search for notable players to have played for this club does not bring up many more than the two internationals whose details are already mentioned on the main article page. Therefore, I doubt the club merits having a seperate article about its players. Giant Snowman 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nikola Rachelle

Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO.

Bundling with it her album Don't Talk About This Love. If they should be kept, the album should be merged into the bio per WP:NALBUMS. لenna vecia 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Some coverage already in the article, and more found from a quick Google search: , . Just about enough there. The EP article should definitely be merged in. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's borderline, but I'm leaning towards keep. I added a source or two to the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohio Higher Education Rail Network

AfDs for this article:

Proposed rail network with no coverage and no sources. The only source I can find is a proposed resolution written by the creator of this entry, Jerry Wicks. Wperdue (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this one. It was an accidental second nomination due to latency issues. I have indicated this in the other nomination. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I have closed the other nomination, since it was the first one and this is the second. The discussion can be continued here. (adding the <small> tag to these comments)— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. This is written more like an essay or even as rhetoric. But the main issue is in finding references for it. If this project is truly notable, and it ought to be because it is large, then there will be many references. But there are not. Since there are not I must conclude that it is either not notable, or that its notability is not verifiable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't DELETE Gentlemen, the OHERN Institute is new. Please visit our web site maintained on the campus of Bowling Green State University (ohern.bgsu.edu). The Institute was created toward the end of last year for the purpose of researching the issues surrounding the creation of a statewide rail network linking Ohio's colleges and universities. I'm sorry there are no other links to this topic as yet. These matters take time. We are in meetings with various city, county and state officials. Unfortunately, these meetings do not generate the type of links you may be seeking. There will be a good deal of press coming on this matter in the coming months, but again, we are moving slowly on this since it is a complicated matter that requires judicious work. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryWicks (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, Speedy Close ^^ Obvious COI, G11, & notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete speculation and OR. lack of notability as yet. After it gets substantial public notice, then it can be an article. DGG (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hasan Salaam

Non-notable rapper and community volunteer. At first glance appears to be OK, there are references and he's won awards. However, the awards are not significant (as required by WP:MUSIC) and the references are from 1) a user-submitted-content site 2) CDBaby (an online store) 3) an unknown site (hiphoppalalce.com, mislabeled as Hip Hop Connection—the site is currently down) (reliablilty?) 4) and a blog. A fifth reference is ostensibly from Source magazine, which is good but the link is to a blog (for the text) and MySpace (for an image of the article). If the image of the article is to be trusted, it appears to be a sidebar of another, larger article on an unknown topic. So really the only thing near to a reliable source, is the Source article, and even that is on shaky ground. Fails WP:MUSIC (and close to failing WP:V). TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Notable via significant coverage (, , , ). Video interview from Thisisrealmusic.com. Further coverage from college newspapers: , , . Further brief mentions: , , . 3 albums listed at allmusic. --Michig (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, my searches pulled up virtually the same ones as Michig, so there's no point in relisting them. Passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb 13:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment. The two articles from The Source looks fine too (although the one from Feb 2009 is pretty much all his own words so isn't suitable as a reference - before anyone else jumps in and states the obvious).--Michig (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 18:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note. The article has been improved since it was listed here. The nominator's comments on the sourcing in the article relate to the sources prior to the improvement.--Michig (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Sufficient coverage in hiphopdx, Exclaim!, The Source, etc. (Also the blog mentioned above was the blog of Rich Knight, the journalist who wrote the piece in question.) 86.44.26.18 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Argireline

The article contains no sources that have been independent from the manufacturer of the compund, according to the text in the article. Article is written rather like an advert. Article does not cite sources with regard to the reduction of facial muscle movement, but rather makes inferences from the unsourced claim that argireline lessens "reactions causing contractions" and the theory of such contractions causing wrinkles. WnC? 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- I' 19:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep, but cut to stub removing promotional tone and uncited text. There are published studies on this compound, PMID 17520155 and PMID 18498523, which establish notability. Some of this work was reviewed in PMID 19250159, a good secondary source. If you want copies of these articles e-mail me. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for advising me of the usability of PubMed; for some reason that didn't cross my mind. Mailed you re: the sources. Am I supposed to close this AfD now, and if so - how? WnC? 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, I'll do that for you. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep based on tim's sources, which should be incorporated into the article. DGG (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nitin Ticku

I do not believe this blogger/businessman meets notability criteria. Nick—/_Contribs 17:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This page should be deleted. It reads like personal advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.181.103 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
DELETE : I don't think a blogger meets WP:N.This looks like article is created by fan or friend of this person(as I went through this persons blogs.)Oniongas (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
DELETE : Not a notable person. --Belasd (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. speedy should have been ok as well. --Docku: What's up? 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Call Girl the Musical

Non-notable musical, fails WP:NOTE, ~~sparse references not~~ only one reference reliable per WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I' 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - turns out that blog quote was a reprint from a high-circulation newspaper, which I've tracked down and replaced in one reference. So there is one reliable source, and this should be taken into account in the deletion discussion. MuffledThud (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep as it tickles the GNG through use of WP:AFTER and both Google News and a regular G-search. Schmidt, 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I originally started the article. I am a fan of the show and was surprised that it didn't have any page on Misplaced Pages. I don't really get all of this, so I hope I've done everythign right. Laurajames —Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC).
Nomination withdrawn - sorry about this, I didn't check thoroughly enough on the news search before nomimating. It's definitely got enough news coverage from reliable sources to support notability, and so have some of its creators, who appear to need articles of their own. Thanks User:Laurajames and User:MichaelQSchmidt for pointing out my error so politely. MuffledThud (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Banana Bungalow

Declining db-spam; taking to AfD. I'm getting a lot of RS ghits (such as Fodors and LonelyPlanet), so we could use an article on this company, but the tone is all wrong - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I cleaned up the article by removing the large amount of text which was either advertising, or information about youth hostels in general. The official website lists only 5 currently open hostels, so I wonder if this is really a notable organisation. --David Edgar (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I stand by what I wrote on the talk page for the article. It made some highly dubious claims about how it has increased the popularity of hostels in the US and how it has changed the way hostels are run. No verification of either of these claims has been attempted despite an earlier RfD. The text as it stands could apply generally to backpacking hostels the world over so there is still nothing notable about these. The number of RS hits is a bit of a red herring. Any accommodation provider should garner numerous hits otherwise it's failing as a business.NtheP (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Article, in its present form, fails to meet WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete As far as I can tell/find this is not a notable corporation. Yintaɳ 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Tokyo

Article that's ostensibly about a website, though half of it is about the website's proprietor. They're much the same thing, really, as the website is a blog. A Japanese cellphone company had a stupid advertising campaign, which this blogger roundly condemned, and on which he was quoted in passing, and, er, that's about it. " blog posts have been mentioned on CNN, CNN Political Blog, France 24, The Guardian., The Huffington Post, The Japan Times and others"; but yes, they've been mentioned, or even briefly quoted, but it seems never discussed. This article does indeed come complete with actual external links, but click them and peruse them and I think you'll agree that all of this adds up to extremely little, despite the good work of User:Blacktokyo and others. Sorry, Misplaced Pages is not a web directory and all that. -- Hoary (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
PS The Japan Times source adduced for the claim that the blog posts have been mentioned says no such thing. Instead, it's a humdrum letter to the paper by the blogger, and indeed a letter that doesn't mention the website or for that matter Blackness or life in Tokyo. -- Hoary (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep: This website has been mentioned by reputable sources, per WP:N. I see no reason to delete it. However, I do think the page needs some clean-up.Joel Lindley (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment:I've just had another look at WP:N, which tells us 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. / "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Addressing X directly in detail is not the same as mentioning X. Which sources address Black Tokyo in detail? -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment:It satisfies WP:GNG for Reliable and Significant coverage sources, as well as WP:NTEMP.Joel Lindley (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    - Comment:But WP:GNG is just another name for WP:N, which I'd brought up earlier. Yes, there are reliable sources among these. And yes, I'd say that the profile on the Japan Times website (a profile of which I hadn't been aware till HeiRenXuesheng brought it up below) is an increment toward significance. The site has one write-up in the website of a newspaper of some importance (and conceivably in the newspaper itself as well, though I haven't yet investigated this). Find one or two other such profiles, or discussion or detailed description of the site, and you'd persuade me. -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
      - The notable websites that have mentioned 'BlackTokyo' already has been listed by other users, and posted in the article. As the site--'BlackTokyo' seems to be managed by one person, it's obvious the site and the owner will be mentioned hand in hand.-99.131.178.155 (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
        Yes, yes, Black Tokyo and its proprietor have indeed been mentioned on several websites. However, with the exception of the one profile for the Japan Times website, I'm not aware of any piece that does more than mention. WP:N asks for sources that address the subject directly in detail. Where are they? -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
        Actually, WP:N does NOT hold that address the subject directly in detail to articles. It's one aspect that can give the articles some credence.--99.131.178.155 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I recognise that the site is probably doing a good job, but I can't see it being particular notable. A quick Google search reveals various results but a lot of them aren't anything to do with this website. Plus, only 67 other websites link to this one. The sources mentioned in the article mention the website in passing, only as it seemed useful at the time. They don't really draw any attention to the site itself. Greggers 11:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The websites that list BlackTokyo are pretty well-known; if they are to mention BlackTokyo in it's article, it's more than 'just in passing.'Joel Lindley (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep-The fact that The Guardian, Huffington Post, and The Japan Times mention BlackTokyo (and it's not just in passing, as they--The Guardian, The Huffington Post, The Japan Times--are referencing statements from BlackTokyo's site and site owner) shows that those outlets see BlackTokyo a little more than just a regular site. Moreover, Japan Times actually did an article on the site March 29th, 2009.-HeiRenXuesheng (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC) — HeiRenXuesheng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: I'm willing to be persuaded, but let's get the facts straight. First, the the site and its owner are indeed featured in the lastmentioned of these, but that's actually this: Ricardo Bilton, "Black Tokyo", "Japan Times Blogroll", 25 March 2009. This seems to be the JT website rather than the newspaper. (Time permitting, I'll look in the newspaper later.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Comment:That doesn't make any sense. That is like saying because a site (and its owner) were referenced in an online version of the San Jose Mercury or Los Angeles Times and you didn't physically see it in the hard copy, there isn't any nobility. They're both the same thing (offline and online); and, as aforementioned various times, have quite a lot of notability.-Joel Lindley (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    - Er, no it isn't. HeiRenXuesheng said that the Japan Times "did an article on the site March 29th, 2009." I pointed out that this was four days earlier (not that this matters much) and that it was on the website rather than the newspaper. I might have added that since this was in a series titled "Blogroll", it's likely that it was made especially for the website. I allowed for the possibility that it was in the newspaper too. (I still haven't looked.) I didn't mention notability, and that was because I wasn't thinking of notability. I've conceded above that this is a step toward significant coverage, and have invited links to or details of more of the same. -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment on the other two mentions. The Guardian article says: Zurui, in a message to the Black Tokyo site, wrote: Writing on Japan Probe, James disagreed: "Is this sites like Black Tokyo have written? I don't think so. " The Huffpo piece says: One of the first outlets to key on the ad was the website and blog Black Tokyo, which is edited by Zurui, a Black American who has lived in Japan for many years plus a longish quotation from this. There's no further description of or comment on "Black Tokyo" in either. -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Further: I've just noticed that the (unsourced) material about Robinson is lifted pretty directly from here. As the original isn't GFDL, strictly speaking this is a copyvio; but since the original is vaguely "Creative Commons", something could surely be worked out here. What's more worrisome is that half of an WP article that's ostensibly about a website is actually about its owner, and that the latter is based so directly on what he says about himself. -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment:Well, that is the reason articles are edited, not deleted because there is a disagreement of how something is written.-Joel Lindley (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep: All the references are in place, and as has been mentioned by other users, the references are notable. I don't see why Misplaced Pages has to change their standards now.-Yellow Coyote (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- After HeiRenXuesheng (and an IP), another very new editor. Welcome. ¶ A relevant Misplaced Pages standard is WP:N. This talks of the need for "Significant coverage", that sources address the subject directly in detail. Where are these "sources" ? So far only one has been proffered, a profile within a series about blogs on the Japan Times website. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  - You seem to keep on harping on the 'significant coverage.' There are a few guidelines (in addition to 'significant coverage') such as the aforementioned 'significant coverage'...'Reliable'...'Sources'...and 'Independent of the subject' which the article satisfies.-99.131.178.155 (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am relisting this discussion despite its length. I feel that there are not enough original arguments presented to judge consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Easily passes WP:N due to its reliable sources such as . Dalejenkins | 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Reliable sources; notable. — Jake Wartenberg 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete None of the sources do anything more than brief mentions of the blog, so it does not pass WP:N (which says it has to have SIGNIFICANT coverage). TJ Spyke 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. As already mentioned by others above, what at first sight may appear to be impressive references sources do nothing other than mention the site in passing, and do not demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Reliable and well-known sources which gives the site notability; too, I want to add WP:CHANCE.-Joel Lindley (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This user has already voted futher up. Dalejenkins | 09:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know this was a continuation of the discussion above. My mistake. Still, I want to add WP:DEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE.--Joel Lindley (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete WP:N and WP:GNG say that articles that rely on the existence of publications for their notability should discuss the subject in a non-trivial way and that more of such sources should exist. Since the Japan Times is the only publication independent from the blog to discuss it in any significant detail, it fails the notability guidelines. _ Mgm| 09:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The press articles used as refs are about a racist Japanese phone ad, and only briefly quote the operator of the BlackTokyo blog. They are not significant or substantial enough to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Wow. Two weeks, and still on the Articles of Deletion page? I've seen pages that have questionable sources remain on the site after a week if they are nominated for deletion (the normal Wiki policy).--Joel Lindley (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 06:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

David W. Wolkowsky

Unsourced and apparently non notable subject. A google search failed to throw up any RSs for them but there is enough of a claim to notability to make it worth discussing rather then speedy deleting Spartaz 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I' 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment The claims for importance as running a notable venue in Key West seem sufficient, if they can be sourced.DGG (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Response Whioch is why this is at AFD not CSD and why I highlighted the lack of sources. Spartaz 08:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep: simple Google News search establishes that he does indeed run and own the notable Pier House. Here the NYT calls Wolkowsky Key West's "richest and busiest entrepreneur", a weighty quote from a good reliable source. I found 37 Google News hits, many in prominent news sources and some in national ones. Good enough for me. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
references need to be non-trivial - i.e. to discuss the subject in depth not in passing so we wouldnt rely on a source that in the sopace of a whole article mentions the subject in passing in one line. Im afraid these sources are trivial. Spartaz 15:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree none of the sources (that I can access for free anyway) discusses Wolkowsky in exhaustive depth, I think their number and breadth over time tends to establish notability. I'm inclined to see regular appearance in prominent sources over about 25 years as at least equivalent to a single, thorough-going profile.

