Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 22

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen

Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Also nominating:

• Ragnhild Lorentzen

For some reason there are two articles on the same person. Zero indication of notability. Notability is not inherited, and being a distant relative of Queen Elizabeth II does not mean you need an article. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The second half of this Guardian article is an argument for notability, and so is the coverage of her as part-owner of a two restaurants in California from this search. Sometimes people related to notable people are notable in their own right. - Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article means nothing. The first half is just satirizing how far down the line of succession they had to go to get to her. The co-ownership also means nothing. Owning one of the hundreds of thousands of restaurants in the world and getting a few press mentions is not notability. Non-notable + non-notable =/= Notable. Reywas92^Talk 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not remotely close. Marrying a monarch makes you notable. Being the spouse of a President makes you notable. Being the commoner child of an obscure princess doesn't. Lorentzen is not herself legally noble, and she fulfills no part of WP:BIO. This is extreme inclusionism run rampant.  RGTraynor  06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Weak Keep per Edward's citation of the name under which more references exist. I'm still unsold on her notability, but there are certainly enough in-depth sources to pass the GNG.  RGTraynor  08:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are entitled to your opinion, but calling Princess Ragnhild fru Lorentzen an "obscure" princess is bit of a stretch. Obscure in England maybe, but there is a world beyond the United Kingdom as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable as a restaurant owner, not notable as a noblewoman, and the intersection of those sets is also not specifically notable. --Slashme (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Great-great granddaughter of Victoria and #66 in line to be Queen? Notability is not inherited. The one article is satire, listing the rejections of interview requests until the author gets down to #66 who says she was unaware that was her number. (I suppose I am way, way, way farther down the list). Edison (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Niece of the current king of Norway. People with similar family relationships, for example the nieces of the current crown prince, Maud Angelica Behn, Leah Isadora Behn, and Emma Tallulah Behn, are all considered notable enough to be in paper encyclopedias such as Store norske leksikon, and being the niece of the king is a claim to notability of about equal value, even though her home in the US makes her less covered in Norwegian press than the nieces of Haakon. In addition to the Guardian article, Ragnhild has been covered by Aftenposten [1]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Interesting that you mention those three nieces. What distinguishes them is that they are all in close line of succession to the Norwegian throne. As a commoner, Lorentzen is not. PS: Interesting twice that you mention that those three nieces are in a Norwegian encyclopedia ... but if Lorentzen was in it herself, you'd have mentioned it, yes? Sounds like that particular source doesn't consider her notable either.  RGTraynor  18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, Ragnhild Lorentzen does not have an article (though she is mentioned in the bio of her mother). It is also true that Maud Angelica and the others are in relative close succession to the throne, but a lot of things would need to go wrong if that were to happen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and work on getting better sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Nobility may be inherited, but notability is not.Yilloslime ^T_C 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. There seems to be little significant coverage. --PinkBull 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Here's an SFGate story in 1996 about the brewery going online. I think you all are looking for sources wrong; (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) are both this person, if I'm reading it right. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, my biggest reason for Keep is that the Guardian article is so good, much better than this Wikipedia page, and that I'm glad that the deletionists are around to point me to the good articles to read. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being the niece of the King is not notable (See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family). She is not notable as a restaurateur. Googling "Ragnhild Alexandra Lorentzen," "Raggi Lorentzen," and "Raggi Long" produce less than 200 hits, but most of those 200 hits are just family trees and lists of royal succession. I'm not notable, and there are more hits for me than for her. OCNative (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - little bit of Afd on an unsourced bio and we get a sourced bio. I'm convinced that what we have now is sufficient. Good result all around - Peripitus (Talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Sullivan

Michael D. Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Journalist's biography (written apparently by a relative) with no significant claim to notability. While the article mentions winning awards, I cannot see anything out there of great renown, and it does not specify which awards. Does not appear to meet the biographical notability standards Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think living with a giant half-wolf makes you notable. Mattg82 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Subject is clearly notable as a quick web search revealed. That it didn't assert subject's notability has been addressed. Vulture19 (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is the protocol for removing COI and unreferenced tags while an article is up for AfD? TIA Vulture19 (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He is a senior correspondent for a major news organization and has won some seemingly notable awards. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinsser (verb)

Zinsser (verb) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unverifiable WP:neologism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: that word is too new. Alexius08 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , or Zinsser per Zinsser,who surely would not allow such a word, when older words like "remove" would do the job just as well...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cocktailphobia

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G3. I did not delete it immediately as a WP:HOAX based only on the judgment of one or two editors, but the consensus is now clear below so I don't think it's out-of-process to go ahead and delete after just two days. (Throw in a little bit of WP:IAR if necessary.)  Frank  |  talk  16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cocktailphobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Apparent hoax article with no references. Google searches come up empty. Medical database searches are similarly devoid of hits, using both "cocktailphobia" and "cocktail phobia". No prejudice against inclusion if it turns out to be a real condition, but it has no references now and they so far have been elusive. At least two editors have tried to find them so far.  Frank  |  talk  22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have also tried to find sources for this and have come up empty. However will glady change my vote if someone can find more information on this. Ridernyc (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Ridernyc. I will also happily reconsider if new sources come out. --Cyclopia^talk 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oh gawd this looks totally WP:MADEUP, does it not? JBsupreme (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: sounds nonsensical. Alexius08 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, somewhat clever-- "one fears the consumption of brightly coloured drinks and foods". Lots of people dread cocktail parties, but not for that reason. Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. Шизомби (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Per nom. --Karljoos (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phoenix Games. Tone 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Adventure

Dinosaur Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD. Article about a video game/cartoon? that fails to assert notability. The only reference given is a German-language site. Does not appear to have been reviewed by any major gaming websites. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phoenix Games, the "creator" (term purposefully used loosely) of this "game" (more like a DVD movie released for a game console). Most of the infamy for this game comes from the fact that it's used in YouTube videos for comedic parody purposes due to it's cheap production values, brazen copyright violations (the characters are modeled on those from The Land Before Time) and terrible voice acting, a hallmark of all Phoenix's titles. If it wasn't for that it would just be an awful budget title that most gamers and parents avoid at all costs. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The game was released by Phoenix Games...what else should be added on the page to make it stay? 67.163.63.16 (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject of the article must meet the inclusion criteria. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 09:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For video game articles, this is traditionally an overview of critical reception / reviews the game has received. Marasmusine (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phoenix Games, per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The discussion for the similar article Articles for deletion/Snow White and the Seven Clever Boys has been closed as Delete. However, WP:OSE. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Track: No Limits

Fast Track: No Limits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per [2], [3], and [4]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps the only one in the group for which reliable sources can be found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources listed by JoeChill - this one has actually gotten some notice. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joe Chill and his excellent use of diligent WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Border Town

Border Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete keep I found Film Intuition and Richmond.com. If there's more I'll remove the "weak". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source is Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Road

Champion Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources other than IMDB. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF not to mention WP:CBALL. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice toward recreation. This one is getting a bit of early coverage and may merit inclusion when released. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors: THIS AFD article is about Champion Road 2. The first Champion Road by R.L. Scott was an underground flick released in 2008. The 2010 issue is its sequel. Use that correct title in your searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Songs (film)

Book of Songs (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of notability, WP:CRYSTAL. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice toward recreation if film can meet WP:NF after its release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below The Earth's Surface

Below The Earth's Surface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am unable to find sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalism

Daedalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Not a single hit on Google. Pretty sure this totally made up by the author of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author now admits in the article and on his talk page that this something he recently invented himself. Ridernyc (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as explicitly made up one day. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article on a topic "just named" in an "unpublished document". EALacey (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - hoax, NEO, OR, take your pick. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wow, single source is an unpublished manifesto. Looks like a non-notability neologism, pure and simple. --EEMIV (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3-Play

3-Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some of the sources I found when I queried about this one do establish notability for Maverick Entertainment, but nothing for the movie itself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In searching for the actors, I found that the the film was first released in 2000 as "Love = (Me)^3". The current article title reflects the DVD release in 2004, not the original name. However, and even after my research, I cannot find enough to show its notabiloity under either name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Shepard of Pure Heart

A Shepard of Pure Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article's creator made a mistake in the name. This search for A Shepherd of Pure Heart turns up some plausible references. Notability can sometimes be concealed by a creator's imperfect spelling. If the article is kept, it should be moved to the correct spelling. - Eastmain (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of the 8 hits returned by the above query, one was an ad to find actors for the movie, the other ones were merely announcements by the local press about the premiere being shown where the action takes place. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also tried the search with both spellings and could not find any notability; fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Perhaps Eastmain should have actually looked at the eight links his search turned up. All of them are trivial - either listings of screening times and venues which WP:NOTFILM specifically and explicitly debars or casual mentions. Honestly, I prefer that lectures about taking the trouble to do a little research be prefaced by a little research.  Ravenswing  07:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice toward recreation. One might hope it has reviews in Christian sources, but even under the proper spelling I have not found them yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Knows Your Name (2007 Movie)

