Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 9

< 8 November	10 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne (Amtrak station)

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

This was a Thruway Motorcoach stop with connecting service to Amtrak's California Zephyr until December 2007 when the carrier, Powder River Bus Company, discontinued route service in Wyoming and three other states (see [1] and [2]. Black Hills Stages does still provide service to Cheyenne, but it runs out of the Rodeway Inn, which is on the other side of town. It might be worth a mention in the Zephyr article, but a former bus stop probably fails WP:LOCAL. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if it was a physical structure, then there would be a case for inclusion. It appears that there isn't. --RFBailey (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: - Was this ever a genuine railroad station before it was an Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach bus stop? I tried to figure it out with the links you showed me, but my PC wasn't letting me find out. ----DanTD (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to be. The listed address isn't along an existing right-of-way, but I can't find reliable information (yet) about where the Pioneer stopped. The old Union Pacific depot is now a museum [3], but the history pages suggest that Amtrak didn't use or stopped using it. Mackensen (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google StreetView pictures show this building (called the Powder River Bus Depot) as nowhere near a railroad right-of-way (41°7′17.75″N 104°48′15.47″W / 41.1215972°N 104.8042972°W / 41.1215972; -104.8042972), and although I have no inkling when the vehicle passed by it to take the picture, a for sale sign was up in front of the building. Likely little notability, even in Cheyenne. Nate • (chatter) 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as a Thruway bus stop does not have the kind of fixture as a railway station does. Cheyenne does have a former rail depot, now a museum and National Historic Landmark (Wyoming Transportation Museum), but I don't think Amtrak ever went there so I cannot support a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cheyenne's actual Amtrak station was at Borie, ten miles out of town (located 41°5′26.51″N 104°59′23.18″W / 41.0906972°N 104.9897722°W / 41.0906972; -104.9897722). It's basically a shack by the tracks. The "station" in town was a storefront providing ticketing and a place to board a connecting bus. My notability standards have proven to be stiffer than others here are willing to agree with, so I offer no commentary on whether either spot merits an article. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply -- Okay, Mangoe, you've convince me. Although even if Cheyenne's Amtrak station were just a shack by the tracks, I would've tried to keep it. If this were still an active bus station, I'd suggest giving the article away to WikiProject Buses, and see what they'd do with it, or try to improve it from there. Otherwise I'm going to have to go along with a lot of you and say delete this one. ----DanTD (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with California Zephyr. No evidence of notability, but is interesting for hsiotrical purposes. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the CZ never served Cheyenne. The San Francisco Zephyr served it, followed by one version of the Pioneer. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to the affiliated Thruway Motorcoach service, which connected the CZ with this particular location. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be difficult or anything, but where was the connection made? Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per this the connection was in Denver. Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... That would seem to leave us, possibly, with three Cheyenne stations, since I don't think the trip-to-Borie storefront station was at the same location as the now-discontinued Thruway service. Besides the problem that the SF Zephyr needs its own article anyway, I don't think we can say that Cheyenne, as an Amtrak stop, hews only to the CF; it's actually connected to three different train names. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt many people in Cheyenne are even aware of this structure -Drdisque (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hall Effect

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and is an annoying ripoff of Hall Effect. Should have (Band) as part of article name. By the way: If an electric current were passed through this band in the presence of a perpendicular magnetic field (not that I am suggesting for a moment that should be done) would a voltage appear across the band in the transverse direction? I think not!) Edison (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on deletion but if consensus it to delete I recommend redirecting to Hall effect. KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their best shot at WP:BAND is the "1 spot on MTV Latin Rock Countdown" but I can find no documentation of this except from Wikipedia mirrors. The article tells it all, they're a bar band. J04n(talk page) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pain management

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

This article has existed without citing sources or references for over two years. That is too long, so it is time to have the article deleted. Onthegogo (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous textbooks and journals devoted to the subject. Clearly notable. --Chris Johnson (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing problems are not a reason to delete. Notability, BLP issues, etc. are. Also as above, there appear to be sources. AfD is not for easy ways out. - BalthCat (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and sourceable. (As an aside, the article Algology should be merged with this one.)Sjö (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Manifestly worthy subject. Even if the current article poorly serves it, there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A nice summary subject. Most of the information is so general it would not need references. - MeekMark (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily keep. Clearly an important subject. Boghog (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because an article is no good is not a reason to delete it. The editors who go around adding these tags should improve some article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article looks good, and the subject is obviously important and notable. Although a very poor article can be a reason for deletion, this one's far from that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the above. Sources exist - and, when this is Kept, they should be added as inline cites to specific facts. But that's not an issue that falls under AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination blatantly violates our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge can be discussed on the relevant talk pages, since the target for such an action is not clear from this discussion (Fear of the Lord would be an appropriate target when the article only covers Christianity, Fear of God (religion) if it covers multiple religions). Regards So Why 09:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of God (religion)