Do you agree with DGG's comment above? I think the proof of Wolkowsky's management of Pier House exists, at least. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Wolkowsky was a pall bearer at Tennessee Williams' funeral. That alone should qualify him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenbe (talk • contribs) 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Gonzonoir that the multitude of reliable sources available make this a notable biography, even with no exhaustive sources discovered yet. —Cleared as filed. 00:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Katarzyna Dolinska

AfDs for this article:

Article's subject fails to meet general inclusion criteria and inclusion criteria laid out at WP:Entertainer. Also, subject did not finish in top 3 on ANTM. Previous AfD established only top 3 contestants from each season have notability conferred by participation in ANTM. L0b0t (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This AFD nomination was incomplete (missing second half of step 2 and step 3). It is listed now (non-Bot). ApprenticeFan 12:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep being notable having signed many agencies (Elite, Ford, etc.) ApprenticeFan 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment A model engaging in the business of modeling is no more notable than a chef cooking, a teacher teaching, a writer writing, etc. Doing one's job does not make one notable; being recognized as superlative in one's field does. L0b0t (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I know she's a working model, but does a model getting work automatically become notable? Yes, there's the whole America's Next Top Model aspect of it as well, but she didn't win or finish high (wasn't she 5th in her cycle or something?), nor has she done anything notable as an entertainer/personality since her appearance. I really don't believe that she meets WP:N; she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I mean, if you take out the fansite galleries (which are an obvious copy-vio, but we'll ignore that for now) and her modelling agencies, you're left with links to magazines. There are no articles, no interviews, no news reports, no nothing. Honestly, most of these "sources" would not pass WP:RS. I understand that she's a fan favourite, but honestly, there are major general notability and sourcing issues. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Misty Willows (talk · contribs) was decided to do the Katarzyna Dolinska article and Misty is interested in America's Next Top Model.

There are some references or sources in her modeling work:

ApprenticeFan 16:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Those sources aren't independent of the subject; the first two are profiles on her agencies' websites, and the last one is a fashion model directly. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: that just means the article still needs to be improved, with better sources. ... MistyWillows 17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: there was an article about her in New York Magazine's The Cut. http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/03/antm_rejects_book_internationa.html --Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep Ranking on ANTM should not matter, a person is no more notable for being on the show is they rank 3rd than 5th. As a model, Katarzyna has a much higher notability than most other Top Model contestants, who articles, including some of the winners. She certainly is more notable than Heather Kuzmich, who also ranked 5th, but was voted over whelmingly to keep. If Katarzyna doesn't meet WP:N, than only Adrianne Curry, Kim Stolz and maybe 2 or 3 others do. ... MistyWillows 17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The reason the article on Heather Kuzmich was kept was because of her notability re: her Asperger's Syndrome and received coverage for it, including an article in the New York Times and coverage in People magazine. Katarzyna, on the other hand, doesn't meet the basic criteria listed on WP:BIO. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Heather's Asperger's is basicly triva, she hasn't become a national spokesperson for Asperger's syndrome; the Artlces in NYT and People, are just human interest stories that only exist because she was on the show. Kat also was in US News and World Report, and did several TV interviews after the show, those certainly match the notability of Heather's NYT and People refs. And being a model who graduated from an Ivy League College, is at least as noteworthy as being a model with Asperger's syndrome. ... MistyWillows 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see why it can be argued as trivial, but there's no arguing that regardless, she did receive national coverage on the issue, and that was repeatedly brought up in her AfD. She was a reality show contestant that has a somewhat unknown disability that made her notable enough to warrant independent coverage. Kat, on the other hand, was just another reality show contestant, so she's not notable under WP:ENTERTAINER. As a model, she hasn't done anything outside of typical model campaigns — she hasn't had any national advertisements, nor was she a "face" or muse for a certain designer or company, nor has she received coverage as a notable model (for example, a fashion magazine like Vogue calling her a face to watch, or something to that effect). And how is being model who graduated from an Ivy League school notable? It's an interesting fact, and perhaps it's rare, but I don't see how that automatically makes her pass WP:N. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

She can be considered the "face" of Gerlan Jeans --Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep There are good sources and she is a fairly successful model. If her article is deleted Anya Rozova, Dominique Reighard, Fatima Siad, as well as most non-winners of the show's articles should be deleted. --Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I' 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Will those who are opining to keep please provide evidence that subject passes the general notability standards and the notability standards for models? Again, a model working her little butt off as a model is in no way notable, she did not finish in top 3 on ANTM so that show confers no notability to this model. To the above poster, if there are other model articles where the subjects do not pass muster with our criteria then those articles need to be deleted as well. L0b0t (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yet I don't see you putting AfD on those pages, why are you singling out Katarzyna, (as you have done since last year)? this is an unfair and arbitrary application of standards. Also you keep harping on Top 3, I really don't see any reason for top 3 to make a difference. As for Evidence Katarzyna passes WP:ENTERTAINER, if what we have isn't enough, then I can't find a way to justify ANY reality TV personality under WP:ENTERTAINER. So are you ready fairly and equally apply the standards and AfD all of them? ... MistyWillows 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in an AfD last year it was decided that only the top 3 contestants on ANTM had enough notability conferred by the game-show to warrant discrete articles, consequently all of the also rans had their articles deleted and changed into redirects for the appropriate season of ANTM. I'm unclear as to what you are referring when you claim "...singling out Katarzyna, (as you have done since last year)" but I will ask you to assume good faith and concentrate on content not contributors. To be frank, I can find very little to justify the inclusion of any game-show contestant and I will happily nominate their articles for deletion when I come across them. Beyond that you might want to check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Cheers. ````

Comment Should L0b0t (talk · contribs) blocked for editing to deciding for delete an article of ANTM contestants. I should request it at notice to the admins. ApprenticeFan 09:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've left ApprenticeFan a note on his talk page about inappropriate behavior. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Katarzyna Dolinska (2nd nomination), when she was less notable, was resolved to redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10, and every other contestant on America's Next Top Model has a redirect to their respective cycles as resolved in the bunch of redirects of ANTM contestants. If the decision isn't to keep, then at least it should be redirect do America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10, there is no justification to delete. ... MistyWillows 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what happens in the event of a delete. That is just what we did last year with all but the 3 finalists in each series of the game-show. L0b0t (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment if Katarzyna was a fictional character, and America's Next top Model was scripted drama, would anyone be complaining that she wasn't notable enough? Shouldn't real people be considered more notable than minor TV characters of equal exposure? ... MistyWillows 00:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they would be AfD'd; articles about fictional subjects are deleted all the time. Many of the "List of characters in X" articles came about as result of deleting individual character articles. L0b0t (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should do that with all ANTM contestants, who's pages have been deleted. Recover the info, and make one page with all of them. ... MistyWillows 01:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep- Notability outside of the show is shown in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that notability is not demonstrated in the article. Please show how subject passes muster with the general notability requirements and notability requirements for models. L0b0t (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Texas Rangers minor league players. I am not convinced about the sources; I checked the four given in the "Reference" section and they all pointed to 404 error pages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Beau Jones

Non-notable minor leaguer Wizardman 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman 16:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ATHLETE T-95 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. I'm not having much luck finding RS that show notability other than the mentions of the draft and the Teixeira trade. Perhaps someone will have better luck than I. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I took another look at the article today, and the additional sources are unimpressive. Two are deadlinks, and another doesn't mention this player at all.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete not notable--Yankees10 16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep and expand; part of a major baseball trade and former first round pick; still young and could very well end up as a part of the Rangers bullpen at some point in time. Mandermagic (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Update I added content to the article, particularly that pertaining to the Teixeira trade and references relevant to his current role in the Rangers organization. Mandermagic (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep There appear to be a large number of sources about this topic. I didn't go through each one (sorry, on my way out) but would imply he meets WP:N (and therefor BIO and ATHLETE.) Hobit (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Sources don't make subject notable, their could be a few articles about me out there, am I notable too then? No.--Giants27 /C 01:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:N you almost certainly would be. Sources are exactly what make a subject notable around here. Hobit (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Texas Rangers minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Redirect vote defaults to keep (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasey Kiker (baseball)

Non-notable minor leaguer. Wizardman 15:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See, if sources like HBWS's are added to minor league articles in the first place, then it would be a lot easier to see which are notable and which aren't. Looks like this one is, I withdraw my nom (though I'll leave it open in case others disagree) Wizardman 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Frisco_RoughRiders#2009_roster where his name appears; nn as it is (in my opinion, AA ball fails WP:ATHLETE). JJL (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~, but I might change this if more sources appear. I've added a link to the ESPN article about him, but that's not quite enough.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Changing to keep per Hit bull, win steak's excellent google-fu.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, there's a previous AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kasey_Kiker. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I feel bad now, I nommed him the first time too, didn't realize that. Wizardman 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't gonna rub it in. :) I only caught it because I was curious who else could be named Kasey Kiker.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Sources: Columbus Ledger-Enquirer profile, WFAA-TV profile, Scout.com interview, Dallas Morning News profile, Fort Worth Star-Telegram profile, and of course a scouting report in Baseball America's annual prospect guide (2008 version accessible online here for subscribers). Probably more out there, too, but I figure that's enough. -Hit bull, win steak 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep as meeting WP:N, per Hit bull, win steak's sources. Rklear (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep I think being a first round selection is enough to quality for a wiki page, but if that is not enough, a google search shows up quite a few hits on this player; perhaps expansion is in order. Mandermagic (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 15:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Information and Documenation Center on NATO in Republic of Moldova

Declining db-spam; websites promoting countries are complicated. No ghits, so taking to AfD. Btw, there are 40 European countries to choose from in the list of deletion discussions, and Moldova isn't on the list, so maybe they do need some promotion! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete no news coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - governments are as able to spam as anyone else, and this fits the bill. By the way, Information and Documentation Center on NATO in Republic of Moldova looks like a duplicate. - Biruitorul 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Home and Away. Ambivalent on target - material is in history for the merge Fritzpoll (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Austin (Home and Away)

Non notable outside the show its on. Cabe 6403 14:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge/redirect or delete There are 144 characters in Category:Home and Away characters, one article worse than the other. Instead of just deleting this article here and be done with it, the whole bunch of character articles should be considered for a merger into lists, regardless of notability, until notability is established. – sgeureka 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge then delete as unlikely seach term. Rinse and repeat per sgeureka's suggestion. Sarilox (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Have a trout slap. Deletions aren't compatible with mergers. Besides, assuming there are more people called Brendan Austin and assuming the existence of a dab page, the article title would make for a very plausible redirect. - Mgm| 09:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge and redirect A lack of notability independent from a TV show means it shouldn't be covered independently. But the nominator didn't show it shouldn't be covered altogether. - Mgm| 09:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge but preserve material I agree with Sgeureka that we should not be doing this one at a time, nor should we necessarily let one sample character that might be atypical go as a precedent. (I'm not going to work on a show I've never seen, but I get the feeling from the article that there's going to be comment from advocacy groups about this one which will give him at any rate some context.) I also agree the article can not possibly stand on its own. These series can often be comprehended best through articles divided by characters, not by episode- and for this a sentence or so in a large combined list is unacceptably brief. So it should be a real merge. DGG (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mobiforge

Declining db-spam deletion, taking to AfD. There are lots of ghits for mobiforge and dotmobi ... so many that it's very hard to find evidence of RSs, but I believe they're there. Promotional tone, but per article talk page, creator is willing to work with us. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Whatever else this is, this is a website catering to a business community of developers, of slight interest to the general public. Even if it's covered in independent sources, those sources are likely to serve very narrow communities of people with financial stakes in that business. These sources may be reliable, but not enough to establish notability of this site. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I was told it was hard to find evidence of reliable sources for this site, so I did not look myself, and it looks like I should have. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. But if it's covered in Forbes, it would appear to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep per the non-trivial hits in very notable publications here. The fact that something is of slight interest to the general public is not a reason to delete if it meets the criteria of our notability guidelines. The article's subject seems to have plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources so I see no reason not to follow WP:N in this case. No compelling reason to go against our normal standards. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete. I'm seeing Google News but the links to Forbes are showing up as "not found" and all the other sources aren't as notable. Looking at Alexa's linkin section, those aren't exactly cutting edge sites. Mainly links from blogs, link farms and forums, though there are a couple of more interesting ones. I can see this going either way. Greggers 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to give more time to assess the sources (which lead to error pages). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph M Remy

Non-notable violinist. Only thing I can find on "Joseph Remy" or "Joseph Ma" that remotely matches the person described in this article is a passing mention here, but that's hardly enough to establish notability. Very impressive if the article is true, but no RS coverage turned up. KuyaBriBri 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Article subject is not sufficiently notable for Misplaced Pages.THD3 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N T-95 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, I'm inclined to think this is a hoax, given the fact that someone who has apparently had such a successful career so far does not seem to be mentioned anywhere. Willing to change my mind if definitive proof of this person's existence can be provided. Lankiveil 04:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - why is there not an AfD tag on the article in question? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: no independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, The user that created this article, Got mad at us for putting a AfD tag on the article and started to vandalize. Seen Here and Here Hmmm --Michael (Talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Victor Mitchell (author)