Death Knows Your Name (2007 Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant ocverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources besides blogs. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Search finds nothing but articles about musical album of same name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living Water

Living Water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources amid the Christianity-related false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to article on director (if he has one). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna's Eve

Anna's Eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only sources I could find were to sites selling the DVD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem very notable right now. IMDb has some sites linked from External Reviews and Miscellaneous Links:[5],[6], and it's in VENGEANCE:The X-Treme Movie Magazine, Issue #4 - Vol 2 # 1 Fall 2004. Could be more print-only coverage, but for a recent horror movie not to have more references online seems to indicate little notice has been taken of it. Шизомби (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Genre reviews at Horror Talk 1, Horror Asylum, Horror Talk 2, and Web Horror Films, are nice... but not what Wikipedia cosiders the best of RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Schmidt (Yes, I know he said delete). Joe Chill (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: The fourth link doesn't work. Joe Chill (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup. Just stopped for me too when I checked back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Joseph

Edison Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced unverifiable WP:BLP. There is an OTRS ticket, 2009122210065592, in which it is claimed that the correct name of this football player is "Adeseun Joseph Adekunle". My Google searches find no reliable source that confirms even the existence of this man under either name, although that may be because according to the article he has been active mainly in countries that do not use the Latin alphabet (Iran and China). Still, if we don't have a reliable source for this article, it needs to go per WP:BLP and WP:V.  Sandstein  21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here are some sources:

  Game report.

  WorldFootball.net transaction report on his transfer to the Chinese team.

With the existence of the person suitably proven, and the fact that this person certainly qualifies as notable, from having played professionally, perhaps the nominator might consider a withdrawal of this nomination? UA 04:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I can't evaluate the reliability of these sources. Maybe other editors who know more about sports can?  Sandstein  07:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're reliable on their face. Now that GiantSnowman has concurred, your question of whether he exists or not should be well-answered. I'd again ask you to consider withdrawing this nomination. UA 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the match report proves that this individual has played - and scored! - in a fully-professional league, andhe therefore meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Giant Snowman. matt91486 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he plays in a notable professional league, and I have added the above match report reference to the article. Eldumpo (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Silvio Berlusconi. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo tartaglia

Massimo tartaglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article content is already present in the Silvio Berlusconi article, to which Massimo Tartaglia (with an uppercase T) already redirects. The article is therefore redundant. KaySL (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant indeed. The incident fallout could merit a full article in itself, but for now all information is already in the Silvio Berlusconi article.--Cyclopia^talk 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as plausible search term, like the uppercase-"T" wikilink. -- saberwyn 23:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect All the information are now in the article about Silvio Berlusconi User:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling point processes in R

Modeling point processes in R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is basically nothing more than a vehicle for the mention of the package 'spatstat'. With that title, a reasonable article would risk becoming a how-to guide. Notability of both the software and the methodology is beyond question, but notability of the joint topic as the article is about is slim to none. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems like a non-notable library add-on to a semi-notable programming language. Mattg82 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The authors of the package have had a journal article published about it ("spatstat: An R Package for Analyzing Spatial Point Patterns"), but I don't know enough about the field to judge whether this implies notability. EALacey (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever else this is, it has no context that identifies the subject of the article. It begins: There has been a major effort to develop libraries for R to carry out point process analysis. There are a number of libraries available for the analysis of multidimensional point processes. This may also violate WP:NOTHOWTO, but it's hard to say. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Druyen

Thomas Druyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

"He is currently the most eminent scientist in Europe"? Hm, I think not. I think he's a typical academic sociologist and not notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep: Err ... there are 29 G-Scholar cites and a couple dozen hits on Google Books and Amazon. I'm unfamiliar with the field, but perhaps we should err on the side of tagging this to hell and gone, stripping out the hyperbole and choosing cleanup over deletion?  RGTraynor  07:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first four, at least (they are the only ones I have read), of the Google News results linked above provide significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. And please note that the article does not claim that the subject is "the most eminent scientist in Europe", which must be one of the worst examples of selective quotation that I have ever seen. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep -- it's hard to see that his work is highly cited, but the articles in Die Welt are probably enough for WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GS h index = 3. Far too low for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. The small number of cites in Google scholar for his work fails to convince me that he passes WP:PROF #1, and the small number of papers that even mention his supposed main research topic Vermögenskultur leads me to think that it is not a notable enough topic to make his expertise in it stand out as important. Of course, citation counts in Google scholar are a poor stand-in for academic impact, but we need evidence of impact to keep the article and we have none. So I don't think we can use WP:PROF #1 as a basis for keeping the article. But he may pass #5; the language in the article is unclear and I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Austrian university system to tell whether his appointment is comparable to a personal chair. And, as Phil Bridger observes, the articles about him in Die Zeit, Die Welt, SWR Nachrichten, Wiener Zeitung etc make a persuasive case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close . Wrong forum. Will relist at FfD shortly. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planet GJ 1214 b cropped.png

File:Planet GJ 1214 b cropped.png (edit | [[Talk:File:Planet GJ 1214 b cropped.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Possible WP:OR image, part of a general discussion about the appropriateness of such images, and therefore inappropriate for main page, where it is currently featured. — Aldaron • T/C 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Gavelli

Paolo Gavelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

He's a musician, played in some concerts. Not notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above; no notability has been established, and a cursory search of the web reveals none. KaySL (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability. --Karljoos (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While this afd has more than 24 hours left on it, notability has been proven, and there are no outstanding delete votes; a near WP:SPEEDYKEEP. WP:NAC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Reputation (film)

Bad Reputation (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Related to this AfD. From Blanchardb's prod which was just removed by an IP (and marked as minor, too, which I think is wrong to do (along with re-adding copyrighted material)): "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases (like this one), readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Chill's sources. Alison22 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep. No reliable sources can be found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Joe Chill. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's enough in the sources found by the Joe Chill to lift it above the notability bar.--Michig (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per excellent WP:BEFORE done by Joe Chill. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has been completely rewritten incorporating most of the sources found by Joe Chill plus several others documenting the film's success at numerous horror film festivals. All sources are independent of the film and its producers, meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 03:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Heart Canyon

Cold Heart Canyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

From Smartse's prod which was just removed by an IP (and marked as minor, too, which I think is wrong to do): I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable."" The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. I'm going to go and AfD a lot of the films now... (sighs) Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here's a list of all related AfDs.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Reputation (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna's Eve
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Casino Job
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Water
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Knows Your Name (2007 Movie)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Shepard of Pure Heart
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3-Play
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cain and Abel (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Below The Earth's Surface
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Songs (film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champion Road
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border Town
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Track: No Limits

That's it so far. The only other two articles (right now, anyway) are potentially notable. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If IMDB is the only source available, then that's plainly not enough. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice toward recreation if/when film meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And thank you to the nominator for listing all his other AFD's here. He's given me a few hours of homework... but I was able to determine that some on his list actually merit inclusion, requiring only cleanup and sourcing ...no, not all.... but definitely some. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Nights Dinner Attraction

Arabian Nights Dinner Attraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Looks like advertising of a dinner auction. Momo san ^Gespräch 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, promotional article about non notable subject. WuhWuzDat 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, nn promo.  fetchcomms☛ 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional article, I dont see how it could be made notable either RadioFan (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The promotional aspect aside, I don't see any significant coverage of this "attraction" that could be used to help it meet WP:GNG. The Orlando Sentinel reference is simply a reprint of daily business announcement items, the text of which is supplied by the business. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Survived Real Estate

I Survived Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non notable 1 time event WuhWuzDat 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree, this looks like a summary of the event schedule and some promotional material, no notability at the time, and none likely in the future. I'm tempted to nominate for speedy under G11. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - And where is this so-called "award"? E Wing (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable event per above. Tavix |  Talk  23:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It Didn't Survive Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allieds

Allieds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable, unsourced fictional plot element that is mere regurgitation of the work. Jack Merridew 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability. Alison22 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Alison22 has been indef blocked as sockpuppet. Pcap ping 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Catherine Asaro#Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Oh, god, look at all the other cruft bluelinks.... --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Stub with very little relevant information. Not to mention unreferenced. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While redirecting would be a good option if this were a fictional element from a notable franchise, I'm inclined to delete vs. redirect because 1) the term is generic and possibly confusing (Would anyone really search on it?), and 2) it would just redirect to a section in the author's bio, not to a page for the fictional works. I would have no qualms about this as a redirect if Saga of the Skolian Empire wasn't itself a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If deleted, redirect to Allies as plausible typo of "allies" or "allied". -- saberwyn 00:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Numbers

Truth in Numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. The article continues to violate the WP:CRYSTAL principle, and has for many years now. Since the previous nom for deletion (which resulted in no consensus) several other editors have unsuccessfully attempted to prod the article, unaware of the prior discussions.

The title of the film varies almost as frequently as the release date (which is, as of now, "2009" for USA distribution-- only 9 days left, think they'll make it?) Its nice that someone wants to make a documentary about Wikipedia, there are lots of books about it after all, but this one doesn't look like it is ever going to happen.