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

WP:QUOTEFARM, even the superficially prose introduction. If someone thinks this topic deserves its own article, can they expand the relevant part of the God article first, before spinning it off if it gets too big Newman Luke (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable concept. Problems with this article can be solved by editing. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is this not the same as Fear of the Lord? Might a merge/redirect/similar be in order? -- Bobyllib (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fear of the Lord. The subject matter should be kept as there is a philosophical/theological history behind the term from which a good article can be created. The two articles appear identical so a merge would be appropriate. Them From Space 18:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paysage D'Hiver

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

This was prodded with this comment: "No evidence of passing WP:MUSIC. Name is a common phrase in French, hence Google is unavailing." However, a Google search does turn up mentions of the band, and the musician behind the group is part of Darkspace (band) who have an entry on Wikipedia, so there seems to be some room for discussion. This is a neutral entry. SilkTork *^YES! 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can only see passing mentions to this band in any given articles, the French painting seems to get a lot more press than the band. They haven't charted any releases or any of the other criteria which is required for notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PRODer. Ray^Talk 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- The fact that this is an Underground band that isnt part of any big label and prefers to call his albums Demos instead of Albums shouldnt be a reason to delete the article. Paysage D'Hiver is a well respected and popular band, especially in ambient black metal circles as Paysage D'Hiver create some of the best ambient black metal that there is. Also, the fact that the internet isnt full of interviews with wintherr in no way reduces the bands notability. The lack of interviews is a common trait with many black metal bands, but in this case i can find more interviews with Paysage D'Hiver than for Darkspace, which is a more "popular" band. As far as i can see, a Google search gives more results for the band than anything else so i agree with what EquilibriumAblaze posted on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paysage_D%27Hiver Pyro Stick ^{Haud Yer Wheesht!} 11:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would be an example of an established band who will likely never meet the WP:BAND criteria as their genre eludes it. German-language ambient black metal just doesn't chart on Billboard.com or any other mainstream chart. Their discography is also available at Discogs.com [4]. If file sharing were a gauge of notability then it would be a more certain keep. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Often coming across this sort of thing in artists I listen to, I still think that it is appropriate to require some sort of notability evidence. If he's not on a label, we need reviews from appropriate publications or websites (well established ones), tours or collabs with other notable artists, etc. (I don't think E-Metallicum is sufficient.) If this stuff can't be dredged up, well... he's intentionally keeping himself obscure :P What a lovely label website though. - BalthCat (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This band is right on the edge of being notable. There are useful reviews and comments on the internet, but they are from blogs ([5], [6], [7], etc). However, I found this by Piero Scaruffi - "The three lengthy pieces of Paysage D'Hiver (2000), devastated by blastbeats and hysterical guitars, basically rediscovered black metal." That is a notable comment by a reliable source. SilkTork *^YES! 01:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green building by country

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

I split this article out from green building since it seemed like a good thing to do. After creating some categories and a few articles such as Green building in Canada and Green building in New Zealand I thought I may as well go the whole hog and create articles for all the countries on this page. I would then want this page deleted since there would be no need for it. The "Green building in Foo" articles will only grow in number over time and make this page get out of hand in terms of length. Also, due to the nature of the articles a Green building by country page will be difficult to maintain in the long term. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7: Author and only editor explicitly requests deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, I was not the author since it was split from green building. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question What about the countries on this list which don't appear to have their own articles? Are you planning to make new articles for each of them and move the sections there before this AfD closes, or what? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Yes, as outlined above. I wanted to get some idea of the feeling out there before doing any more changes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Any countries that are not on the list can have their own page created. If this AfD is successful I will create articles for all the countries on the list before it is deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless somebody can craft some very specific criteria for inclusion (in which case it'd need to be moved anyway), every "green" building is an absurdly large list, and the vast majority of ones that would fit into that list are not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article is about green building (sustainable building) legislation, organisations and practices. There is a Category:Sustainable buildings and structures by country Any non-notable buildings would not get their own article past the various deletion processes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Girl5

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

Article about non notable band (per WP:BAND) created by user banned for spam. -- Bobyllib (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ladies are quite attractive, but I must regretably agree with nom and above that there are no significant coverage for them as of yet. They may become the next spice girls, but article easily recreated then. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this is deleted, Template:The Beach Girl5 and Template:Beach Girl5 should probably be deleted too. -- Bobyllib (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the members has her own article, and appears to work with Miley Cyrus. Further exploration might dig up more. Neutral - BalthCat (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandy Jiroux doesn't have an article, she has a redirect - as per this AFD. I agree with your second sentence though. -- Bobyllib (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone's just edited the article and it seems that another of the members does in fact have an article. That's still not exactly "two or more independently notable musicians" though. -- Bobyllib (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No strong consensus either way; a potential merge/rename should be discussed on this article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Honduran coup d'état

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

This is a POV fork of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis created due to the naming dispute of whether this is a coup or not; it is not as claimed a sub-article as it is evidently been copied and pasted from the original article (not cut and pasted); a more classic POV fork I have yet to see . Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was, indeed, originally copied and pasted. However, the splitting (made clear in a navbox present on all relevant pages) has enabled the parent article, which was a giant mess at over 156K (around #350 in Special:LongPages), to shrink in just a couple of days to under 118K (not in the top 1000 LongPages), and the shrinking continues. I think the parent should come down under 64K over time; yet without the sub-article, that would be impossible, as all sides would defend the inclusion of "their" facts. I think that this is clear evidence that the split is useful. Thus, I believe it is not a POV fork.