A biography of a living person (presumably) whose identity is the subject of speculation. The only source provided is the honorverse wiki, a clear failure of reliable sources. May be the creator of several out-of-print colouring books - but I don't see evidence that this is the same man. Fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose And what about the list of books he illustrated and the story he wrote? This is no mistake. The only thing I agree with is that it is unusual to have a line stating that something is in process of verification. :) Debresser (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I see no evidence that the subject "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. Indeed, I see no evidence that the co-author of a short story and the colouring book artist are the same individual. Concerning the issue of verification - which is an aside not mentioned in the nom - would to not be better to have such a thing accomplished before introducing the article? We are, after all dealing here with a WP:BLP. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete for failure to meet WP:BIO. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete — Non-notable biography, unsourced; we discriminated against such content. Jack Merridew 07:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashraf Bilal

Non-notable Crashoffer12345 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Only source is a dead link. Google search finds reference of the subject and Citipolipack limited to Misplaced Pages and a forum. Fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: The claim about his inclusion in Pakistan's most influential businessmen might have established notability were it verifiable, but I can't find anything to prove it. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete as yet another article by a proud friend. It's more well written than most, but it's otherwise exactly the same. Uncle G (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Christofono

Subject appears to be a non-notable high school athlete, not a gay rights activist. This is likely a hoax/attack page and in violation of BLP. Should be "speedied". Mitico (talk, contribs) 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete as attack page/blatant hoax. BLP subject appears to be a non-notable high school athlete in the sources given in the article as well as this one. The gay rights organization Christofono is alleged to have founded does not turn up in Google search. I would think that such an organization would at least have a MySpace or Facebook page if it really existed. KuyaBriBri 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Borderline attack article but even without that it doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE treelo _radda 13:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong delete per lack of verifiability. I also have strong feelings of hoaxery going on here. MuZemike 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I' 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Cartu

Fails notability. Crashoffer12345 (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Disguised advert for the casino. - Mgm| 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Undisguised advert for the online casino. Zero independent sourcing. This is pagespam. BusterD (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Bionicle. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Metru Nui

AfDs for this article:

None Notable fictional location Cabe 6403 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - not even a whiff of real-world notability. --Boston (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete, no reason to believe that it's notable outside its universe. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to BIONICLE as a plausible search term. - Mgm| 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge what's citeable into Bionicle; and Redirect. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete and/or redirect. Since previous AfDs of far more "notable" Bionicle items (e.g. characters) resulted in deletion for lack of sufficient notability, it is doubtful that this fictional location actually deserves a stand-alone article. – sgeureka 11:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Polyphobia

Dicdef at best, unverifiable neologism at worst. Vidkun (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my bad.--Vidkun (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete "Poly" literally means many, so the claim it refers to polyamory-something pretty much says that the phobia is only named after an indiscriminate part of the word it refers to which is utter bullocks. Compared with this page I'm confident it's a hoax. Someone might want to write about it, but this definitely needs to be deleted from the history. (PS. Pubmed came up empty and tried to redirect me to polyphagia, so I'm not that confident about the wrongdiagnosis.com link either) - Mgm| 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment The Psychiatric dictionary has an entry as "fear of many things", as has a Springer press medical dictionary and some other science books as well (example). Google Books also turns up a few hits for the word as described in the article, but this is more "fringe" I think. I'm not sure how to proceed, perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary? Hekerui (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment There's nothing to transwiki to wiktionary - it's a neologism, attempting to assert that things similar to the characteristics of homophobia also occur in regards to polyamory. It may be true, but is it verifiable?--Vidkun (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete as a WP:NEO as written; or, rewrite in terms of the recognized phobia mentioned above. JJL (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete neo. Clearly.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Samet Gündüz

NN footballer, the player has not been played for fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 12:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete not a notable player as per WP:ATHLETE. Sullyman15 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pascal Schürpf

Schürpf has not played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 12:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete not a notable player as per WP:ATHLETE. Sullyman15 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nikolaj Gavric

Gavric has not been played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete not a notable football player as per WP:ATHLETE. Sullyman15 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dominik Ritter

Ritter has not been played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 12:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete not a notable football player as per WP:ATHLETE. Sullyman15 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Willian Daniel Ferreira

Willian has not been played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 12:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete not a notable football player as per WP:ATHLETE. Sullyman15 (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

David da Costa

da Costa has not been played in fully-pro league. Matthew_hk t c 12:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete not a notable football player as per WP:ATHLETE. Sullyman15 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. As far as I can tell, the general consensus seems to be leaning towards keep. This is indeed an out-of-the-ordinary case, and at the moment it seems notable enough for an article. Once the dust settles, the situation can be re-evaluated in a few months. –Juliancolton | 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandra Cantu

Note: In the interest of being bold, I renamed and moved the article to "Murder of Sandra Cantu". I checked on the "rules" for ongoing deletion debates, and this is an acceptable action for me to take while this current debate is in progress. See Bullet Point Number 4 at Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. The deletion discussion follows below. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Update: It was pointed out to me that this case is a homicide at the moment, as a "murder" (per se) is only alleged and not yet proven. I tend to agree with that assessment. Sorry for yet another move, but I thought it appropriate. I moved "Murder of Sandra Cantu" to "Sandra Cantu homicide" ... consistent with "Caylee Anthony homicide". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Deletion Discussion:

It's a sad death, but dying is not encyclopedic in itself. Misplaced Pages also isn't a news service and unless the culprit is caught, it's unlikely something non-news-ish can be written. Article claims to be in the process of revamping but wasn't touched for the 10 hours prior to me tagging it. Mgm| 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Although the disappearance and death have received daily coverage (at least in our local newspaper, 90 miles away), this is really better suited for WikiNews. There's lots of precedent that we don't have articles on every single crime victim. Sad to say, but this crime appears to be just like hundreds of other senseless murders.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki and delete. This is a news story that is unlikely to have any historical interest at present. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Transwiki to where? Junk Police (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This is a tragic outcome for a little girl's life and for the woman's family, but how is the story different than that of any other person who dies a tragic death. We all feel for all of those people. However, I do think that the Sandra Cantu's full story should be merged into an article about the disturbing turn in the life of Melissa Huckaby, whose article I was orginally looking for, but was redirected to this Cantu murder investigation article. Canihaveacookie Talk April 14, 2009

Keep - This has gone far beyond just a breaking story. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning delete. IMO the subject may attain further notability if the culprit is caught and identified, but for now I would lean toward a delete. — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete while it received lots of coverage at the time, its not encyclopedic. Much better suited for wikinews.--RadioFan (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Although this reminds me of a certain syndrome, it's at the top of the news. People will expect some coverage by Misplaced Pages. Since a female Sunday school teacher has been arrested in connection to the crime since this page was marked for deletion, I also suspect news coverage will increase. Calls for deletion are premature.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment while the arrest will bring this back into the news for a while, it's still not encyclopedic. Transwiki to Wikinews.--RadioFan (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - If nothing else ... it is highly notable that she was (allegedly) killed by a female, a mother, and her best friend's mother, to boot. Statistically, this almost never happens. Everyone was expecting a male pedophile as the culprit. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Delete not everything in the news is notable for Misplaced Pages, i.e. not notable and not encyclopedic. feydey (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I second the above, but solo killings of children by women are extremely rare (so says the AOL News article on the story). The information here should be used to support a relavent article. SoLowRockerMan (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - To amend my comment above ... this article should be kept ... but probably renamed as "Murder of Sandra Cantu" (or similar). I think that it is the crime itself that is notable, and not the victim per se. This deletion debate comes up every time there is a highly publicized crime ... with deletion debates going back and forth on whether or not the victim was notable, whether or not the crime was notable, etc. These ever-present debates would often result in inconsistent conclusions for different - yet similar - cases. In response, some editors at Misplaced Pages came up with the following policy: Misplaced Pages:Notability (criminal acts). It is probably relevant in this case and in this debate. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

— Duplicate !vote: Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. WWGB (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not think that these were "votes" to be tallied up. I thought that this was a discussion / debate. You can clearly see from my second (follow-up) comment that I explicitly stated that I was amending my original comment. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Keep. This has gone far beyond being an average murder case now. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This is as noteworthy and historical as other Misplaced Pages one-time events, such as the killings / missing children, including Adam Walsh, Polly Klaas, Christopher Barrios Jr., Dantrell Davis, Caylee Anthony, Madeleine McCann, Elizabeth Smart, Jon Benet Ramsey, etc. Furthmore, it is getting coverage in national networks, including CNN 1 and FoxNews 2. Finally, as has been reported in mulitple sources, the alleged killer is female and a mother of a younger child, highly unusual for this type of crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvsett (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This is not your average murder case and is part of a sad history of child murders User:Donmike10

Keep See: Category:Murdered American children.[REDACTED] has numerous articles on such cases. while this is a fairly new case, the notability of the suspect makes it worthy of an article. as long as the article doesnt become a tribute to the girl. there are lots of newsworthy articles that start off with too much detail for an encyclopedia, but still deserve at least a small article. deletion should be reserved for nonnotable killings, which i believe this isnt. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This is a highly notable incident and an unusual killing that deserves its own page.StradTrumpeter (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Though WP:ONEEVENT or MWWS may apply. It can be reevaluated in the future if there is significant decline in coverage. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Highly notable case based upon special circumstances of the crime and gender of alleged perpetrator. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. The only reason why this should ever be kept is if, as per previous commenters, the circumstances of the crime and/or the gender of the perpetrator are found to be specially noteworthy. And then the article should emphasize those aspects specifically. But right now, the identity of the perpetrator isn't known, nor are the exact circumstances, so they cannot be judged noteworthy yet. In other words, the very things that make this case notable are currently not confirmed. If they ever are, there will be plenty of reliable sources to allow the appropriate article to be created. Since Misplaced Pages is not a news source, there's no reason to rush to publish; we can wait until we know for sure that the case is noteworthy and why. --lightspeedchick (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken in saying that "right now, the identity of the perpetrator isn't known". It is quite well-known, has been confirmed, and -- in fact -- is mentioned at length within the article. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

I just mean that she hasn't been found officially guilty yet. Or has she entered a guilty plea? --lightspeedchick (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. You meant the actual perpetrator ... and I misread that as the alleged perpetrator. Either way, however, it is the characteristics of the (alleged) perpetrator that make this a unique and notable case. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Delete. This's better for wikinews. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Netural. It is sad but she was not only one, there are many many missing children who were murdered so we are having limited articles for them and they are not encylopedian issues but maybe memorial article. My mother's friend's kid was missing for two months before her kid was discovered in the woods so why she don't be on national news and wikipedia?????? I agreed with them about wikinews. If she is fitting in an encyclopedia article, she can. Memorial article may be a better idea. Cculber007(talk) 10:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. If and when a trial develops facts that are notable in their own right, then this article can be restored. But right now, apart from sensationalistic media coverage during a slow news week, and vague allegations in a criminal complaint, there is not much that distinguishes this case from the thousands of other murder cases that occur every year in the United States. The California Reports and California Appellate Reports document tens of thousands of crimes, many of which are far more vicious and brutal than what has been alleged in the Cantu case, but because of the arbitrariness of media editors, most of those crimes get very little public attention. I am well aware of the horrible circumstances of this particular case, but Misplaced Pages is not a memorial site. See WP:NOT.--Coolcaesar (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are completely untrue. (a) There is, in fact, a great deal that distinguishes this case from the thousands of other murder cases that occur every year in the United States. Expert criminologists are baffled at the allegations and at the characteristics of the alleged perpetrator (female, mother of small child, acting solo without a male instigator, no criminal history, etc.). The FBI reports statistics on the absolute rarity of this type of case. Thus, how on earth do you classify this case as a "garden variety" child kidnap-rape-murder that occurs thousands of times in the USA? (b) Your premise is completely unfounded. This case is not notable because of its "vicious and brutal" nature and its "horrible circumstances". It is notable for other reasons, as outlined in the preceding sentences. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Keep. I agree with the others who are saying to keep it, the circumstances of the 'who' have brought this to be more noteworthy, though yes, every child who goes missing should have such attention, the fact that it was a woman and a Sunday school teacher, the daughter of a pastor, makes this a little more central. kaiaterra 11:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. There is way too much speculation and inference going on here based on sketchy reports based on minimal facts, all regarding a living person. "The fact" that "it was a woman and a Sunday school teacher" etc.? Really? Is this a "fact?" There's a difference between a news blog and an encyclopedia, and that should be better recognized here. Steveozone (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? (a) There is no speculation. (b) There are no inferences. (c) These are hardly "sketchy" reports. (d) These reports are not based on "minimal facts". (e) Yes, it is indeed a reported fact that the alleged perpetrator is "a woman and a Sunday school teacher". (f) This case has been reported at great length in many, many, many very reputable sources ... and not simply in news blogs. I don't understand your post at all, quite frankly. Each and every point that you make is untrue. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

The point is that notability is based on a premise that is speculative--that in fact "it was a woman..." who committed a sexual assault in the course of murder (an intentional killing with malice aforethought). Yes the allegations have been made, in general terms, in the criminal complaint; however, little to no evidence has been presented or even discussed by those making the allegations, and none as to the sexual assault. As the "alleged perpetrator" is only alleged, in conclusory, general and vague terms, to have committed this sexual act which forms the basis of the argument for notability, it seems to be premature to conclude that the event is notable. BTW, I'll live with "unclear," but "untrue" seems a bit heavyhanded to me. Lighten up! Steveozone (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes ... she is obviously an alleged perpetrator at this stage, as opposed to a convicted perpetrator. The notability of this case lies in the details / characteristics of the alleged perpetrator. The fact that she is an alleged (as opposed to convicted) perpetrator does not in any way lessen her notability. Thus, notable ... thus, keep and don't delete. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Note: In the interest of being bold, I renamed and moved the article to "Murder of Sandra Cantu". I checked on the "rules" for ongoing deletion debates, and this is an acceptable action for me to take while this current debate is in progress. See Bullet Point Number 4 at Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Zahir Idrizi