If and when this movie is ever released we can write up a valid article about it then. JBsupreme (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I meant to make the same nomination after the new year, but now is fine too. This film is just plain vaporware, and we don't do speculative articles on vaporware. If it were advertising a nonexistent film on any other subject, it would have been deleted some years ago. As JBSupreme says, if this film is ever released, then we can look at having an article on it. It hasn't been released, and quite frankly at this point one has to assume that it never will be. Continuing to host this speculation creates a serious problem with promotional content as well as violating NPOV (in that we are willing to host otherwise unacceptable content if its subject would cast us in a favorable light). — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has passed the previous AFDs because there is (just) sufficient coverage. This hasn't changed.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We still don't have any evidence that the film's going to be made. If it ever gets made, then we can have an article for it. Otherwise, no proof of film being made = no article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia does have articles and other pages about proposed entities, and that is good. Encyclopædia Britannica probably does also.
  • Category:Proposed countries
  • http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_Wikipedia_logos
  • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_Wikipedias
  • http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_policies
  • Category:Wikipedia proposals
  • Category:Wikipedia proposals in experimental stage
  • Category:Wikipedia proposals in brainstorming stage
  • Proposals for a Palestinian state
  • Proposals for new Australian states
  • Proposals for new Canadian provinces and territories
  • Proposals for a Jewish state
  • List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution
  • Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
  • Category:Planned or proposed energy projects
  • Category:Planned or proposed indoor arenas
  • Category:Planned or proposed stadiums
  • Category:Planned airlines of Australia
  • Category:Planned or proposed bridges
  • Category:Future events, including Category:Upcoming films
  • Category:Future sporting events
  • Category:Future elections]
  • Category:Future public transportation
  • Category:Future infrastructure
  • Category:Future products, including Category:Upcoming films
    

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject has remained upcoming for a long time and is still acting like a crystal ball without a release date. Martarius (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt: Plainly people are going to keep recreating this, and there's no need to have an article on something that doesn't exist, hasn't existed and - on form - isn't likely to exist. Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation, clear failure of WP:N, and it always has been.  RGTraynor  07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nonexisting, dubious notability. - Altenmann >t 20:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This confirms that not only has principal photography commenced but that the film was "in the editing phase" in February 2009, thus showing that the supposed WP:NFF violation doesn't exist. This gives a lot of good technical detail on how the film was made. There is further coverage here and here. The current article has been here since 2007 and in the 2 years and 3 months since then this AFD was closed as no consensus, and this AFD resulted in the community deciding on a Keep, making the 'delete and salt' !vote somewhat mystifying. If you want to put forward arguments for deletion based on our policies, feel free, but please be aware of the facts.--Michig (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Well, yes, I believe I'm aware of the facts. One fact is that the 2007 AfD closed with a Keep result due to your own assertion that the film was in post-production, yet it is apparently no closer to seeing the light of day today than it was two years ago. Another fact is that WP:NFF has two paragraphs; the one you leave out of your mention of a "supposed" violation is "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Thirdly, your "further coverage" are all blogs, and the only one going into detail about this flick doesn't discuss the movie at all in favor of an indepth technical discussion of the cameras used. Finally, while you rely very heavily that one AfD closed as a Keep and another as a no consensus (with many Keep voters on that one likewise relying on the previous Keep), you leave out that two AfDs closed as Deletes - why are those results being ignored when claiming precedent? For nearly three years now the Keep proponents have pushed this as coming out Real Soon Now, and for three years there's been no sign of that happening. The nom said it right at the top: "If and when this movie is ever released we can write up a valid article about it then."  RGTraynor  22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Hmm? your links don't say what you think they say, or else you misrepresent them. [16] - a blog entry claiming the film was near completion in 2007. Those sort of claims, and their obvious falseness, are why one can't have any confidence in claims that it will be coming along Real Soon Now. [17] - a technical publication claiming that the film was near completion in Jume 2008 (again, not true). The meat of that source is the first two paragraphs - but see next source. [18] - a French language source claiming the film was near completion in March 2009 (still not true). Anyone who reads French is invited to compare the opening paragraphs of that source to the previous one - it obviously comes from a direct translation of some common source, probably a press release. Note that this source is also dunning for donations; a publication that's willing to pass along such direct appeals is also likely to have taken at face value the principals' claim that the film would be released. [19] - an article by "The 404 Podcast" claiming the film was near completion in February 2009 (it wasn't). Note that the same dunning for contributions appears here, down to the same dollar figures (indeed, the same dollar figures that were in the Wikipedia article). I've commented on what that means already, so let me make the other obvious point - if one is begging for contributions to complete a documentary on Wikipedia, it is of direct benefit in those efforts to have a Wikipedia article claiming that the documentary will definitely exist, for real, just read for yourself. I think your sources merely highlight the serious issues that result from giving this subject an indulgence we wouldn't extend to other crystal-ball promotional content. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with accusations such as misrepresentation, such a failure to assume good faith is not helpful. If reliable sources assert that the film is in production we take it at face value unless given a reason not to. It's the sources that resulted in a keep previously, not any assertions by me. 'Notable per the notability guidelines' means that the film should have received significant coverage in reliable sources - the coverage is perhaps borderline but it does exist. Yes the New York Times blog is a blog, but a blog from a professional journalist at such a major newspaper is acceptable as a source of coverage, and my only claim regarding this was that it was "further coverage". The French source appears to me to be a news article rather than a blog, and '01' appears to be a professional technology magazine. I'm not sure why a source discussing in some detail the filming process and technology used should be discounted. I ignored the one AFD closed as delete (there appears to be some duplication in the previous AFDs listed above - there is one delete, plus some redirects), because it pre-dated the creation of this version of the article by 6 months, so has little bearing. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...we take it at face value unless given a reason not to" - the reason not to is plainly illustrated in your articles, which show the filmmakers announcing three years worth of near-completion. These assertions are no longer credible (the previously announced progress, which was plainly nonexistent, is a reason to stop giving them credibility), so we should not be giving the film an article based only on their repeated assurances that the film will exist. If the filmmakers announce more future dates, without evidence of any actual fim release, that only digs the hole deeper. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier Kuriakose Adukalil

Chevalier Kuriakose Adukalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Salih (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. How important is the title of "Chevalier" and the medal from the head of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church? - Eastmain (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of his positions as a bureaucrat or private sector rise to one that is inherently notable. I don't think the honorific knights title from a church cuts it either. Probably a nice guy, just not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Never mind whether some medal scored from a potentate in an obscure church somehow conveys notability. How about that this article has no reliable sources? I would be very surprised if the article's creator and editor, User talk:Sarun Maani Adukalil, wasn't a relative, hauling WP:COI issues in. The surprise is that this article started to get tagged nearly a year ago and survived this long.  Ravenswing  07:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SoCal VoCals. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Payson-Lewis

Dan Payson-Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable individual fails WP:MUSIC with a single, insignificant album released. Grsz¹¹ 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a member of a notable group who also has a solo project. Would this information (including the track listing) be better included in the article about the group? I think keeping the stand-alone article makes more sense. I found the following Newsweek reference when I searched for the person's name: http://www.newsweek.com/id/151737 - Eastmain (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would appear the album is self-published, containing only four tracks. Seems nothing more than any indivudal trying to make a name for themselves (there's thousands of those out there). Therefore, he isn't notable as an individual per WP:MUSIC. Grsz¹¹ 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The SoCals, else delete. Notability consists of appearing on a TV game show as part of a larger group, and his group was neither a winner or finalist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per Andrew. A "member of a notable group?" This is a guy who sings with a school choir. We don't have articles for everyone who's performed with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Tanglewood Festival Chorus or the Robert Shaw Chorale, however much they're all internationally famous choruses with hundreds of recordings between them. This is way, way down there in the WP:MUSIC subbasement.  Ravenswing  07:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect nn person, but plausible search term. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. The Socal Vocals have atleast 13 members, weakening any claim to notability solely based on being a member of that group\. Perhaps the SoCal Vocal page can have a section listing all its members, and we can redirect all its members' names to that section.--PinkBull 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Wildlife

British Wildlife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge & redirect to List of wildlife magazines NtheP (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Change to Keep on basis of use as a academic source as per John Vandenberg. NtheP (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have just added it to the list, but the list is a list with minimal content. This article is a stub, not merely a list item. It is not an academic journal, but has been published for 20 years and is substantive enough to think itself worth indexing. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable periodical in its field. Often articles are highly cited.[20] See also news related to the publisher.[21][22] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cashh-Money Montana

Cashh-Money Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non notable 16 year old rapper, references ripe with file sharing websites, myspace, twitter, and other unreliable sources WuhWuzDat 16:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. To me it seems that a 16 year old kid dreaming of fame created this article to establish a career that is just not there. he is definitely not involved with Cash Money/Young Money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.251.207 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. No clear assertion of established notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Montana is an on-the-rise celebrity, expecting to be signed in early 2010. I will add more reliable sources. — CelebWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Montana was featured in films, and has a mixtape surfacing on the internet; has singles out with celebrities like: Teyana Taylor, Nicki Minaj, Trey Songz, and Lil' Wayne. I believe he has a clear nobility of eligibility to appear on Wikipedia. CelebWiki (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)— CelebWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. If the supposed future notability ever materialises, the article can always come back then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Might be notable one day, but that day isn't today. WP:MUSICBIO Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Light years away from meeting WP:BAND. Has done nothing of note. CelebWiki's arguments for keeping are disingenuous: he has not been "featured in films" (he was an extra in one film, according to the article), and his mixtape "currently surfacing" won't come out until next year according to the article. Not that it will matter because the mixtape still won't be an album on a major or important independent label (and he'd need two of those to meet criterion #5). His theatrical roles appear to all be in school plays, not professional productions. He "expects to be signed in 2010"? Well, it's always nice to have hopes and dreams, but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Gwalla | Talk 19:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just another wannabe who fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO for never actually having done anything. CelebWiki claims that this chap has recorded with celebrities, but if so, the celebs haven't seem to have noticed; the only Google hit for him is this article. (Eh, all is not lost. Perhaps he'll grow up and marry Brianna Rieffel.)  Ravenswing  07:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No Delete Montana was officially signed to Young Money/Interscopeyesterday, 12-22-2009; I doubt he is eligible to be considered a "wannabe" as mentioned above in Ravenswing's vandalism of the new artist's name. Oh well, Google searches will soon show more during searches, until then: I believe Montana's article has a rightful place on Wikipedia; I see no reason why he shouldn't be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.115.182 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article now shows an unreferenced first album (unreleased, and I would suspect unrecorded at this time), as well as an unreferenced record label. I remain unconvinced of this subjects notability, and my nomination stands as submitted. Edits such as this by the article author show his desperation in trying to keep this article afloat.WuhWuzDat 16:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ahem; and what "vandalism" would that be? I've not edited the article, nor see myself doing so before it is properly deleted.  Ravenswing  18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if it's true that he was just signed, it's still irrelevant. WP:BAND criterion #5 requires two albums released by a major label, not just signing. Unless he manages to get two albums released before this AfD closes, it doesn't matter. — Gwalla | Talk 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's no desperation, musical artists do not need Wikipedia articles as promotion, and I believe all users nominating the article for deletion believe that this is what the author's are trying to recieve. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, and these are facts concerning the newly-signed artist. If Wikipedia administrators decide to delete the article, it will not be long before a new one is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.115.182 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your comment could be seen as a declaration of your intent to be a disruptive editor. Please see CSD:G4, to see what happens to recreated material previously deleted by an AfD such as this. WuhWuzDat 17:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no problem with revisiting the issue of whether an article is needed for Montana after he's achieved notability. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we need to wait until the notability is achieved, rather than set the article up in anticipation of it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no problem with recreating an article, once additional notability is established. However, recreation of the same or similar article with no further assertion of notability may be deleted under G4, if the consensus of this AfD results in deletion. And Wuhwazdat, please assume good faith. —Dark 05:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy HTTPd

Canopy HTTPd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find any secondary sources. Pcap ping 02:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I checked Google News. [23] Nothing. I checked Google Books. [24] Nothing there either. I tried. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dandruff Conspiracy

The Dandruff Conspiracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable independent film with no reliable sources provided and none found. Google search lists no results at all. TNXMan 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably someone's idea of a joke. Sorry... etc. Mandsford (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDY Delete. Ugh. Yes, not amusing at all. JBsupreme (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments above. Where's the refs? DBaK (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronin press

Ronin press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable start-up publishing company that does not meet WP:CORP. A Google News search [25] turns up a few ghits for another company with the same name, thus adding WP:RS problems to the article. Warrah (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. I speedied it at 7:42 this morning, it was deleted three minutes later, and then it was recreated an hour after that with, as far as I can tell, exactly the same content, establishing no notability whatsoever. Oh wait, I just checked again and can tell the content is at least slightly different, because the first incarnation revealed that this company was founded, not just in 2009, but in December 2009. Brand-new company, not notable.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree with nom; added advert, no ref, and npov tags to the article. --MWOAP (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Owen Calvert: I completely understand your justification behind deleting this listing; however, it was not my intention to breach your rules, or cause any friction with the listing I have recently made. I did not fully read the terms, I admit - rather skimmed them, but I can see that this listing does not differ from others on the small press list. This is simply a newly established small press which I felt should be listed next to others of identical nature. In regards to the "December 2009" comment, this was a lapse of thought. The website has been in existence since May 2009, and I can easily prove this upon request. I purposefully edited the article to come across as impartial! The reasoning behind this listing is not to advertise or promote, but rather attain the recognition that this organisation is a "British Small Press" since organisations like this are very nearly extinct, in my opinion. I sincerely hope you take my comments into account when making your decision. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnage0 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank you for trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Even I at times mess up the policy or didn't get a part of it. My concern still stands with NPOV, you have the words "small" & "Although" which indicate an opinion. Wiki likes to stay neutral. Also, this article has no sources at all. We here at wiki need reliable soueces. (see WP:RELY) Last, with your mission statement, it might be more of an npov but I think it has a bit of advert in it. One option which you might want to consider is userfiying the article. (see WP:USERFY). Then you can request that the article be deleted through articles for speedy deletion (author requested-CSD A7). You can then build on it there without the risk of deletion. I can do the userfy process for you if it seems confusing. Again thanks for your contribs. Let me know if you need anything. --MWOAP (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as company with no notability presented. A Google search confirms that there are other companies with very similar names, but nothing about this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Owen Calvert: I am not sure where to reply to the above.. I am hoping this will be a good a place as any. MWOAP, firstly I would like to sincerely thank you for providing a detailed response with an empathetic tone. I have edited my listing a little, removing the mission statement and "small" and "Although" in the Noteable books section, although ironically enough I did not see any problem with "Although". If you refer to Burning Deck Press, you can see that I have copy/pasted their wording as I was unsure and wanted to adhere to what is suitable and already present in the listings. As for the ambiguity concerning google, I have requested a re cache of the site as it is outdated. This should resolve any uncertainty in this respect. There are indeed similar presses around, but when I list ronin I always try and preserve the lower case lettering to set it apart. Google lists "ronin press" currently fourth, and as follows:

"ronin press ronin press 2009. ... http://www.myspace.com/auralpoetry. copyright ronin press 2009. all rights reserved. site designed by owen calvert. www.roninpress.org/ - Cached"

I am extremely new at this, although I have used and respected wikipedia for years. I hope that with my amendments considered, I could keep the current (edited and neutral) revised listing I have presented to you. Thank you again for your consideration. Carnage0 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for replying/editing up this article. Although could indicate that a company or person did not do enough work to get something going, I don't know the exact way you used it so it could have been fine. If you have any other questions for me, feel free to let me know. (Note: User:Fetchcomms may reply for me, as I am out the next few days.) --MWOAP (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Owen, this company is not very notable. There are no sources to establish its notability. I'm afraid that until it receives significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (such as news articles), it will be deleted.  fetchcomms☛ 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could not find any mention. thanks to the creator for his comments. if, in the future, this press does get any press, and if someone attempts an article again, PLEASE be sure to cite the references clearly. its really hard to do searches for this business, considering that Ronin Publishing is often called ronin press, and also covers counterculture works. oh, and regarding other small press listings: WP is currently overrun with highly promotional articles for essentially nonnotable small presses. the standards WP uses really make it hard to justify many of these articles here, so "WP:this also exists" is hard to use.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Owen Calvert: Thank you for your responses, I think I am fighting a lost battle here. I will respect and adhere to your comments, and accept the deletion of the article until I gain notability. I would like the pursue the 'userfying' of this article, but as MWOAP noted, it is complicated and I have no idea. If this can be done, I would sincerely appreciate it! I am glad that you take such strict measures in this process, and fully respect your decisions, although I am disappointed not to have my own article on your site. Thank you again for considering my defence and for hearing me out, I am glad you have seen my side of all of this. Owen Carnage0 (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does become notable someday I'm sure it'll have an article, but we'd greatly prefer if persons directly connected with ronin press aren't the ones to contribute this hypothetical future article. Please see WP:COI for more guidance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copied the page's content over to User:Carnage0.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Niteshift and Joechill. I could see this surviving if there was some external press coverage, but I don't see any there. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A consensus is to delete this article. However, some parts may be incorporated into other articles, if content is needed, let me know. Tone 12:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian terrorism