Idrizi has not played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete not a notable football player as per WP:ATHLETE. Sullyman15 (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was merge and/or transwiki.. –Juliancolton | 15:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church political views

This article is mainly WP:Original research. It takes a bunch of quotes from Unification Church sources and proclaims that this represents "Unification Church political views" without any secondary sources that say so, or even recognize that "Unification Church political views" is a notable topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete:~~ Break up (per Jclemens) mostly a quotefarm of UC quotations, often with little tying them together or to the article topic. No evidence of WP:NOTE, and if an article establishing notability for this topic were eventually to be written, it'd have to be a re-write from scratch. Hrafn_Stalk 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Would be agreeable to moving the excess quotations to wikisource & merging whatever of the remainder isn't WP:OR. Likewise prefer 'Political activities of the Unification Church' to any of the extant article titles. Hrafn_Stalk 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I much agree that "political activities of the Unification Church" is a better title. Then it could be about things people did, not just other people's opinions about their "views." Borock (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Break it up and move most of the primary source quotes/text to Wikisource. The rest of it can probably be merged into other UC article(s) (perhaps Unification Church and political involvement?) without losing content. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Jclemens. This title is probably superior to Unification Church and political involvement, although I would prefer Political activities of the Unification Church to either of them. The Rev. Moon quotes are better sourced than much of the material on Wikiquote, and should be transwikied to his page there if they aren't already. The subject is certainly worthy of treatment somewhere or another. I am also sure that second party commentary on the Unification Church's politics is probably not hard to find. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete/Transwiki I absolutely believe there is a useful and valuable article on this subject, and just as soon as someone cites the journalist or scholar who has written and published that article, we can make one here. In the meantime, this is a primary-source amalgamation, amounting to an OR synthesis. - Markeer 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

About sources, this one didn't exactly make any best-sellers lists. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge - as Ihcoyc said, the article Unification Church and political involvement already exists regarding this topic. Maybe change the name to something more inclusive like "Politics and the Unification Church"...once we can get citations for the material that is presently in the article nominated for deletion. _scootey 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge, agree with Scootey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete This is just a collection of quotes, as the nominator said. All of them are from Unification Church primary sources, with one exception which is the opinion of a leading critic: That is from his website and borders on a BLP violation.Borock (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If it’s not Merged some where else – Delete . I do not see notability here also Misplaced Pages is not a list or repository of quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for Wikiquote. Similarly, quotations should always be presented with an introduction; a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. Agree with comments by Hrafn, Borock and Steve Dufour Jlrobertson (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Break up and merge (per Jclemens). There are literally thousands of references to the Unification Church and political involvement in academic publications and news articles going back at least to 1974, including many on the relevant teachings/beliefs of the church. (Actually, one academic source from 1966 that comes to mind might have something useful.) If someone wants to take the time to find some of them, an article with substantial notable material could easily be put together (or in this case, Unification Church political activities could be expanded to include some of it). -Exucmember (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Port_Elizabeth#Education. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Herbert Hurd Primary School

Totally unreferenced, large part of the article is a copyvio of the mission statement. The school's own website isn't an independent source and the only other coverage I can find is a couple of kids from the school being sponsored by a business to take level one sailing classes at a local sailing school. Admirable, but nothing notable for the school. Delete (please don't waste time on debating schools in general, but let the article stand on its own merit) Mgm| 11:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Port Elizabeth#Education. It's a relevant search term for that section. The current article isn't worth much, though. Rklear (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect per Rklear. Elementary schools are generally not notable (see WP:OUTCOMES) and I see nothing in the article that presents this one as an exception. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Port Elizabeth#Education per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Port Elizabeth#Education per precedent. I have completed the merge. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Sources in English are preferred when available, but notability does not depend on language. "English" only refers to the language Misplaced Pages is written in, not the sort of topics it should cover. (see the policy: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Non-English_sources) Mgm| 12:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Henrik Heftye

Lack of notability. Sources all in Norwegian. No evidence of notability in English. Author removed {{db-a7}}. Bazj (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep, article shows notability in nineteenth-century Norway—as banker, philanthropist and member of the board of notable company, and this is supported by not one but two paper encyclopedias. Language of sources is no deletion reason in any case. Punkmorten (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. I note that any content forking can be remedied by merging, which does not require AfD. Sandstein 09:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist metaphysics

Bundling these articles with this nomination:

Content fork of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) --Karbinski (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete These are all restatements of Ms Rand's writings, not articles about the topics. If people want to read her works they should do so in the original. Also there is nothing that says all objectivists have the same opinions on these topics as Rand. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. This is not a content fork, because it clearly goes beyond what is stated at Objectivism (Ayn Rand), as is its intention. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not paper states that long articles ought to be considered for splits; that is exactly what has been done here (the main article is 58kB long: long by any measure for a non-list). There is a Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, as well as myriad libertarian journals that include her work within their remit, so I'm sure objectivist metaphysics have received a great deal of coverage. The correct response to the article being a reworking of primary sources (i.e. Rand's work) is to use the {{fact}} tag and request that secondary sources be used. It is no justification to delete. Bastin 12:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per nomination, too much repetition of material between articles. Need to separate Objectivist articles from those about Ayn Rand. --Snowded (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I tend to see Rand's philosophy as somewhat of a fringe position, unoriginal to the extent that it's right, and wrong to the extent that it's original. Rand and her followers' vehemence in judgments on their critics tended to diminish her ideas' chances of being taken seriously as well. Any trepidation I'd have about such articles comes not from the fact that they rehash Rand, but that Rand doesn't merit that depth of coverage.

That said, she acquired enough of a following that there has come into being a small industry of academics who seek to rehabilitate the reputation of Rand's ideas. And any idea about Rand's thought is only worthwhile to the extent that it communicates the substance of Rand's thought. And to the extent that there is a scope of objectivist opinion, that itself is worth coverage, given that the core of Randian objectivism seems to be to claim that reason dictates a single correct answer to every question. I am not prepared to endorse the deletion of encyclopedia articles on the epistemology, ethics, or political philosophy of Rand and her followers; she was not a major philosopher, but she is a well known philosopher. The rest seems a content dispute beyond our bailiwick. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Definite keep on procedural grounds. This is not an issue for AfD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". Misplaced Pages without doubt should have content somewhere on these topics, as they surpass the threshold for notability beyond reasonable doubt (see bibliography of work on Objectivism). The only question here is whether or not the branches of Objectivist philosophy should have stand-alone articles or not, and that is a question of merging, not deletion, and so belongs on the article talkpages, not here. Even if it were judged appropriate to have these articles deleted, the titles would still be redirects to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and as that article covers some of the same content as these, content from the sub-articles would need to be moved to preserve the best content the encyclopaedia has to offer on the topic. In other words, if the articles are not kept, merging (however selective) is the only realistic outcome. I've gone ahead and redirected Objectivist politics to the main article, without prejudice against recreation, because the summary in the main article was more extensive and better cited. The Objectivist metaphysics and Objectivist epistemology articles offer valuable analyses beyond what is present in Objectivism (Ayn Rand); granted, they are lacking in references, but there are a wealth of reliable sources that can be used to support and expand the articles. It's disheartening again to see the Pokemon fallacy ("topic x is less important than these other topics, but has more articles; delete them") raise it's ugly head here; there is enough space and coverage to write dozens of verifiable, neutral articles on hundreds of philosophical schools of thought. It's a good thing that Misplaced Pages's coverage of Objectivism, transhumanism and {{Nietzsche}} is so extensive, because it does not come at the expense of the poor coverage of communitarianism, German idealism, Kripke and so on. Misplaced Pages:Content forking refers primarily to non-neutral versions of existing articles – which is clearly not the case here: "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View." In summary, this nomination fundamentally fails to address the potential rather than current state of the coverage of the topic. Skomorokh 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep The nomination provides no reason to delete. AFD is not a guessing game or fishing trip. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing here that should not be put shorter and sweeter on the objectivist page. The reason to delete is actually pretty simple... the material in question has little to no citation count, less interest in the related topical fields, and as such is not notable separate from the primary category. objectivist metaphysics being the easy example... most of what you'll find there is a walled garden, that is a very small group of people citing each other to drive up apparent notability, but very little if any interaction with larger fields. --Buridan (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. That's kind of my impression of what little I've read in the works of academics studying Rand. There aren't many of them, and they talk mostly to each other. Still, they hold appropriate degrees and teach at various universities. Were they nothing other than a circle of Misplaced Pages editors, I wouldn't hesitate to call it a "walled garden". But there are many more such walled gardens in academia. Do we call the twentieth century corpus of serialist music a walled garden? It was one, in the broad sense: it was made by academics and its only real audience was other academics. Rand's followers have established networks of peer-reviewed journals in the standard manner. It may be all an imposture: then again, I get the same impression from attempts to surround schoolteaching, "management science", advertising, and similar crafts with the folderol of academia. But is it our place to make judgments about these enterprises? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

yes. it is our place, especially when objectivism and rand mentions creep across the pages of wikipedia. on any given day you are likely to find a link to objectivism or objectivist metaphysics on the abraham lincoln page or the aristotle pages, the monetary policy pages, a listing of terry pratchett's books, etc. etc. now i am not one to deny anyone their particular academic industry, but... we don't find serialist music or management science really doing much of that, do we? so i'm thinking that when such a small community has such a large set of let's say... 'enthusiastic' followers, keeping the pages that it occupies and references to reasonable size... seems reasonable? it is sort of a a NPOV reasonableness on the one hand and a systematic bias reasonableness on the other.. no? --Buridan (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No.

I have never seen such mentions of Objectivist metaphysics spreading across Misplaced Pages unrequited and unwarranted.
If they did appear, they may well have been warranted. You may think of Objectivism as some sort of cult (and why not?), but it's a set of beliefs that affects a lot of people. Such as, for example, Alan Greenspan, who was an Objectivist and on whom Rand had a huge personal and professional effect; sometimes, reference to Objectivism on articles related to monetary policy may not be irrelevant.
If the references are irrelevant, remove them. Do not delete these articles because other articles have flaws.

Please cite policy or guideline before advocating the deletion of material. Bastin 02:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

oh i did, i cited notability. the articles are less notable than their parent, they contain material that should appear in the parent, and other than citing a walled garden, are closer to original research than wp should have. they don't inherit notability from their parent. Kindly don't run up the greenspan flag, the man clearly said her ideals had no affect on his policymaking. --Buridan (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere within the Misplaced Pages:Article size policy is notability mentioned. It mentions that the criterion that a split must fulfil is Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view to prevent Misplaced Pages:Content forking. The original assertion is one of content-forking: without any evidence that that is the case. Without an argument being made for the rationale given for deletion, the article cannot be deleted.

If you have a problem with the lack of references to prove notability, you will quite easily find a range of articles related to Objectivist metaphysics in academic journals and other verifiable secondary sources, which will be forthcoming if you make that request. Once again, the correct response to this flaw is to use the {{Notability}} tag.

Greenspan's views on economics were highly influenced by Rand. So... Greenspan said what now? Bastin 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

the articles were not nominated for deletion because they were improvable, they are nominated because even if you improve them, the content and citations that you add would be better used to improve the main objectivism page. As for your argument that they aren't a content fork, actually they were, i was around when it happened. People were fussing about the lack of quality and improving content of the subsections of the article and when people deleted the uncited materials and cut the content down to reasonable length, another editor created new articles and linked them. these are clearly content forks. my position is that they are not notable enough to stand on their own. they might be extremely popular, you might find some citations for some of their content, but these categories, and i just don't mean the metaphysics one, are not categories that are notable in the world. They are far closer to say... virtue metaphysics which also is not notable enough to have a category then say nihilist metaphysics which may be notable enough. --Buridan (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Ged UK 06:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

César Ferreira Cattaruzzi

The player has not played in fully-pro league, such as Brazilian Serie A, Swiss Super League Matthew_hk t c 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Jane Caulfeild

A simple genealogical entry, with no indication of historical noteworthiness nor impact. A prod tag was added, but was removed on grounds that 'having an entry in a paper encyclopedia is a strong indication of notability'. That particular encyclopaedia is a 1906 Jewish encyclopaedia, and its entry seems to stem solely from the subject being a Jewish convert, as there is nothing else that indicates even the slightest hint of notability. CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge into her husband's page, James Caulfeild, 3rd Earl of Charlemont. That seems to be where most of her "notability" lies. It would also seem her surname's misspelt. Bazj (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep If she's notable enough for a paper encyclopedia, even a specialized one, then she's notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd assumed that Misplaced Pages was a source-based encyclopaedia, not a faith-based one. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Indeed. And a nomination for deletion that itself cites one source covering this person is somewhat self-defeating, as a consequence. Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep The paper encyclopedias are sources sufficient for the purpose. The JE and the CE, old and new, are among the major encyclopedias that confer notability. The principle is that we are a superset of other major selective encyclopedias. Additionally, as what she did was extremely unsuaul for someone in her position, there probably are additional sources., DGG (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Google throws up plenty of links under the correct spelling of CAULFEILD, though mostly due to her place in the peerage through her husband. Bazj (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- I' 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- I' 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Google Books appears to show coverage for this particular woman as notable for her conversion to Judaism. I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find someone's dissertation on her. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is coverage in the 1908 Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, apparently. Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - notability clearly established by individual entries in paper encyclopedias. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Other than the faith-based assertions that she MUST be famous for something because she's in an old encyclopaedia, does anyone have any ACTUAL evidence of this fame--or, in fact, what this fame is supposed to be about? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Only you have mentioned fame, which is not an inclusion or exclusion criterion at Misplaced Pages. Other people have been talking about notability which is not the same thing as fame at all. Only you have mentioned faith, too. Everyone else is talking about sources. John Carter's rationale, specifically, is clearly based upon sources from what xe has actually written. Xe makes no mention at all of faith of any kind. Characterizing it as such is a gross misrepresentation.
    Why, if you think that this is a source-based encyclopaedia, are you trying to divert a discussion that is directly addressing sources away from doing so? Multiple independent sources exist (Boase's Modern English Biography has an entry. And she's discussed as a case in Roth's Personalities and events in Jewish history‎.). And it is solely the depths and provenances of the sources that exist that determine notability, not our personal subjective judgements of importance, not estimations of "fame" or "impact" that we have no business even trying to make (because they have no bearing upon what readers actually come to an encyclopaedia for), and not our personal likes and dislikes. Uncle G (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, since she was important enough for the 1901 jewpedia -- Y not? 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was merge to Rubble series. No consensus to delete. Closing as "merge" with no prejudice against keeping if someone wants to expand this article and add additional sources (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Electric Crayon Set