Armenian terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This page is bound to be a POV minefield, and the very notion of defining 'Armenian terrorism' in term of its targets is a pov projection. Wikipedia:Terrorist is a good reading in this context. Soman (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, per Soman, wrong on so many levels that it requires little input from my end.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This term is used by many sourses^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]} This type of terrorism was in history. So we must keep this article about very important subject to study.--Interfase (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment not all term that can be found in google (or google books) should have articles of their own. 'German terrorism' gets 646 google book hits, 'Italian terrorism' gets 670, etc.. I'm not saying that there have never been any Armenians who were terrorists, but Wikipedia:Terrorist remains a useful principle. By defining one side of a broader conflict as 'terrorist', a pov is stated. Wikipedia needs less articles like this, and more articles that explore the complexity of modern political conflicts (without obviously taking the side of either side). --Soman (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic of the article exists. The title could be discussed. There are plenty of researches dedicated to the subject, whole books written about it, like for instance Francis P. Hyland. Armenian terrorism: the past, the present, the prospects. Westview Press, 1991. ISBN 0-8133-8124-X, 9780813381244. US Department of State also uses the term. Regardless of political correctness, the term is widely used, both in scholarly and political literature, the scholars and politicians. Nationalistic terrorism is something that happens in the modern world, and we cannot ignore this fact. Grandmaster 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its not as if Armenian terror organisation such as ASALA and JCAG never excisted. The article is also sourced, so I dont see any legit reason for deletion. Neftchi (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --TIAYN (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASALA existed and there's an article about ASALA so don't try to make another article trying to demean Armenians as terrorists. --Hovhannesk (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the article was appropriate for Wikipedia, after a careful review it would be reduced to one line but since we don't classify terrorism based on ethnicity or race here that's clearly a non-issue. I think WP:Terrorist is pretty clear on this.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its title is POV, and all its legitimate content is already in the ASALA article. The rest of its content is completely unencyclopaedic and biased, perverting the general concept of what the word "terrorism" means, even if such a pov word were to be allowed. The revenge attacks of Operation Nemesis has nothing to do with terrorism, the revenge attack by Gourgen Yanikian has nothing to do with "terrorism". Meowy 20:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is Anti-Armenian and is refering as if Armenians are terrorists. These are assasinations by Armenians against Turkish masterminds of the Armenian Genocide, not terrorism where terrorists attack innocent random people. Hovhannesk 04:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Armenians as people are not terrorists, but there was a whole bunch of Armenian nationalistic terrorist organizations. They killed civilians too. See Orly airport attack, Esenboğa Airport attack, etc. Grandmaster 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Events which are already collectively covered in the ASALA article. Meowy 21:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete merge into appropriate articles; ASALA etc. No unified organisation/movement exists - this is synthesis. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Buckshot Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:Synthesis. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One person's, two person's. Terrorist is a terrorist. --Interfase (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that you'll be creating a Turkish Terrorism article? I await its creation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --Athenean (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it sets a precedent of dubious encyclopedic value for the creation of a whole string of similar edit-war magnets. The notion of terrorism is controversial per se and a highly politicised issue even within academia. It is no coincidence that even Palestinian terrorism is simply a redirect for Palestinian political violence. If need be incidents or organisations can be discussed in separate articles. We already do that with the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof faction, the ETA, Aldo Moro, the Munich Massacre etc. There will always be academics describing organisations like the FLN, for instance, or the anti-colonial armed groups either as terrorist groups or as national emancipation movements, why on earth should we subscribe to this or that view by lumping together complex political/social/historical phenomena under generic and simplistic titles? --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename somehow per Giorgos. I don't think deletion is the best solution in the presence of various third-party sources. Brand[t] 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Sardur (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rename The topic is clearly important enough to have its own article, and the fact that there is poitical violence in armenia or committed by armenians can clearly be treated in wikipedia without reviling the general Armenian public. The fact that such an article may become a POV battleground is not an argument for deletion and should be disregarded by the closing admin. However per WP:TERRORIST it is clear that the label "Terrorism" should be avoided in the title of the article and only be used in the text when attributed to specific sources. I suggest renaming the article to "Armenian political violence" or similar. I do not see any deletion arguments actually based in policy given here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; in nominating this article for AfD, I did so assuming that it had been created for POV purposes (being aware that such action contradicts WP:AGF). The edit history of the creator points in that direction. Moreover, its not clear (as stated by other above) what encyclopediatic value this article would have, as relevant material is already included in the ASALA article. As per rename, I'd say that importing the solution used with Palestinian political violence would not be an improvement, since 'Armenian political violence' is so wide that it lacks all meaning (it would, theoretically, include Armenian participation in the Lebanese Civil War as well as violence/repression in contemporary independent Armenia). --Soman (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, and also per WP:SYN, WP:COATRACK. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 - no notability is indicated beyond "reports" that he "may" run for Governor of Mississippi in 2011. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that is not enough. Also, although the tone of the article is not overtly promotional, the WP:SPA author's username user:ProgressforMS makes it clear that it is posted for campaign purposes, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Luckett (attorney)

Bill Luckett (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

While this person will become notable if he runs for governor, he is not yet running. This article appears to have only been created for promotional purposes. Eeekster (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy as Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Regardless of WP:ATHLETE, consensus is that this person passes WP:BIO and is eligible for inclusion on that basis. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Martin (American football)

Bobby Martin (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete I cannot see how this meets WP:ATHLETE. Boleyn3 (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was last discussed in 2006 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Martin, which closed as no consensus and as a result the article was kept - though since renamed. My view is that he still meets wp:BIO, if it wasn't for his disability his sporting achievements on their own wouldn't meet wp:athlete, but his achievements as a disabled athlete in my view are notable - especially winning ESPY. ϢereSpielChequers 13:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a misunderstanding about what WP:ATHLETE is about. This person is notable in the usual way, whereas WP:ATHLETE is an exception for certain athletes who otherwise would not pass the general notability guidelines. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seriously? Non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. He easily meets WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE is not an exclusionary guideline. --Smashville^talk 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. This is a borderline case. WP:NMG, criterion #1 says: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." There seems to be one independent non-trivial mention: the Epoch Times article. WP:N is less specific about the number, saying only "Multiple sources are generally preferred."

COI has been an oft repeated argument on the deletion side, and the diffs cited about one of the authors' self-promotion do not inspire confidence. However, these lie over a year back, and the editor has done least 1000 edits since, so we can allow that to come under the statute of limitations. More pertinent is that the article itself contains peacock language, such as "made history", "skilled cartoonist" and "award-winning" (which has rightly been tagged as needing a reference), and lists unencyclopedic information, such as comprimario singers.

I therefore think the most appropriate resolution is to userfy. That will give the authors time to bring the article to encyclopedic standard, and allows for some time until there is more independent coverage. I applaud Brett Wynkoop for logging in under his real name, and for being very reasonable and honest in the discussion here, and I would like to keep him as an editor beyond this one article. To symbolically acknowledge this, I will move the article to user:Wynkoop/Brooklyn Repertory Opera. — Sebastian 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Repertory Opera

Brooklyn Repertory Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Very minor company, page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the "Singers who...." section SingingZombie (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for nom. Can you explain why this should be deleted? Is it 'non-notability' or something else? --Kleinzach 09:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is clearly conflict of interest in both the creation and editing of this article, but neither that nor the addition of "bogus entries" per se are valid reasons for deletion. However, my impression is that the subject does not pass the notability criteria either generally (WP:NOTE) or for organizations (WP:ORG) or music ensembles (WP:BAND). This is a semi-professional opera company that's been performing for only two years, with zero mainstream press coverage and none in the specialised media apart from a review in the self-published Opera Today (written by a friend of one of the singers).[34] The personnel are not notable either (or at least not at this stage in their careers). I'm waiting to hear some other views and/or someone finding more references, but at the moment I'd be inclined to delete on grounds of non-notability. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quoth the nominator: "[…] page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the 'Singers who....' section" – those are not reasons for deleting an article which has stood since August 2008. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This opera company has three world premieres arranged for its upcoming seasons, and only two of them are by Susan Stoderl. Who are the "bogus entries" in the "singers who" section? My name was deleted from the article recently (I put it back), but my name is found on the BRO website for every production except A.F.R.A.I.D., Cosi, and Hansel and Gretel. The Epoch Times isn't notable media coverage? The nominator, SingingZombie, has a personal vendetta gainst the company because they have barred him from ever again participating with the company because his behavior was so offensive, particularly to the women of the company. He tried to add himself to the singers list, but he has never had a principal or comprimario role with the company, only a chorus role. He was in the chorus only twice, and the second time, he showed up at the performances without his part learned (usually either not singing or singing the melody) and his shirt reeking of vinegar. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Very honored that Mr. Scottandrewshutchins has determined that EPOCH TIMES is notable media coverage. We feel vindicated, considering the slanderous wikipedia entry about our LEGITIMATE news organization. Likewise, BROOKLYN REPERTORY opera COMPANY should also be considered notable. THANK YOU MR. Scottandrewshutchins! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falunopera (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Scottandrewhutchins and Falunopera both seem to have a conflict of interest here. We also need to remember Wikipedia's policies against 'outing' contributors. Frankly the more I read about this, the less I think this article belongs on WP. --Kleinzach 13:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on the Opera Today reference in the article plus other press coverage that can be located: [35]. COI is not a reason to delete an article. Warrah (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was the one who added the notability tag over a year ago as well as {{primarysources}}, both of which were removed two days later by yet another COI editor with the edit summary "edit for accuracy"[36]. I really feel this fails the notability criteria generally and for organizations and music ensembles. The press coverage cited by Warrah is trivial - simple one-line announcements in the "What's on" sections. The remaining two pieces are as I said, a review by a friend of one of the performers in Opera Today, which is a self-published website + a puff-piece in Epoch Times. And that's it. I have subscriptions to the Highbeam Research Archives and Opera News, and searched both. This could have been off-set possibly by significant productions, i.e. world premieres or even New York City premieres. But this hasn't happened. They're a semiprofessional troupe of (as yet) non-notable singers performing shoe-string productions of public domain operas. Scottandrewhutchins has asserted that there are "three world premieres arranged for its upcoming seasons". That may or may not happen. There are certainly no reliable sources to substantiate this. But in any case, notability is not prospective. I have argued in the past to keep articles about ensembles that were brought to AfD. A look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family opera initiative shows the difference between a small, but sufficiently notable company and the one under discussion here. Incidentally, Family Opera Initiative was also a COI article complete with attempts at vote-stacking in the AfD. None of that makes any difference. But a lack of notability does. Voceditenore (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Yes, I am involved with the company. The company is at least as important in the New York Opera scene as Opera Company of Brooklyn which performs in peoples homes with piano and only semi-staged. Yes, they have been around since 2000 as opposed to our founding in 2006. I have never paid much attention to this entry other than to check it for accuracy from time to time. I was the one that removed the tag that Voceditenore mentioned. That was my first time ever editing a Wikipedia page and the removal of that tag was in my mind an afterthought. As I recall I fixed some dates and names. Since I did not understand how Wikipedia worked, I did not know the importance of the tag Voceditenore had placed on the article. BTW 2006-2009 is 4, not 2 years, and in this economy keeping a small company running at all is notable, but I know that is not what Voceditenore is speaking of. There are 93,400 references to "Brooklyn Repertory Opera" on the web according to Google. In searching for references to the company I discovered mentions that I did not even know existed. Are they things that should be included on the page? I am not an expert on Wikipedia, but the reasonable person would think that there must be something of substance about the company in 93,400 references. Of extreme note is the history making use of countertenor in the role of Ulrica in Un Ballo. While that was not picked up by the CBS evening news it was picked up by The Brooklyn Paper a weekly that has about the same circulation as my hometown newspaper in middle America. So, the company is making significant contributions to the art form in the form of world premiers; one in 2006, one currently in rehearsals to be performed in 2/2010, one in the future which is in rewrites by the composer, and a new one just submitted for consideration. Also, considering BRO's thinking outside the box on casting where it works (countertenor as Ulrica) I have to say it seems that the company is noteworthy. It is also of interest that the NOMINATOR for deletion of this article was the very person who added the "bogus entries", which were of himself! This necessitated a correction by a member of the company. The NOMINATOR has also been chastised for improper actions on other Wikipedia pages. This may be a pattern. Looks like a witch hunt to me. If the page is deleted it will have little to no effect on the company, but it will mean that a good resource of documentation of the history that the company has made, and is in the process of making will be lost forever. Wynkoop (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 93,000 hits on Google does not mean 93,000 references. That just means that Google found 93,000 pages that include the words "Brooklyn," "Repertory," and "Opera" on the same page, in any order, and with any amount of words between them. Google hits do not establish notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 09:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SquidSK's claim is patently wrong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is wrong. The exact phrase "Brooklyn Repertory Opera" has 89,000 hits. But the principle is correct. These are not "references", and Google hits do not establish notability.Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in reply to Wynkoop

1. Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not about the worthiness or otherwise of the subject. Nor is it about the number of google hits.
2. Opera Company of Brooklyn (another COI article, that could use some pruning to remove the PR hype) has significantly more coverage than Brooklyn Repertory Opera [37]
3. The "bogus entry" the nominator was originally referring to was the article's creator (Scottandrewhutchins) adding his own name to the article.[38]. However, the motivation of the nominator is immaterial to this discussion as is the conflict of interest of the creator and other members of the company who have extensively edited the article. The repeated focus on a private dispute, personal attacks and attempts to reveal the real-life identity of an editor are not helpful. There are several editors participating in this discussion with long experience of editing opera-related articles on Wikipedia and participating in deletion discussions. Characterizing this as participating in a "witch hunt" is neither helpful nor accurate.
4. The documentation of the company's history will not be "lost forever" if this article is deleted. For one thing, it can be moved to a user page of one of the editors until sufficient reliable sources are found to establish notability, i.e. when the world premieres take place. If they are significant works by significant composers, there will be coverage in independent sources.
5. Having said all that, the recently added article in The Brooklyn Paper "Unemployed? Have we got an opera for you!" might conceivably tip the balance to "keep" for some discussants.

– Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's becoming increasingly clear that this is a vanity article by a minor, largely amateur, company. Would anyone be trying to push this page on Wikipedia, if the company was anywhere other than New York? I wonder. --Kleinzach 13:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One world premier has happened. I have been searching for a source besides our own web site for that, but it seems that the article about it which was published in a local paper is no longer on line. I may have a hardcopy of the paper somewhere, but I am not sure how that plays into things if I locate it. I do not know if either Kleinzach or Voceditenore know the scene in NYC, but getting any mention in NYC publications, let alone getting a review in a major publication is almost impossible. It is not like NY is a slow news place as some smaller markets are. There was an article written in The Brooklyn Paper when Cosi was produced that no longer seems to be on their site. Thanks for pointing out that it can become a user page until "the powers that be" who ever they are think there are enough references in the world to our existing and being real. I did not know that option existed. No clue how to do it, but that is another story. The 93,400 hits were on "brooklyn Repertory Opera" please note the quote marks. That means that those words in that exact order with nothing else between them will show up. Many of those hits seem to be other companies web sites as we appear in the bios of people who have sung with us and have taken gigs other places. You will note that there is a link to the Brooklyn Borough Presidents Fall 2008 report to residents. This is a PDF of a newspaper that was mailed to every person in Brooklyn. Should it be listed differently than in the external links section? According to Wikipedia that was 2.5 million that got the paper and saw the short piece on the company. I have recently added some mentions of BRO on other web sites in the External Links section. I am not sure if that is the correct place for those to be or if something else should be done with them. Maybe one you long in the tooth Wikipedia folks can advise and or make the proper adjustments. Wynkoop (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Voceditenore Why do you not consider a world premier of an opera about the most famous and highest paid American newspaperwoman of the 19th centuary to be notable? Wynkoop (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject of the opera was a notable person. That doesn't automatically make the opera (or any other work) about her notable. You need to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as well as the notability links in my initial comment above. What makes an opera notable, is the notability of its composer and/or the amount of impact/recognition it has received.Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Voceditenore I just checked out Opera Today and the site is not run by the author of the review listed. The site in fact has many writers it apears. I would have to say the publication is legit and not to be dismissed as it seems you are of the opinion to do. Yes the reviewer has known a member of the company for several years, but he was not asked to do the review and the member of the company he knew did not get a good mention from him. From this we can infer that either he is biased against that person, or if he was accurate and I think he was, as the lady sung the performance with a nasty upper respertory infection, and was not at her best, he was an impartial member of the media that happened to attend. I am sure if asked he will shed light on the matter. Wynkoop (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not saying it isn't "legit", but you need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, especially with respect to establishing notability. Opera Today is a self-published website that accepts submitted reviews. A review of performance there doesn't necessarily make a person or organization notable. Also the reviewer did not "happen to attend". He wrote that he attended because he was a friend of the lead singer (and founder of Brooklyn Repertory Opera) and "she assured me the rest of the cast was good." [39] The review may have been impartial, but we're talking about notability here. There needs to be more than this review.Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wynkoop is a new single purpose account created on 21 December. See MEAT, "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy." --Kleinzach 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The named account is new (presumably for the purposes of participating in this AfD), but this supported by Wyncoop's own admission above, indicates that he (and other members of the company) have been editing the article from the same IP for over a year. The conflict of interest is clear. I should also point out that I have removed two links recently added to the article by this user:

"BRO is cited as a source on answers.com"

"WapMedia,WapMedia mentions A.F.R.A.I.D,WapMedia"