No evidence of notability. It's no more than a track listing. I had a "prod" on the page which was removed for the addition of a single reference. To be fair to the page (and so it can be reviewed impartially) I've improved it as far as it'll go, and it's still cruft. Bazj (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Rubble series, there is not enough content to justify a new article.--Patton 11:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - This album meets the basic criteria of the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as demonstrated by the review at AllMusic.com. Other independent reviews can be found. Esasus (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Rubble series. Insufficient content and notability for a stand alone article. JamesBurns (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Ged UK 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

André Viapiana

Viapiana has not played in full-pro league, such as Brazilian Serie A and Swiss Super League Matthew_hk t c 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delte per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted by Dank55, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keli omega 3

This poorly written article seems to be spam for some non-notable product or chemical, and is Original Research. Sources? The author's blog. I'm sure other reasons can be found to delete it, please read it. Thanks. Resurr Section (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete as spam. Punkmorten (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- I' 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, neither notable or verifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeenshire Shield

No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Oo7565 (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, appears to get plenty of coverage from the clubs involved websites, and the Highland Press & Journal. Article could do with a wholesale re-write and referencing, giving some historical background etc, but that's not a reason to delete. - fchd (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per fchd; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep; there are quite a few of these regional cups in Scotland that involve(d) senior clubs. eg Glasgow Cup, East of Scotland Shield (and a few more Hibs v Hearts vehicles), Forfarshire Cup and so on. This article needs to be improved rather than deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 15:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Rama Claproth

MySpace artist. Does not appear to have recorded and released anything of note, nor been a member of a notable band. No awards or charts. JamesBurns (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete USA Google does not return any significant results, and no WP:RS are provided. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable sources, no significant coverage. TheClashFan (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Myspace pages are not independent, third-party, verifiable sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete: This person gets two Google News hits, but they're in Bahasa Indonesia, which I can't read. I've run them through Google Translate, which suggests they're fairly trivial: one is a short piece predominantly about Claproth's father and mentions Rama only in passing, the other is a photo gallery about the band in which Claproth plays. (Though there're purportedly 3 matches related to that second item, they're actually all identical.) I don't think this is enough to constitute significant coverage in multiple sources, and therefore to establish notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 05:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Adele Scheele

I know nothing about this person and this article does not do anything to help me know more about this person. If he is notable, nothing here lets me know that. Oo7565 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That much is obvious. You didn't even notice she's female. ;) - Mgm| 09:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. There seems to be enough out there to justify an article, including writing quite a few books, and winning a couple of awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantpole (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep- I found many pages in the Internet, including a mentioned in the New York Times Aso she wrote a book named Career Strategies for working Women available at Barnes / Noble Barnes / Noble--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be a notable published author and former national syndicated columnist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Originally closed "keep" by BusterD, reclosing to fix formatting (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Christian Wilhelm Ackermann

nn person there is no assertion of notability. Oo7565 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Another encyclopedic work already deemed him notable and Misplaced Pages should strive to cover the conventional encyclopedic knowledge as well as the more uncommon stuff. - Mgm| 09:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep anyone with an entry in a selective national biography is notable for our purposes also should be no trouble expanding the article, and I am a little surprised nobody at deWP has done so yet.DGG (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per above. Punkmorten (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Unfortunately the German[REDACTED] article is similar to this one, but at least it has an additional source (which I've added to the article). Suggest snow close should be considered.—S Marshall /_Cont 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Mgm and DGG. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. per inclusion in the German Misplaced Pages alone, which as I understand has stricter -- or better enforced -- standards for inclusion than we do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. There's already a "proposed merge" tag on this article so that discussion should take place on the talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Acer TravelMate 2420

it has been some time since this article has been written and tagged as nn and notability still has not been established. Simply existing does not make it notable. Oo7565 (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep or Merge. Given the notability of Acer, it's most likely there's already references in syndicated publications about the product, and as such, it's a references issue rather than an AFD issue. If you feel an individual model isn't notable by itself, then merge to the parent article. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep or Merge, per WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Enough (admittedly minor) mentions in several languages to merit inclusion. There's enough of them out there to make it encyclopaedic and potentially useful. I think sources *could* be found, looking at some of the non-English articles Chzz ► 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Adonis (landmark)

nn landmark based on what has been presented. While it may be notable, nothing in this article indicates it is any different from any other landmark Oo7565 (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete, questionable whether this is a landmark at all. Punkmorten (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete If it was famous or a landmark there would be secondary sources that mention it. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete No indication of notability, no sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Here's a news article about a police raid at this establishment: --seav (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The gay bar is not even a notable landmark as the authors would claim. Starczamora (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. A landmark is a mark of unique or important historical change of course or one on which important developments depend or the position of a prominent or well-known object in a particular landscape. Adonis Gay Bar does not have a historical value nor is it a geographic feature being used by people to find their way in Timog. axrealmdotcom (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely not a landmark and non-notable. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Shreik Recording

Non-notable record label - unreferenced and the contents unverifiable. 318 ghits almost all of them wiki mirrors and blogs. Cross matches with many of the names dropped proved fruitless. Even the external links provided at the bottom of the article fail to even mention this label. Could be someone's own vanity label, not sure on that, either way fails WP:CORP JamesBurns (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Sources given don't appear to have information on the organisation. Agreed with above re ghits. Doesn't appear to have had any notable artists record with the label. (Despite the name dropping that some apparently jammed at the place). Quantpole (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb 11:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Marshall

Unnotable voice actor. I cannot find any reliable sources about him on Google. The sources on the article are all wikis (or IMDB) and don't include any references either, most likely because there are none. Laurent (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Making 'conceptual contributions' is meaningless. As a voice-actor, the subject's notability is somewhat dubious. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - meets criteria for WP:Creative. This voice actor has most certainly provided significant contributions to notable productions. Untick (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - In my opinion, he doesn't meet WP:Creative. Even if he indeed contributed to major games such as Donkey Kong Country of Killer Instinct, the article doesn't say what was the extent of his contribution. More importantly, there are no proofs he was actually involved with the design of these games. Laurent (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete No reliable sources makes this article wholly unverifiable, which is against WP:BLP. MLauba (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reto Bolli

Reto Bolli has not played in fully-pro, as Swiss Challenge League is not a fully-pro league per previous deletion. Matthew_hk t c 08:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Note the entire team roster has articles, see here. Secret 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is because FC St. Gallen recent relegated from Super League, and signed few player who have Super League experience. But Bolli only once played as unused member for Schaffhausen at 2006-07 Super League season. Matthew_hk t c 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Cumbria

Trivial article listing top seven tallest buildings in a largely rural county. Is the only UK county tallest building list on Misplaced Pages (the rest of the UK ones are for cities). The top four tallest structures are all transmitting stations - arguably not buildings - and the rest aren't notable enough to have their own articles. Article is unreferenced and has been tagged as orphaned since November 2007. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Seven items, of which four aren't actually buildings and the other three aren't notable for their own articles? See also Wp:IINFO. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - As per nom. Bazj (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajesh rairala

Only claim to notability is the inclusion of the word "famous", without any substantiation. The use of that term is the only thing that made me hesitate to A7 it, as it is an assertion of notability. Vianello (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete "Famous" dancers, who end up having a routine career in the computer industry, and no performance credits, are as a rule not actually notable as dancers. DGG (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete NOW - I've added the A7. Cross checking article name against author name - it's blatant self publicity. Bazj (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted it, the word famous was somewhat undermined by later parts of the cv. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

William Self (archaeologist)

Not to be confused with other famous William Self's (novelist, actor etc), this William Self hasn't done anything notable outside of running a company. Does not appear to have published anything as an archaeologist, nor released anything as a musician. Many of the claims, such as being taught by Slim Edwards appears to be independently unverifiable Article was previous speedy deletion candidate but declined. Another editor had previously tagged the article for COI/self-promotion re: , JamesBurns (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Cannot find evidence for claims as a musician and doesn't appear notable as an archaeologist. Also note that the 3 users who have mainly worked on this article have no contributions to other articles. Quantpole (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Notability does not seem to be asserted in the article, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Cotton States and International Exposition (1895). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Atlanta Exhibition

I would support an article about Booker T. Washington's 1895 Atlanta Exposition address, but to just copy and paste it into a Misplaced Pages page doesn't seem proper. JaGa 06:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete because Wikisource already has this so a transwiki is unnecessary, and there is already an article about the Atlanta compromise, and "Atlanta Exhibition" is an unlikely misspelling so it has no value as a search term.—S Marshall /_Cont 07:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously it can't be a misspelling, but do you know if it might be an alternative name for the same thing? - Mgm| 09:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you, but in this case, I think "Exhibition" is a mis-spelling of "Exposition".—S Marshall /_Cont 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to section of article about setting of event, Piedmont Park#The 1895 World's Fair as definite plausible RD. The address itself is already dealt with in article form in Atlanta Compromise, which is linked within that Piedmont Park section. Nate • (chatter) 11:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Same answer—"Atlanta Exposition" should redirect in that way, but I don't see that "Atlanta Exhibition" should.—S Marshall /_Cont 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; a redirect with this term would do no harm at all. The terms exhibition and exposition for these kinds of events are used as liberally as the word 'expo'. Both Atlanta Exhibition and Atlanta Exposition should redirect to the Piedmont Park article, as described above. Nate • (chatter) 04:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Completely unnecessary page. JaGa 06:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm Tag for refs and expand? This will happen @ 2012. Had to laugh at the statement of Athletics is usually one of Great Britain's strong points at the olympics though! With all the gun-crime in London, I reckon those crafty cockney's can get a gold medal in the shooting events... Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that since Dunblane, people have been tending towards the use of knives as guns are harder to get a hold of since. Then against, I'm not a Cockney, so... Sceptre 18:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - As the nominator says, "This is completely unnecessary", considering it's more than three years away. As for what the person above me says, athletes is such a strong point for GB that we only won 4 medals in Beijing, and we didn't get a medal of any colour in shooting. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete the 2012 Olympics itself is notable, but this is too detailed and speculative to be of use. Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation.- Mgm| 09:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep people start plannning early, and writing about the plans. DGG (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, pointless at this time. Punkmorten (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete no further announcement by IOC and it will wait by January-March 2012. ApprenticeFan 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete For us Yanks, "Athletics" is what we call "Track and Field". This article has nothing to say that isn't already in the 2012 Summer Olympics article (August 3-12, 2010 in London). It says that there are "47 medals up for grabs"; these would be the gold medals. I certainly disagree with "planning early" as a justification for an article that has no information to impart; Misplaced Pages is not a fancy restaurant that requires advance reservations for a table ("I'm sorry, but the earliest date we can give you for your 2012 Olympics article is next February"). At the least, one should wait until a schedule (of which events will be run on which days) is available. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Mandsford. Sceptre 18:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep. Moving /temp. Nakon 05:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Equastone/temp

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Equastone/temp

There was a request (by radiojon (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)) to move Equastone/temp to Equastone, which is a creation-protected page. Page Equastone was deleted 8 times as spam or copyvio in April and May 2007. Has the firm Equastone become more notable since? Page Equastone is linked to from page Pan American Life Center. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Spamvertisment for little known company. Subject fails WP:CORP. L0b0t (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Did you even bother to read the article or just the deletion log? There is no spamming whatsoever and no advertising whatsoever. It does not list all of the properties, only the notable ones — ones officially defined as skyscrapers because of their height. It is also notable for letting a skyscraper (and office parks) go into foreclosure, which is very rare. (I have added reliable sources on these.) –radiojon (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Of course I read the article and the company website and did a search for the company name. Finding absolutely nothing about this subject that passes muster with the inclusion criteria for corporations, I opt for delete as advertising spam. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It says they are an advisory company, but they own these buildings? I don't understand. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Close nomination. Deletions due to copyvios or spamming do not address notability and have no effect on future creation. The correct course of action is to post on WP:DRV and see if the temp version is acceptable enough to get the protection lifted. - Mgm| 09:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Often spamming is detected as copyvio because the copyvio detecter finds the same text in the firm's web site and in the Misplaced Pages page about the firm, if the same man uploaded both. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Can't see anything notable, or even interesting, about this company. It owns some buildings. So what? The fact it is in financial difficulties isn't notable either, certainly not currently! --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep It seems to own quite a number, and has fallen into notable financial difficulty with some of them, according to the sources. That wasn't the case in 07. Quite a different situation. Just as the nom asks, it has in fact become more notable since, and how the present article can be construed as a advertisement escapes me entirely. DGG (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Nom's question (Has the firm Equastone become more notable since?) is easily awnsered, Yes. Foreclosure on 2 skyscrapers is a notable business failure of any 1 company. Spamvertisment ???... please explain how because I cannot see it. Exit2DOS2000 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Significant for the company maybe, but how is does a foreclosure on a piece of real estate make a company notable? --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How many skyscrapers have you heard of that are in foreclosure? Exit2DOS2000 07:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We Are The Emergency

Fails WP:MUSIC. Lack of reliable third party sources, unsigned, has only released EPs. Frozenguild (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Without references to support the radio interview assertions, or the references for the non specific music magazine in Perth, the remaining sources do not meet WP:BAND. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 05:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to back up the claims. Just another Myspace band at the moment. Esradekan Gibb 11:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Summer EP