Both "mentions/citations" come from mirrors of Wikipedia articles. In both cases they were added to to those articles by editors associated with the company [40], [41]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it is apparently true that Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop has created a meatpuppet account in order to spend a lot of time and energy concocting a faux notability for this entry, you will notice in its history page that he has made a number of earlier contributions, deletions and corrections while not signed in as a user. Nevertheless, I am starting to better understand Wikipedia's standards for article notability, and this one clearly does not make the grade, despite Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's valiant efforts. Indeed, this article reeks of narcissism and self-promotion, and I find Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's protestations of Wikipedia innocence quite disingenious, considering the fact that a quick google search shows that he is a self described webmaster, computer and IT consultant, as well as a member of a Gnubie circle, not to mention a fair use zealot. This article is being beaten well past its death, and should be deleted before anymore harm is done to Wikipedia's excellent model and reputation. I agree that this article could better be hosted on one of Mr. Executive Director Wynkoop's simple websites and still receive the google hits he and his cast are looking for. --Falunopera (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same user Falunopera who wrote earlier: "BROOKLYN REPERTORY opera COMPANY should also be considered notable"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Voceditenore Thanks for your well thought out responses to my postings. You seem to be an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense in the wikipedia world. Your responses are helpful. Many of the other postings in this talk make it clear to me why I generally avoid this type of thing.Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynkoop (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Falunopera it amazes me that you know things about me that even I do not know. Instead of tossing about nonsense it would be more useful to stay on topic. If I were really trying to be disingenuous would I be posting under my real name? I think not, I would have made up a name along the lines of Falunopera. Delete or Keep it really has no effect on either me or BRO, and some of the discussion here shows that some people are more interested in shaking things up for the sole purpose of feeling important. Since the page is a fairly good brief history of the company I have archived it and you folks can do what you want and I wish you all fun and happiness in your games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wynkoop (talk • contribs) 08:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm still not sure why companies that perform semi-staged productions with a piano in people's homes are more notable than a company that uses an orchestra, an established theatre venue, and performs fully-staged operas with orchestra and chorus. Wynkoop, could you link that radio interview as a citation of the upcoming world premieres? I don't know if it counts as reliable, but it would be media coverage. I also don't understand how being a Wikipedia editor disqualifies me form being mentioned on a page. There are at least three pages where reference to my name is relevant--this one, The Last Egyptian, and Uzo. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment If you are not sure why, then you need to read Wikipedia:Notability. However, you have been editing for three years on Wikipedia, and ought to be familiar with these guidelines by now. Once again, how a company performs is immaterial. Notability in the Wikipedia sense is not about achievement or "worthiness". I assume you are talking about Opera Company of Brooklyn, observe the press coverage [42]. As for referencing your name, your creation of this article and your addition of your name as one of the performers is a clear conflict of interest and taken in conjunction with your edits to several other articles, is also spam. e.g. Uzo, Michael Nyman, Hutchins, The Last Egyptian, Christopher Slaughterford The Magic Cloak of Oz, Princess Ozma, Elbow witch. In all these articles, you added your name, and in many cases attempted to link it back to your user page where you publish your cv. In several cases you also linked to your website. You need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam if you don't understand why this is inappropriate. Your past record of attempting to insert your name in a variety of Wikipedia articles, most of which you created, makes your argument to "keep" in this discussion rather dubious. Voceditenore (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! A whopping 127 Google hits! I'm not sure how this is more lgeitimate than Wynkoop's citing. I'm sure this isn't considered legitimate journalism, either: http://www.nytheatrecast.com/episode.php?t=303 --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link was to Google News only, not the web in general, which you must have been aware of but chose to ignore. As can be seen from the Google news link alone, Opera Company of Brooklyn (unlike Brooklyn Repertory Opera) had multiple coverage in the New York Times plus Opera News, BBC News, Associated Press, etc. The link to the podcast you've mentioned is already in the article. It is up to the other discussants here to decide if it (and the other sources in the article) are enough to establish notability. In my view, they don't. Voceditenore (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• reply to Voceditenore Thanks for pointing me to this: Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast over radio, television, Web stream, or a similar medium. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensemblesWikipedia:band since this is about Wikipedia rules the only thing left to say is QED.
  • It's debatable but not QED. First of all, that wording is from the "nutshell box" at the top of the page and was changed by an editor three days ago without discussion.[43]. (The original wording was "Notability is met if if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network".) In my view, neither of the versions is an accurate summary of the specific criteria under WP:BAND e.g. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." If the above were an accurate summary and taken literally, then any band which gets themselves a podcast on any web site would automatically pass, and clearly they don't. In my view this refers (if anything) to a web stream with a notable media company. It is debatable whether this 23 minute podcast of 3 heads of small NY opera companies getting 8 minutes each to talk about their organizations for www.nytheatre.com qualifies as such. But that's just one view in this discussion, and others may well differ. As it is, (even disregarding the "keep" opinions from the two editors with a clear conflict of interest) this discussion may well be closed as "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". - Voceditenore (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EFi-X

EFi-X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is not a notable product. This product is just one of those "flash in the pan", "15 minutes of fame" type thing

• Delete This product is notable only for being a commercialized Chameleon/boot-132. User:irkirkirk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Not only is this product not notable, but AFAIK after Davide Rutigliano shut down the EFi-X USA division in December 2009 there was no mention of the product outside of a few obscure reviews. Also as documented by Exclusive Report: EFI-X Mac Booter, A Scam? on Tom's Hardware September 8, 2009 "EFI-X uses code taken straight from the OSX86 community, without attribution. [...] There is now hard coded evidence that even the firmware updating utility used by the EFI-X module steals code under the GNU Public License without proper attribution, and in fact, replaces all refrences to the original libary with its own name." Finally, given that the way Apple ties its OS to hardware was ruled as falling under the DMCA in the Apple vs Psystar case odds are this product is illegal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whether the product is illegal or not does not prevent it from becoming notable; but I don't see any coverage of this in anything that looks like a truly reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inderias Dominic Bhatti

Inderias Dominic Bhatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:BIO; coverage is either minor, or from unreliable sources, or both. Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a nice guy, but there are no good sources to show he is notable. Delete. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Co Galway man found in freezer in Fish Factory

Ireland Co Galway man found in freezer in Fish Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A non-notable and sparsely covered news report is not suitable for a Wiki article per WP:NOT#NEWS Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Very PoV. The 'Egle eye' (sic) spotted the body after it had been there for five years? I like it. But it's not encyclopaedic. "It wasn’t until the Department of Marine notified the owner of an inspection in June 2007 that the body was discovered during a clear out." (From http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-who-stored-body-in-freezer-for-five-years-to-be-sentenced-on-friday-409551.html#ixzz0aB9l0TXn )

Also, the person now in gaol pleaded guilty to manslaughter not murder and "Michael O’Higgins SC, prosecuting, told Mr Justice Paul Carney that the defendant was in the drugs business, mainly cannabis, with McCormack of Artane Cottages in the capital. They had a falling out over money and had a fight." (From op cit) Peridon (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not news and in this case I would have accepted a {{db-context}} tag for lack of location and dates. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEUTRAL. Author is giving his/her personal views, and some of it's almost incoherent because of the quality of the writing, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it your blog to post personal opinions. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another news item which does not belong here. JBsupreme (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Predicting snow. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atop the Fourth Wall Episodes

List of Atop the Fourth Wall Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

List of web clips from somebody who isn't notable. no sources, no claims of notability, no list item is notable. Jac16888^Talk 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As with the related Nostalgia Chick AfD, I'll add what I can to the article in the near future (again, I'm on holiday and don't have a lot of time to do too much very quickly). Atop the Fourth Wall (AT4W) is a popular web show and the presenter, Lewis Lovhaug (Linkara), has become an internet celebrity; the series is therefore notable. Googling for at4w, Linkara or even at4w linkara should confirm that. It seems reasonable to me to have a list of episodes on Wikipedia. (Again, "episodes" rather than "clips" which can be read as a loaded term.) - AdamBMorgan (talk)

• You say Linkara " has become an internet celebrity; the series is therefore notable", what exactly are you basing this on. For starters, where is the evidence they are a "celebrity" beyond a lot of ghits, which are all just blogs/forums and the videos themselves? Second, where is the consensus that this makes them notable? Finally notability is not inherited, even if the creators are notable as you say they are, this has little bearing on the notability of the series itself, which needs to establish its own notability through 3rd party reliable sources (which I see none of), as per policy--Jac16888^Talk 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:WEB. As to Mr. Morgan's methodology, I note that he failed to use Google Advanced Search, which turns up just a couple hundred hits for "AT4W+Linkara," and eliminates a great deal of chaff. What's left are blog posts, DeviantArt hits, Wiki mirrors and a complete lack of reliable sources, as evidenced by the fact that a Google News search turns up exactly zero.  RGTraynor  07:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online news sources

Online news sources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced essay and NPOV issues. Eeekster (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 10:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOR. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Essay Blueboar (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffingcruise

Spiffingcruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. See [44] for a link to the newsgroup posting on which it was coined. — æk^Talk 09:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article admits that the term has not yet achieved widespread usage, and the statement "expected to gain more widespread use in the near future" is a failure of WP:CRYSTAL. Steamroller Assault (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even if it was in widespread usage, it's still just a definition. Polarpanda (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NEO. Even the article admits the widespread use is "expected"....which means it's not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's possible that the term will enter widespread use and understanding, and an article would then be appropriate. But we're not there, yet. No sources exist to show notability, and it is unclear whether that notability even exists. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete made up non notable term. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Using a forum as the sole reference. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dimension Fortress