Future EP of a barely notable artist, supported with only blog/myspace sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Astronaut (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: The album's artist, NeverShoutNever! has some interesting exposure, including a #1 single on one of Billboard's charts. Also, MTV also has a current bio of NeverShoutNever! on the website, including several live videos which were broadcast on MTV. Although it only establishes notability for the musical artist, it should probably be considered. Cheers. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 04:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep: He was just selected as a Yahoo! Who's Next artist. In the article, they talk about his Summer EP. I will be adding the source to the page. Please close this AfD and Keep the article. He is obviously notable as stated above. --Russ is the sex (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Please bear in mind that it is a yet to be released EP which I am nominating for deletion. As has already been established, the artist NeverShoutNever! is quite possibly notable. The problem with the EP's article is that the references (including Russ's "Yahoo! Who's Next" source) are still all blogs and forums and therefore fail Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I'm seeing a lot of trivial sources from blogs and myspace. EP hasn't been released and without adequate independent 3rd party sources, falls into WP:CRYSTAL category. non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, no reliable 3rd party sources. A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I put a link to a video interview on a local TV station where he discusses recording in Long Beach, CA on the article page. --Russ is the sex (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines subsidiaries

This is a content fork. The companies in this article are linked to at Singapore_Airlines#Structure within the table. The companies have their own articles at SIA Engineering Company, Singapore Airport Terminal Services, Singapore Flying College and SilkAir#Tradewinds_Tours_and_Travel_Private_Limited. Russavia 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Naga Chaitanya

Most of the article argues about how notable the subject is due to his relatives; problem is notability is not inheritable. Also his own accomplishments are not quite there yet - an appearance in a movie that is still filming. Tabercil (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Article can be linked to by 4 other articles. Familial ties are considered much more important in some countries than others. Notability has been asserted, and reliable sources exist. There seems to be nothing offensive, self-promoting, or irrelevant about the information. Although Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL, there seems to be no reason we can't stay a little bit ahead of the curve on a good bet (especially one formatted so nicely and reffed so cleanly... it would be a shame to have to recreate it in a few months when the movie is released). If the film is canceled, it wouldn't be a problem to re-nominate it. Would the nominator consider instead a refimprove template, or a future events template, in the spirit of inclusionism? Cheers. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 04:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete "He made his film debut in ... which is still under production" Not yet notable, no matter who his parents are. DGG (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete None of the content need be lost as it can be userfied. But notability is not established yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep, his debut created waves in the Telugu film industry. More links will be added.Universal Hero (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Being related to notable people does not make you notable. His single film has not even been released yet. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. The man is getting news coverage, but all in relationship to Josh, a film currently under production. When it is released, and he gets some individual attention, let it come back. Schmidt, 20:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

KrisWorld

This was prodded and an admin has undeleted it. First and foremost WP is not a venue for advertising. We don't need to know that this entertainment system has 112 movies and 740 music CD's. The contents of this article covered succinctly at Singapore_Airlines#In-flight_entertainment_system_and_communication, still with the feel of advertising, but not like this - the company has a massive advertising budget, we aren't here to do this for free. What next? Singapore Airlines' fabulous peanuts. Russavia 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete, un-encyclopedic, advertising.--Frozenguild (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep I think the history of this in-flight entertainment is actually quite notable. I believe there is enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. It certainly needs aggresive pruning and better sourcing. But Krisworld was and perhaps is an industry leader and really set the standard for inflight entertainment. Singapore Airlines has consistently been ranked very highly for its ammenities and is reknowned for its services including in-flight entertainment. I'm not sure how big a deal it is now, as I think other airlines have improved their offerings to compete, and I haven't kept up with that kind of thing nor had the opportunity to fly internationally in many years, :( but I believe the history is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep The claim that an article reads like an advertisement is not an argument for deleting it; it's an argument for rewording it and/or making a more neutral choice of facts to include/exclude from the article. The claim that an article has unnecessary details is not an argument for deleting it; it's an argument for removing those details. As for the notability guidelines, I don't really get them, but if we get a consensus that it's not notable, then at least keep this article as a redirect. However, a quick Google search suggests that there's no way that will happen if someone works on this article properly. Brian Jason Drake 11:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

BBY Ltd

fails WP:ORG no real significant third party coverage. see google news search LibStar (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. If you type BBY Ltd or BBY Limited in Google News and select 'All Dates' you will discover that there are many newswires which highlight BBY and what appear to be its analysts commenting on Australian Company's. If you have look at the facts, BBY Ltd accounts for a sizable amount of ASX market share, at present 10-15% the Size of Macquaire Group, one of the largest company's of its kind. BBY certainly would not be classified as a Large Investment Bank, but it is still noteworthy, espcially when you consider that it was ranked 9th Overall Best Invesment Banker in Australia by 2008 BRW East Coles Magaizine, ahead of Credit Suisse at 10, Caliburn Partners 11, and Morgan Stanley 12. See, http://bby.com.au/Portals/0/BBY/PDF/News/BBYNews05Feb09.pdf for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zip1010 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please discount the comment from above as this user admits working for the article subject and thus have a severe conflict of interest. the user is also a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just delete half of Misplaced Pages? So much 'corporate' coverage is weak and/or self-serving, and presumably carefully vetted/planted and 'maintained' by the subject, yet allowed to remain if the company is big enough (and so presumably deemed 'significant')...this item has value, even if only providing quick reference/context, as do most items of this ilk. Correct, I am not Misplaced Pages's greatest fan (precisely for poncey behaviour like this), but I nevertheless do use it a lot as a lazy starting point (but at least half the time end up having to get accurate info elsewhere) and this item is not standout-weak...you 'editors' really need to grow up a lot if you're seriously considering cutting this but not many thousands of other company items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.65.250 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 78.32.65.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. Sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. WWGB (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Mgm| 09:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Geometric Design of Roads

~~WP:NOT a textbook. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)~~ I'm withdrawing this AFD - can somebody close it so I don't have to deal with the templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The article doesn't look like a textbook. According to Misplaced Pages:NOTTEXTBOOK, a textbook type article would have questions and answers, problems sets etc, to teach the subject. An encyclopedia article would simply present information. This article looks like it's presenting information. It's also sourced, and I'm not a specialist, but the subject looks like an important part of road construction. I would like to see some more diversity in sources and some sources that can be verified online. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Terminology sections? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  - What about them? Re-read what LinguistAtLarge wrote. Explaining the variables used in the mathematical formulae for an engineering subject doesn't teach the subject. It is informational, not instructional. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not instructional, and it's a perfectly valid topic in highway engineering, as can be seen from chapter 3 ("Highway geometric design") of ISBN 8120320840, chapter 4 ("Geometric design of roads in rural areas") of Highway Engineering (Ashworth; Heinemann Educational; 1966), and many others. This is a woefully incomplete article. For starters it could do with some globalization and the use of more than just 2 sources. (Both problems could probably be addressed at the same time by starting with Geometric design practices for European roads, Federal Highway Administration report FHWA-PL-01-026. ☺) But deletion isn't the answer, and the multiple independent in-depth sources exist. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep since Linguist and Uncle G have pointed out the notability of this topic, as well as the flaws in the treatment--and AfD is not for cleanup. The topic needs another loving expert with slightly more books on the shelf. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Major engineering topic. many books and other sources available. DGG (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mgm| 09:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Monkey Washes the Cat

Non-notable snippet of oddball film that has turned up on YouTube and was very, very briefly seen on Jon Stewart and David Letterman's shows as a quickie sight gag (the untitled footage only runs a couple of seconds). A previous article on the same subject, Monkey washing a cat, has already been deleted. The article does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete no reliable sources on which to base an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. There are exactly 3 Google hits on this phrase. Clearly not in common usage. eaolson (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete amusing clip but there's not enough content out there to justify an article. Hazir (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Undefeated horses

Non-sourced list; original research (violates WP:NOR) mhking (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - list is too small and uninformative. Relevant undefeated horses would likely have their own wiki page. Mandermagic (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment They do. Poechalkdust (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep It might look like original research, but the horses themselves are linked and reference links can be dug up from the linked articles. It's perfectly salvageable. - Mgm| 09:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put my money where my mouth is and referenced the list as best I could. We'd need an expert to improve the lead section, though. - Mgm| 10:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keepp As per Mgm. Nice job of sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep. An interesting list for the benefit of browsers, with clear criteria of inclusion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WFL All-Time Team

Arbitrary list & original research (violates WP:NOR) mhking (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are references included in the article, teo of them. the stats, team, et.c are refernced . . . McDanny74 (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep Slightly arbitary list, but there are references. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Seen worse. Could be inproved. Keep.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I simply repeat . . . there are references and I agree it could be better, but it is new, it just needs some time and more editors. I think that it was too quickly added to the "speedily delete" and it seems there is a small majority if favor of keeping, although the sample is small.McDanny74 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Lord Cornwallis weak keep.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I vote to allow it to stay. It is kind of interesting and as has been mentionm, it is sourced.NEPatriotsfan2008 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It's fine. Fins Big Man (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One more for Weak keepRussFrancisTE81 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Barrie Phillips

He was a reserve for a Wales friendly squad. Check out the Talk:Barrie_Phillips Anshuk (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete not notable in any way. Bazj (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. JohnCD (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 09:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd French Summer Tour 1974

Non-notable tour, mostly consists of a setlist and tour dates, nothing to suggest notability. Rwiggum (/_Contrib) 21:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb 23:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep and merge with Pink Floyd: British Winter Tour '74 1974. See my notes here. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord 19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep and merge with Pink Floyd: British Winter Tour '74 1974 into Pink Floyd Tours/1974.--Buster7 (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep and merge with Pink Floyd: British Winter Tour '74 1974. As per proposed changes by Hexachord. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep and merge as per Buster7's suggestion. Bazj (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, a short concert tour not even used to promote any releases. Pink floyd had some huge tours but sadly this isn't one of them. TheClashFan (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge - per Buster7. Rlendog (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep and Merge, as per Buster. Not sure if this link provides any notability: link.Smallman12q (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep – There is no way to merge this with British Winter Tour '74 because that is already a redirect to this Summer Tour article! (Also, I think it is confusing to redirect one tour to another one. See, e.g. the current article Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Tour 1972-1973 which has in the box "Obscured By Clouds Tour" a self-redirect because that article has been merged in the same way.) --Cyfal (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was Snowball delete as obviously made up on a forum. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ShamWowish

Neologism. Originally tagged for a PROD (and seconded), but the author is removing the templates as fast as multiple editors can install them. No references, no sources. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 01:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:HOAX. South Bay (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - probably should have been speedily deleted as nonsense. LadyofShalott 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Delete Per the nom. I doubt this is a real word, and if it is, it probably still doesn't deserve an article. Take it to Urban Dictionary. — Jake Wartenberg 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as a WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 09:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean diving

Talks about the Caribbean and diving in it. The article seems to have an explanation to what the Caribbean is, which we already have at the Caribbean article. Zoo Fari 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Looks like spam for that "Caribbean Diving Portal". Radiant chains (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete As spam per Radiant. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Spam. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete - I'd honestly call it spam for the final link in the article. WP:CSD#G11. Side note: The actual topic of "Diving in the Caribbean", is probably notable and worthy of, say, a section in Tourism in the Caribbean, so after deletion, this should probably be redirected there. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement. Punkmorten (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement - the fact that it's the sole edit by a new editor, shows zero awareness of wiki syntax except for the link to an external site are dead giveaways. Bazj (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Today with Pat Kenny

Non notable radio shows, I can't find anything on Google to suggest they are particularly notable radio shows. I'm sure I have seen a guideline somewhere regarding shows like this, but I can't find it anywhere. Anyway, I feel they fail WP:N. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Bazj (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Both articles are obviously in need of expansion and more diverse sources, but both programmes are in the top 10 listened-to radio programmes in Ireland; a very quick Gsearch found the Irish Times and the admittedly primary-source-ish (although quoting the JNLR survey, which is the audience-counting standard for radio in Ireland) RTÉ verifying figures for the last survey period. Obviously I appreciate that more rounded articles based on more than just crude numbers should appear, but the articles have only been in existence for less than 24 hours, so possibly time should be given for expansion. Notabilty tags aren't expensive. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Notable enough. COuld always be boldly merged to RTÉ Radio 1. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Quick note on News at one: really should be moved to title such as "News at One" (RTÉ radio) or something along those lines. Technically it isn't called "RTÉ News at One" and generates a lot more ghits if RTÉ is included outside the title. But regarding merging: both are notable in their own right. Haven't had much of a chance to expand the articles, but one problem I have in the time I have given to looking for online sources regarding the early days of either programme is trying to wade through all the thousands of passing mentions. Another problem, with the News at One especially, is trying to find the online equivalents of the paper sources I know exist (I've read them :)). For example, the programme, when it was launched in the 60s, was the first news programme on Irish radio of its type, rather than a straight news bulletin and has been regarded as the model for later programmes; there is a brief mention of the fact in an obituary of the man credited with the introduction of the programme , but there are much more detailed paper sources out there. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Addendum Just a quick clarification: It was called "News at One-Thirty" before the mid-80s, but same programme. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Phoenix (magazine). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Paddy Prendeville

He's the editor of a small magazine with less than a 20,000 circulation.

It may well be that this alone makes him not notable, and certainly not worthy of biography. However, in addition, the sources give us no more to say than "he has been the editor for25 years" and we have already that information in the article on the magazine. So we should either delete this, or redirect. However my attempts to prod and to redirect have been undone. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I contested the prod. The Phoenix (magazine) is a quite well-known political satire magazine in Ireland, and it is intimately connected with Paddy Prendeville who has been its editor almost since the beginning. There is not much to write about Paddy Prendeville, I give you that. I just think that showing "Paddy Prendeville is the editor of the Irish satirical Phoenix magazine" to readers is much more useful and clear that simply redirecting to The Phoenix (magazine). A paper encyclopedia would more likely write
Paddy Prendeville (also Prenderville, Prendiville), editor of Irish satirical magazine →The Phoenix"
rather than
Paddy Prendeville, see →The Phoenix (magazine)
I do not understand the animosity towards short articles that Wikipedians often show. Not every article has to be long. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- They don't have to be long, but an article does need to establish there is enough material to require a split-off. - Mgm| 09:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect there is no information that isn't already covered in the article on the magazine. Separate articles on people are only needed when there's more than a trivial bit of information already covered elsewhere. - Mgm| 09:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sir,
Your august organ purports to be an article on one Paddy Prendeville, a.k.a. Paddy Prendiville. In looking for sources, I am outraged and disgusted to see that there is nothing documenting this person beyond the 1 sentence in your organ and perhaps 1 additional sentence stating that this person was Veronica Guerin's best friend. As any clean, decent, honest, and hardworking ~~taxpayer~~Wikipedian knows, a redirect does more than point readers in the direction of the right article, as a paper encyclopaedia's "see" does. It actually takes them there, too. Your organ is permanently incapable of any growth. I request, therefore, that you cancel my subscription to it.
Yours sincerely, Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect There is not much to write about Paddy Prendeville, I give you that. That about sums it up. The fact he is the editor of the Phoenix is covered in the article on that magazine. Other than that, there is nothing in this article at all. Redirect to Phoenix, and if anything else comes up, well the article can be re-written. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect per several above, seems the most straightforward and reasonable way to handle the topic. Tim Ross (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden

BLP1E. It's actually 2 or 3 events for each of them if you count the other minor criminal offenses, but they are in no way notable. Coverage of the event at Westside Middle School massacre (which may need renaming for NPOV), and I see no verifiable information that needs to be merged. No redirect needed as it's an unlikely search term. Atmoz (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep: As tragic as these events were, they, and the people who committed them, are very notable (sadly). Both of these men notoriety and their subsequent engagements with the law (and in Johnson's case, imprisonment) are important. These cannot be expressed in the Westside Middle School massacre with the same clarity. This article should remain in its current format.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
Keep The public not unreasonably considers these things notable, and the sources demonstrate it, and so do we. The only question I see is whether the article should be split for the two of them., DGG (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Notable for their role in the Westside Middle School massacre and especially as one of the few examples of school shooters who live through the incident and rejoin society. People don't question whether Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are notable, but they are dead so we can't learn much from them. Andy Williams, the shooter from Santana High School is alive, but remains incarcerated. These two have been released, and one of them has had significant legal issues, while one appears not to. Eauhomme (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Josh Johnson (infielder)

Non-notable minor leaguer who hasn't played past Single-A, definetely doesn't clear the WP:ATHLETE guideline. Giants27 /C 00:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ No evidence of coverage that would make him notable under the general guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect per JJL's point: nothing wrong with mentioning him and having a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 /C 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 /C 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals; fails WP:ATHLETE but mentioned there and rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. This is a frustrating one, because I could well be missing RS out there showing notability. Any signal is completely swamped by the Marlins pitcher of the same name.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, nn baseball player. That and "redirects are cheap" is a silly argument. Wizardman 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment it's plausible that someone might want to search for him, and if he does ever make it to the majors this preserves the biographical data already there. JJL (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete nothing significant about this player that warrants a Wiki page; minor league numbers are not great and a callup does not seem eminent. Mandermagic (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. MBisanz 04:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe Dickerson

Non-notable minor leaguer hasn't played past Class-A, clearly doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 /C 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ No evidence of coverage that would make him notable under the general guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect per JJL's point: nothing wrong with mentioning him and having a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 /C 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 /C 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals; fails WP:ATHLETE but mentioned there and rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep ....here is WP Athlete reprinted in its entirety, Dickerson has competed at the fully professional level of the sport of baseball: --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1 People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.

2 People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

Delete Class A is not a fully professional level, in the sense that one can make a living at it. Although judging from the article, he's now with a class AA team, he has not yet played a game at that level. We are debating whether or not to accept AA, and not everyone is convinced of AAA, but A is below any reasonable bar. And at any level, the player has to actually appear in a regular season game DGG (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a comment on the AA team -- their season doesn't start until tonight, so he hasn't had a chance to play at that level yet. (I know, could fall under a bus, etc.) I just don't want anyone to think that as of right now he's being purposely kept from playing by the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete or redirect. I've added a link to the OC Register article about him. I don't think that's enough by itself, but if anyone finds more I'll happily reconsider my !vote.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, nn baseball player. Disagree with a redirect. Wizardman 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete I agree with DGG - A ball is not fully professional. I would say anyone (other than first round and/or notable prospects) below AA should not be considered for Wiki pages unless they have done something extraordinary. Mandermagic (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals. MBisanz 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cody Strait

Non-notable minor leaguer doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 /C 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ No evidence of coverage that would make him notable under the general guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect per JJL's point: nothing wrong with mentioning him and having a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 /C 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 /C 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals; fails WP:ATHLETE but mentioned there and rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. I've added a couple of MiLB sources (which do not show notability), and a link to a feature in The Baptist Standard. This doesn't get us all the way to WP:GNG. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete does not meet requirements for WP:ATHLETE, few notable sources out there... Mandermagic (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jared Hyatt (baseball)

Minor leaguers are not notable unless they're A) a top prospect or B) played in the majors, thus doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 /C 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Or they could pass the notability guidelines in some other way, but this guy clearly doesn't. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 /C 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 /C 00:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Frisco_RoughRiders#2009_roster; fails WP:ATHLETE but mentioned there and rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. I've struck out in finding RS to show notability on this guy. Selected in the 33rd round doesn't give me a lot of hope for sources showing up.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete does not meet requirements for WP:ATHLETE, I tried to find something noteworthy out there and just couldnt come up with anything! Mandermagic (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Texas Rangers minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Brillhart

Non-notable individual. There appears to be another Aaron Brillhart in the history of this article, a voice over artist, but I question their notability as well. JaGa 06:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable Per WP:N. This would surely qualify for {{Db-person}}.
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
08:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - history of this article shows that it has evolved through several different persons with the same name. It appears that the common thread is that none of the articles cite any references or sources, and notability has not been shown. Unionsoap (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete. No claim to notability. Pburka (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not notable in any way. — Jake Wartenberg 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Gorson

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete I can only find this person cited twice: and . Both mention the subject trivially. Lack significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete Utter bullocks. Last night I saw an Italian with euros 774,000 in the Prague edition of the EPT. People who've ended consistently high in this tournament would easily exceed the million mark and poker champs like Daniel Negreanu have winnings already exceeding $11 million. - Mgm| 08:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be somewhat famous in the gambling scene. What do you all think of the reliability of souces like these? , , , , . Apparently, he also played himself in an episode of a TV show: . Now combine that with the sources Atmoz mentions (trivial mentions), and do you have notability? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- None of the links provided above are reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Surely if he were notable we'd at least see an obituary in a major newspaper? Pburka (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - none of the sources mentioned above are really reliable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore. –Juliancolton | 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Albert Mudrian

Non-notable author. Fails WP:CREATIVE Untick (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to the magazine. Although his book is published by a notable publisher and the magazine is definitely notable, there are simply not enough biographical details to warrant a separate article for Albert. - Mgm| 09:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect per the above. No sources that discuss him rather than quote him as a source. 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DriveSavers

AfDs for this article:

Assisted listing that was requested at WT:AFD by Headbomb. Headbomb's rationale there was "Vanity page for a corporation". I personally have no opinion on this deletion discussion and my listing it should not be taken as a !vote either way. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment The first AFD was closed 3 years ago as "delete". It's doubtful CSD G4 would apply but perhaps an admin could do a look-see anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Looks like somebody's PR team got a little over-zealous on article text, but they're easily sourced and notable. Ronabop (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Tips appreciated. I would like to keep within the guidelines and do apologize for the heavy article text. I will try to add more sources and remove text that is not necessary, but would also appreciate any additional tips to satisfy any other concerns. Mfisherkirshner (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.168.129 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 02:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of KHL players who have played in the NHL

Prod contested so I'll take this here. Nothing special about having played in two professional leagues which makes this list redundant and trivial. —Krm500 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: List lacks any substance aside from being trivial. You could have hundred of these lists cross-matching leagues. – Nurmsook! 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Trivial list, probably also not notable.Annihilatron (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge to the KHL article in a minimal form (lose the flags and the NHL stats), since this is a list of KHL players with NHL experience. The "Kontinental Hockey League" is the description for the pro hockey league in Russia and other former Soviet states, based on "Kontinentalnaya Khokkenaya Liga" and with a K to distinguish it from other Continental Hockey Leagues. Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- And what if we do that with the NHL article? It wouldn't even be possible to load if you listed NHL players who have played in other professional leagues. —Krm500 03:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, did I accidentally write "merge to the NHL article"? I meant to say "merge to the KHL article". I sometimes get my N's and K's mixed up. It won't happek agaik. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete I really hate to do this because I like the article, but it is a trivial list of cross-league players. We don't and shouldn't have List of NHL players who have played in the CFL or worse: a cross league article on American League and National League Baseball. Tavix | Talk 03:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete trivial list that doesn't add value to Misplaced Pages. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

please give a reason, otherwise your point will be dismissed as per Misplaced Pages:NOREASON#Just_a_vote. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete if this isn't trivial then we'll soon need a category for "Wikipedians who voted for the deletion of List of KHL players who have played in the NHL". Bazj (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not just listcruft, but also inaccurate. Aleksander Suglobov only played 18 games in the NHL, not 466. Patken4 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gives You Hell Tour

Non notable concert tour. Just a list of dates that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb 23:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: per WP:NOT. South Bay (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The band toured, so what? This is not notable and there aren't any sources dictating otherwise. Tavix | Talk 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

EXPO REAL

Unencyclopedic, promotional, unsourced, link-laden cross-wiki spam spread by the author at German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Russian Wikipedias. Alexius08 (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Too promotional tone, but the fair is notable . --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 09:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mindquarry

No references to establish notability; product no longer in active development Dandv (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dandv (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: No strong opinion on this, and no vote yet, but I was able to find a fair amount of coverage, at least some of which appears to be reliable sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. No real evidence of notability and has the faint smack of advertising about it (even if it has been discontinued). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - per the news coverage Andrew Lenahan showed above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep --Per the news search provided by Andrew Lenahan, notability is not temporary.--J.Mundo (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to SQL Server Management Studio. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

SSMS

Whatever this is, SSMS does not refer to Secure SMS Messaging Protocol except by happenstance. This Google search shows pretty much every other goshdarned thing except text messaging. Instead this is part of an OR contest between two editors that is in evidence at Secure SMS Messaging Protocol.

Is this thing notable? Well certainly not as SSMS it isn't. Nor is it verifiable. Instead it is pushing one editor's scientific paper. A quasi-referenced article it is puffery instead.

The article discussion page makes illuminating reading. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

See related AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Secure SMS Messaging Protocol Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ liekly WP:COI fails notability guidelines only sources are papers by same group. --Salix (talk): 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Revert to redirect as Uncle G. --Salix (talk): 14:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, whatever the outcome here, deletion isn't the answer, because a valid alternative exists by simply reverting to the very first revision of the article, which is a redirect to SQL Server Management Studio, which most definitely is widely documented as having this as an alternative title. Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've just done some research, some cleanup, and some wading through contributions and edit histories. It appears that someone has created this article and Secure SMS Messaging Protocol, and (as 81.90.145.136 (talk · contribs)) added the text at Short Message Service#Vulnerabilities, xyrself. Given that we already have this content elsewhere twice, therefore, I see no need for a third copy, or a second discussion. So my opinion is that the original redirect should be restored, and that discussion of whether there is a subject for a separate article, broken out of Short Message Service#Vulnerabilities, be confined to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Secure SMS Messaging Protocol. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  - With the massive COI mess it seemed to me that an AfD nomination was the most likely catalyst to a decent end result. I was minded to revert to the original redirect, but foresaw only some reversion wars as the inevitable outcome. Wiser heads than mine need to create a consensus based outcome I think. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    - Well this is three of us in agreement. Let's see who else agrees. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment as nominator I can see no objection at all to a speedy close to revert to the initial redirect. I would support that outcome wholeheartedly. Nothing will be lost since the other article exists, but the closure of the AfD (whatever it ends up being) adds some weight to an argument against reviving this as "battleground mark II" for the two sparring parties. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was merge to Philosophy of business . MBisanz 09:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Business philosophies and popular management theories

Delete article is essentially all original research also other articles such as Philosophy of business exist making this a POV fork. Jersey Devil (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge anything useful to Philosophy of business - as pointed out above, this is essentially an OR fork and thus unsuitable for an encyclopædia. Lankiveil 04:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete or Merge to Philosophy of business. Same topic. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 09:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Aijaz ahmad mangi

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Self-published sources which do not seem to meet WP:RS. Also, please see the article history page for some additional information regarding the CSD A7 tags which were repeatedly removed. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC) --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 10:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More recent article with upper case letters is nominated as well. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 10:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I see no indication from the included refs that this person "is one of the most outstanding names in urdu and sindhi journalism", or is in any other way not just an ordinary journalist. AKRadecki 18:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Same as this Aijaz Ahmed Mangi? In that case, keep. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Weakish keep, not that the article didn't qualify for speedy deletion, it did; but I share the suspicion of some here that the subject might be notable. The link above notes that the subject, in addition to being a journalist, became the secretary of the "SAB". Assuming that the SAB refers to the Sindhi Adabi Board, it seems that there may well be information out there to show notability. I agree, the article doesn't do it now, but I am always reluctant to consign non-English subjects to non-notability without giving them every reasonable chance. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 22:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination: Although most of the sources are press releases, I'm willing to let this one go. I'll try to do some digging on the sources, and add the reference which (Apoc2400) was able to find,(here) as this is a reliable local news source. Any passing admin can feel free to close, keep and merge any differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwisted (talk • contribs) 13:00, April 10, 2009