Super Dimension Fortress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails notability as defined by WP:PRODUCT. I can find no independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability, in particular no relevant matches in Google News (many matches to the anime series of the same name for which this BBS was originally named after). All current references in the article are self published. Since the previous AfD discussion over five years ago, there have been no independent sources added to establish notability and there is little prospect of this situation changing. If the basic information is credible, it may be an option to merge, at least a mention, of the BBS into The Super Dimension Fortress Macross which at the moment appears to make no mention of it at all. Ash (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It looks like there are no references out there to prove notability, it has been 5 years since last AfD as Ash pointed out as well. The only thing that strikes me is why no needs reliable references tags were ever placed on this. Im going with delete because I trust the nom's findings (Or lack of). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but then redirect to Macross, which is almost certainly what anyone tying this into the search box is actually looking for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If deleted Dabify since it could mean either Macross or Robotech, and it is definitely not assured that it would be Macross that is primary. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• sigh... I've been a freeshell user for many years, and it's a rather significant ISP, web host and shell provider from a computer historical point of view, but I can kind of see that it couldn't really survive a strict application of the notability guidelines. --Slashme (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of things out there im sure that people would love to see on wikipedia that fail notability guidelines here, there is a chance however that references can be found in the future and remaking an article around new info takes time but is worth it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On their website it says its called that. As the article says "is one of the oldest and largest nonprofit public access UNIX systems on the Internet." That makes it notable. Does anyone doubt that statement is true? Dream Focus 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can claim that, it doesn't make it so. Boasts from the people involved do not make something notable. This is elementary stuff here, such a claim requires reliable third party sources to prove it. use some of that common sense you keep suggesting other people use. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I used Google and found that "freeshell.org" has 98,500 hits and just "freeshell" has 121,000. I see no reason to doubt the statement of Slashme, who states its rather significant, nor that of those who edited the article in years past. Need to check to see how many people have used it over time. Dream Focus 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as you already know, the number of google hits are irrelevant. Reliable Third party references are the only sufficient evidence. Not google hits, hearsay or conjecture. And Slashme has admitted it's difficult to prove notability. No one is doubting anything, but it needs to be proved. Per pretty much the entire history of this wiki. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines and takes the name of the well known starship macross. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:N and WP:WEB. No significant coverage in reliable sources, just another run of the mill, unnotable website. Recreate as locked redirect to Macross per Andrew and IP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm seeing nothing here that would pass WP:NOTE or WP:WEB. The article lacks any reliable third-party sources, and a Google search doesn't turn up any either. Would recommend recreating as a redirect to The Super Dimension Fortress Macross as a possible search term. —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability requirements are satisfied by Stephen Jones of SDF being interviewed in BBS: The Documentary (itself a "notable" work apparently.) This also backs up the facts stated in the article. The only valid point I see here is the name confusion with SDF Macross, which could and IMO probably should be resolved by renaming this page to "Super Dimension Fortress (computing)" or something. 94.192.228.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Fray (album) JoshSiber (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicate (song)

Syndicate (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Song not notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. Suggest a redirect to The Fray (album) WPTX-FM (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the album. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Fray (album). FMQB confirms the January 12 release date, and per Mediabase's website, the song has already started to receive spins at Hot AC and Top 40 radio. While I believe it's likely to chart in the next few weeks, at this time there is no in-depth coverage for the song to warrant an independent article. Redirect for now until notability (beyond the mere fact that it's a single) is established.  Gongshow ^Talk 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the subject might be worthy of an article, something the deletion !voters do mostly agree with, there is consensus here that the article in its current form it's not worthy of inclusion and there is no material that could be salvaged from it. As such, per WP:DEL#REASON, this article, as only consisting of material unsuitable for inclusion, can be deleted. The consensus here is not against a recreation that covers the subject itself though. Regards SoWhy 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage_snowmobiling

Vintage_snowmobiling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Cannot find reliable sources indicating notability of subject. Google search brings up various vintage snowmobile organizations around North America, but I couldn't find any third party sources. Article as it currently stands seems to be about one particular vintage snowmobiling organization, not the topic in general, and consists mainly of a how-to on restoring vintage snowmobiles. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Section 3 is a how to, this is one of the things wikipedia is not. (per: WP:NOTGUIDE) Also, no reliable sources for the rest of the article, and if we removed section three, the rest might quailify as CSD A1. --MWOAP (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nom -- "There is a $50 entrance fee"? This is totally unencyclopedic: half club rules and half a how-to guide.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I should say that I did find a lot of articles in local papers either mentioning that there would be a vintage snowmobile show or race, either as a stand-alone event, or as part of a larger winter festival, and a few "area man enjoys passion for vintage snowmobiles" stories, also in local papers, but even though some of these claimed "it's a bigger hobby than people realize," or "it's really been growing in the past few years," none seemed, in my opinion, to be substantial enough articles in large enough publications to really establish notability. Probably the most mainstream source I found was this, from Minn. Public Radio, and even it seems more like a promo for a couple of events. Just felt I should disclose what I did manage to find, to be fair. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above and even if there really are more good sources out there, it needs to be rewritten, almost from scratch.  fetchcomms☛ 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found the Vintage Snowmobile Club of America, which produces a quarterly magazine; a Pacific Northwest Vintage Snowmobile Club, and a New Hampshire Snowmobile Museum Association. With those three sources plus the rest of what has been found there should be enough to create a plausible article with this title. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Edward Vielmetti. Willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt, with some sourcing that shows the sport is widespread and notable. The article will need a great deal of work, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I guess I don't understand whether this article is supposed to be about one group of snowmobilers, or a general activity called "vintage snowmobiling." If the former, the title is wrong and the club is non-notable; if the latter, the activity seems weakly notable but the article itself is completely off topic. Either way, the entire text of the article (club rules followed by a how-to guide) is unencyclopedic and needs to go, so I'm not sure I see a point in keeping the article unless someone says they want to develop it into an actual article about the general activity of vintage snowmobiling.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, a clean start would not be a bad idea, which is why I'm only weakly on the Keep side of things. The article would almost need to be stubbed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I approached it under the assumption that the article should be about a general activity, not a single group. I was actually hoping I would find some sources that would warrant a rewrite along those lines, but what I found were articles in, as I said, local papers that were either "this guy really loves collecting old snowmobiles," or "come to the Winter festival January 14-18! There'll be ice sculpture, skating, ski jumping, and a vintage snowmobile race!" I didn't see anything that really suggested a coherent activity that's been covered in any real way by third-party sources. I'd love to see some dug up, to tell the truth. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If anyone wants to rewrite this article, I'll change to a keep, otherwise it's more of a delete.  fetchcomms☛ 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, topic is not discussed in secondary sources, and the treatment of the topic is how-to and wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest that the author work on improving coverage of the topic in http://www.wikihow.com and http://wikitravel.org Abductive (reasoning) 01:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The subject is somewhat notable as Edward Vielmetti indicates. To allay some of the concerns, there is Vintage snowmobile a stubby article that can be used to perhaps redirect this article and to incorporate any notable sourced information about such organizations. --PinkBull 04:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 30 Seconds to Mars (album). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of the Earth

Edge of the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Attempts to redirect to album article are reverted by various IP editors. AfD in attempt to gain consensus to delete then create a redirect (to prevent article recreation). Nouse4aname (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 30 Seconds to Mars (album), fails WP:NSONGS. Doesn't appear to show any notability (charts, etc) other than actually being a single. kiac. (talk-contrib) 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 30 Seconds to Mars (album) per above. No significant coverage found, and just being a single does not satisfy WP:NSONGS.  Gongshow ^Talk 07:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A top 81 charting single in Japan.--Matthew Riva (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source for charting, please provide evidence not just unsourced claims. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is encyclopedic.--Loverdrive (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid argument. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article contains no useful information. It does not even list who wrote the song. This article fails to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article and fails to satisfy the notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC guidelines).--Yanq (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It peaked the #81 on the Japan Singles Chart.--ItHysteria (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for this charting? I cannot find it on Oricon and Billboard only lists the top 50. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, source needed please... I can't find anything to back up these claims. Regardless of this, charting alone does not make a song notable. Coverage in reliable, third party sources is required for an article as per WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom, lacks coverage and fails WP:MUSIC ffm is now LFaraone 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. By the way, I was the one that contested the prod and added the reviews. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Be Such a Scientist (book)

Don't Be Such a Scientist (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. No claims to notability. All references are about the author or his lectures, and the only one mentioning his book is the Penn State news page. No reliable third party sources for notability of the book. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It would be helpful if editors specifically addressed the reviews listed in the article in regard to WP:BK. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And I am a complete and utter idiot who missed the reviews while checking the references. Guess I should withdraw this. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Stomp II

Tribal Stomp II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS, can find no independent coverage of this compilation album. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator seems exactly right. None of these artists is particularly notable (the Logan Campbell indicated is obviously the wrong guy and Russell Harrison seems like a very minor musician). Likewise no coverage of the album.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NALBUMSNiteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 07:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mawson Lakes Football Club

Mawson Lakes Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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