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Love and Suicide

More here than the usual; was prodded, but the significance of the first US film shot in Cuba despite the embargo may make this notable under the WP:GNG as opposed to its merits as a film (WP:FILM). Let the community decide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but it has virtually no coverage within the mainstream media. Also note the page was created, bulk of material added, and maintained by the wife of the director, Bobbi Miller-Moro (see ). The sources are mostly ones shes provided, and it has a obvious NPOV issue. Although granted this isn't grounds for deleteing it, it should be made aware of anyone who wants to try to "save" this article that it needs a lot of work. Discussion on movies notablity was also part of this AfD. — raeky 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment for anyone looking for reliable sources on this film, it shares its name with a 2006 teen romance direct to DVD film starring Sarah Reardon and Stella Johnson. As for this article, I'm on the fence. I did find two reliable sources talking about Moro's risking punishment to violate the embargo, but its really still more notability on him than the film, as only one even says more than "he made this film" before going on about him and the consequences. For now, I'm inclined towards a redirect/partial merge of the relevant info to Luis Moro (which is also in serious serious need of COI checking). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment' I would lean towards merging the info about that into his article as well if it's not already there, and I would agree most sources are about that not directly the film. — raeky 07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 01:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep In addition to the sources in the article, Google news Archive gives a full review in SFGate I consider that sufficient. DGG (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike Lorello

declined prod; signed with a pro team, on their website, but apparently hasn't played a game with them yet. On the cusp of WP:ATHLETE, but seems just on the nn side. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Says he was released before the season, so he's not technically signed. Being invited to a training camp is very different then playing regular season games, correct? — raeky 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 01:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

According to this, he's never actually played, thus failing WP:ATHLETE, delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. MBisanz 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Hess

PROD said there was no assertion of notability, nor 3rd party sources. However, I feel that there is an assertion of notability, and there are third party sources (one distinctly better than the other). --Ged UK 10:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I find no compelling reason to delete this article. It's a squeaker, but the sources are reliable, the claims are referenced, and each of the subject's "media vehicles" return prominent search results, including books, websites, and the museum in Las Vegas. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Some more information about his career in mixology, which seems to be his main claim to fame, would do better than the apparent resume of his work for Microsoft. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I'd say he squeaks by notability guidelines. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cove Country Opry

Doesn't seem to have enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify as being sufficiently notable for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to go with a delete for now, since I can't find any reliable sources online to show notability. If this statement from the article " show has been featured in many travel magazines as one of the best live music shows" can be backed up with sources, I could be convinced to change my recommendation. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was merge to Joseph Simmons. MBisanz 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Justine Simmons

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Looks to be of some note, and there looks to be enough material out there from which to source an article. I found the article useful, neutral and verifiable. Could maybe do with a few more refs, but not deletion. Hiding T 11:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Run-D.M.C. since this is basically a rundown of his family. The show is not independent notability since being family means you're a cast member. The last line confers some notability, but is not sufficient for a separate article. - Mgm| 08:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Joseph Simmons (or maybe Keep). Merging would be appropriate since she's Joseph Simmons' wife, and her main claim to notability is co-starring in the MTV show, but she is automatically the co-star, since she's Simmons' wife. Keeping might be appropriate, since it looks like she has a (not very notable?) line of jewelry (primary source), and has written & published a (maybe/kinda notable) children's book. , , , . — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been open for over half a month. I see no point in relisting it again (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Disaster preparedness and Emergency Response Association

Pulled out of the db-copyvio queue because it's not a copyvio, it's a close paraphrase. Notability-wise, this one confuses me. Per their site, they've been around since 1962 and been involved in many major disaster efforts. So why does a news.google.com search for this decade only turn up links to ham radio-related publications in the first few pages for this decade? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in this case, we should break the rules and keep this article on a legitimate, not-for-profit organization that has made seemingly notable efforts to help with disaster relief for many years, but has not been recognized in online news sources. There is a fleeting mention in USA Today , and some US Gov sites also mention the organization NOAA FCC FEMA, which helps as well. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is this, however: How can we know that what an organization says about itself is actually true? See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies. Yes, there is a WWW site that says that this organization has been active in disaster response since 1962. But I (for example) could make that claim about myself on one of my own WWW pages, and there would be just as little reason for anyone else to believe that it is actually true. It's not as if no-one has ever made self-inflationary, or even outright false, statements about themselves on the WWW.
  The mention in the USA Today article is just that: the job title of someone whose opinion on a subject is quoted. The NOAA and FEMA pages are just bare directory entries (merely the 5 word name of the organization in the latter case). And the FCC listing is just a broadcasting licence listing. There's nothing to independently confirm what the organization claims about itself.
  Ironically, the FEMA page gives the best indication of how independent sources largely discuss these volunteer organizations: as directory entries adjuct to a non-specific discussion that addresses all such organizations collectively as a group, rather than individually.
  I couldn't find any independent and reliable sources, documenting this organization in depth and confirming that it really is what it claims to be, and has a concrete existence beyond a WWW site, a broadcasting licence, and some press releases, either. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sushen (Hinduism)

Not note-worthy, talks more about the Vishnu Sahasranama rather than about the article title. References NOT wp:RS. Redtigerxyz 17:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the article, wikified, added content and references. May keep tinkering with it. It is now a sort of disambiguation entry. Legitimate, I think, as a resource for someone who is curious about where the name comes from. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Vishnu Sahasranama and add relevant content there to improve that article.TheRingess (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I was more hoping someone who knew more than I do would come across it and expand to something like Vikram (name) or Govinda, other names included in the Vishnu Sahasranama but that also have many other uses. The problem with merging into Vishnu Sahasranama is that it is just one name of 1,000, and the other meanings do not belong. Not a strong feeling though. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
See also examples in the first section of List of titles and names of Krishna - not that similar examples make an argument for keeping an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep but move to Sushen (name). If this article is solely about one of the 1000+ names of Vishnu, the subject is non-notable and can be covered in Vishnu sahasranama. But the article's present content (with slight reorganization and clean up), can serve as a stub for the name Sushen, since the write-up already provides introduction to the etymology and significance. My !vote is weak, only because I am conflicted about retaining[REDACTED] articles on first names in general, since they often are just poorly written lists of non/semi-notable persons. Abecedare (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 01:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Redux (website)

I just declined a speedy on this but I am not convinced that this website - which is apparently still in beta - meets the WP:WEB notability requirement so am bringing it here for wider input. Nancy 10:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of websites that have been in beta since they started and are nevertheless plenty notable. I don't think that is particularly relevant to the debate.- Mgm| 08:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree that there are some notable websites that have remained in beta for their entire existence however, in this case I think it might be relevant as Redux appears to be "properly" in beta in that it is apaprently being accessed/tested by invitation only. Nancy 10:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a tricky one as a speedy. I can't turn anything up that we could use to source an article. Hiding T 11:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Redux has certainly met criteria 3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" The sources include Techcrunch and Venture Beat which are widely read online publications. Furthermore http://www.demo.com/demonstrators/demo2008/124727.html shows a video of Redux Publicity at a DEMO convention. I would say that this site has notability and is legit. More information and background is needed to expand on the article but I don't believe it should be disqualified or removed from Misplaced Pages.Sc6 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC) — Sc6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You've misread what that means. It refers to content, meaning podcasts, webstrips and the like. This is pretty much a hair's breadth from speedy deletion to be honest. Hiding T 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say delete as failing notability guidelines at this time. When/if it becomes more popular and garnishes some coverage in reliable sources, it can be re-created. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where it has failed in terms of notability. The information is provided and backed up with resources. It is a well known site even though it is currently in closed beta. It has been featured on numerous online sites and there are legitimate articles which have clearly explained the site. Likewise it is a company which has received seed fundings from notable individuals such as Peter T. who also help to seed Facebook. It is a legitimate site. Due to that fact, this article should remain in tact as users of the site continue to add and contribute to the content of this page. 136.152.136.190 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you point me to some reliable sources (for example, articles in major newspapers with significant coverage of Redux) that back up what you're saying? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- You might also want to take a look at these links: This is Misplaced Pages's notabiliy guideline WP:NOTABILITY. If the website doesn't meet those criteria, there is a notability guideline specifically for websites that lowers the bar. You can see it here: WP:WEB. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Heath Lane

Non-notable subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Misplaced Pages The Real Libs-speak politely 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —I' 20:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:Music. No coverage. No reliable sources. No idea why it should stay. Wperdue (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb 23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete for COI or notability, and then recruit the editor for more constructive work. Not bad for a first band article. --OliverTwisted (Stuff) 08:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Breakaway Tour

Non-notable tour, just a list of dates and a setlist. Rwiggum (/_Contrib) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:N. South Bay (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Escape Together World Tour

Non-notable upcoming tour. Half of the article sounds like an advertisement, but most of it is just a list of dates. Rwiggum (/_Contrib) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb 23:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: no significant 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not a notable tour, no significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alethic mood

Contested PROD. I can find nothing on the web about this apparently obscure linguistic term, and the one source isn't available online. A coinage by the author of that work? Don't know. But at best it's a definition of a very obscure phrase. No notability established or establishable by me (if linguistic experts were to come up with some sources for this, that explains what we're really talking about -- for instance scholarly work that says which languages have these moods and which don't -- I might be convinced. But even then, isn't it still just a definition?) Bali ultimate (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep per these sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- cmt "Alethic modality" which has something to do with logic, and this claim about "Alethic mood" as a notable phrase in linguistics, are different from one another. There might be a case to be made for an article on "alethic modality" but all of those articles that mention "alethic modality" are talking about something very different than what is here. I find no research in those citations about an "alethic mood" peculiar to some languages, but not others, as this article asserts.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as plagarism/COPYVIO Text taken/stolen from page 272 of "Necessitating: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases" Ronabop (talk)

Comment. That book took its text from Misplaced Pages, not vice versa. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bali ultimate. I've read Frawley, the source cited, and this text is a misunderstanding of the source. Frawley makes a clear distinction in §3.1 between mood and modality, as grammatical and semantic respectively, and proceeds to discuss "alethic modality" in §3.2. He doesn't provide support for the notion of a grammatical mood, and indeed outright contradicts this article's premise of a grammatical distinction between the alethic and the epistemic, in any language, on page #9. We already have alethic modality as a redirect, and since this content is contradicted by a source and the concept outright denied by that source, there seems no good reason to attempt to preserve this content, or have a redirect. I've looked for other sources and found nothing to support the notion of any such grammatical mood as proposed here. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete since "there is no formal grammatical distinction in English, and, perhaps, in no other language either, between alethic and epistemic modality." (The passage Uncle G was thinking of, no doubt.) At best, we have a distinction without a difference--but even in that best-case scenario, one could not distinguish by grammatical means between the alethic and any other mood. (This is, of course, how Wittgenstein made a living.) Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the one. It's also quoted on page 28 of ISBN 9789027223579, which then continues "The present investigation will not uncover one, either.". Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. In researching my !vote on this, I learned that Misplaced Pages has articles on grammatical moods I've never even heard of; this site never ceases to amaze me. :)—S Marshall /_Cont 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - can we get a few more academics who know more than I do to discuss this? I teach legal writing, and have worked on some linguistics stubs, but I'll be honest, I've never heard of this. Cf. Inchoate. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
keep this term exists in linguistics. check out these sources for example: .·Maunus·ƛ· 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mgm| 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Shades of Ray

Notibility R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I' 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Per notability criteria for films. It has "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" (Audience Award at the 2008 South Asian International Film Festival), thus making it notable. Cheers. I' 15:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - notable cast and recognition. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric Ahlqvist Scott

Co-founder of a non-notable company and model of no apparent notability. Article looks more like promotion to me, and the editor who created it is affiliated w/ the company (judging from the name). Of the three refs, two are linked but neither of those appear to mention the subject or his company (or back up anything notable if they did) and Google searches bring up nothing. Mbinebri 18:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Did a quick google for Swedish language sources on him, and found nothing outside Ms Hilton-related gossip on a few gossip sites; not even tabloid hits. Clearly unnotable outside a specialised Hiltonpedia. Tomas e (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yves De Wolf-Clément

I can't verify any notability - and it does not appear to have much assertion of notability. There are French and Spanish versions, but no sources either

Unfortunately, someone removed the prod without indicating why he thought the article should stay. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing turns up in a UK newspaper library search. Hiding T 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Nothing in Lexis Nexis either. - Mgm| 09:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Returning Officers of the Oxford Union

Oxford Union is notable but this list doesn't inherit its notability. Lacks 3rd party references RadioFan (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep and give this time to develop. It was barely created 24 hours ago; deleting this is not exactly a super priority. Starting a discussion on the talk page of the creator inquiring of its notability might be a better idea. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Oxford Union, if sources can be found; if not, delete. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It might be mergable with sources to Oxford Union, as Nyttend suggests but I disgree with NuclearWarfare - notability needs to be established when an article is created. Generally if notability hasn't been established by the time an AfD has been completed, then it isn't likely to be in the long term. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Despite the fame of the Oxford Union, this is just an unsourced list of past office holders of a university organization -- and not even the top office of the organization, at that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No source cited. Not a single blue link among the names listed. Bazj (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was redirect to BSD licenses. MBisanz 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Company License

This is the modified BSD software license used by the E Text Editor. It is used exclusively by the E Text Editor and has has no notability independent of that editor. The text of the article consists almost wholly of the text of the license. No sources are given. --darolew 23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge with BSD licenses. Minimal content, no references. Does not assert notability on its own.--It's me...Sallicio! 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added some references but a merge with BSD licenses does seem appropriate.Tjwallace87 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect The sources are not independent and the article largely copies text from the license itself. It's a viable search term, but nothing worth merging. - Mgm| 08:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge with BSD licenses, as above. Dialectric (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect - What is there to merge? --Unionhawk 22:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)