Also, I am the initiator of the split, which was discussed on the talk page of the original article and got some informal support and no opposition (I was not the first one to raise it. Xavexgoem said "B) fork the article into its coup, constitutional, and aftermath parts (2009 Honduran coup d'etat, the current 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, whatever the name of the aftermath section would be, plus a general article that summarizes everything -- at least this is the only split I see gaining consensus). Option B would require a helluva lot of consensus-building, although I'm partial to the option (since, in addition, it gives us an article to start fresh with)... I'm partial to B)"). As the discussion there shows, the motivation for this split is a traditional sub-article rationale, and not, as SqueakBox claims, the naming dispute. I would absolutely support this split even if consensus decided that the sub-article should be named Honduran events on 28 June 2009 or some such non-"coup" name (although I'd currently oppose such a consensus, but not vehemently, and anyway that's a separate issue).

Finally, note that the sub-article and the parent article have now each attracted independent work, which (if this AfD goes through) would have to be merged back into the parent article. The same goes for the other two sub-articles created concurrently (Fourth ballot box and Micheletti regime) which were created by the same means (that is, copy, then edit independently to trim the parent and clean up the child). Homunq (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a fork, but it isn't a POV fork. This is primarily for article brevity and weight. The details of the coup, as such, had far too much weight for a much larger matter (i.e., the constitutional crisis). We also split the articles into the prior-to-the-event, the-event, and after-the-event, due to the depth this subject requires. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete it was never a coup d'etat, since it was a legal removal of the sitting president, the title is a POV stance 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also vote "move" (to something without "coup" in the name) if that were an option? I ask becaus I think that the existence/value of this page should be decided separately from the question of whether its name is POV. Homunq (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, it would need to be renamed. Otherwise, it should just be part of the constitutional crisis article. Whether there is already enough material in that article, or if some should be merged is my !vote of "merge/delete", since either is acceptable. Keeping is less desirable, since I don't see a clean cut to have an article on the non-coup as a separate topic from the constitutional crisis. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cut is clean. This article covers the events of June 28th and their direct causes (primarily the arrest order - the causes of the arrest order are NOT directly in scope, meriting only a brief mention here) and effects (primarily, opinions and/or positions on those events which were expressed after that date). Homunq (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

65.94.252.195, I looked at your user contributions. It appears that you have never edited any of the Honduran coup articles. Per WP:MEAT policy, "in votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded." -- Rico 19:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that doesn't really matter, since my IP rotates, or did you not notice that the edit contribution history for this IP address abruptly starts in November, with edits that are not indicative of a new user? I have infact editted the constitutional crisis article, several times. But I don't expect that you'll accept me, because I don't think you accept IP users, forgive me if I am misinterpreting your actions. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just a note to Rico: a ton of folks are on rotating IPs (DHCP). Xavexgoem (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I disagree with the IP's stance, and personally would not comment in AFD as an IP, but I defend his right to do so. He appears to have made useful articlespace contributions on astronomy. (I say "he" as an educated guess, not because of the astronomy, but because of some of the other stuff.) Homunq (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending his or her right to comment in AFD as an IP, as if I had suggested that s/he had no such right (even though I never wrote that).

Please feel free to reply to other things I've never written, as if I have.

Very impressive, oh defender of right. -- Rico 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace. You're a good editor and I value your contributions. I had no intention to offend you, in fact I considered you a friend and ally. I understand now that you did not share this feeling of familiarity, and that by acting on it, I was bothering you. I will no longer respond to your comments if I can avoid it, and if I can't I'll be as factual as possible. However, here and now, I cannot help noting that you seemed angry enough to swear at me twice (with the link above, and below) when I was not aiming to offend, and strongly urge you to closely consider whether this apparently-emotional style of response is productive, and if not, what you can do to avoid it. Homunq (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote only what I wrote, but you and everyone and anyone are free to read into it anything you like. A policy quotation is a simple, indisputable fact. That the 65.94.252.195 contributions history contains no edit to any Honduran coup article, is an indisputable fact.

I never wrote anything about whether an IP could comment in AFD as an IP, and anyone that replied to me as if I did could give a damn about civility.

I never wrote it, and I never thought it.

I failed to consider that an anonymous poster may have edited using another IP address.

Shoot me. -- Rico 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a fork, but it is nescessary for it has enabled the main article be reduced in size and clarified. Denying there was a coup d'etat is POV pushing. It's still work in progress Cathar11 (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment reflects a complete lack of understanding of NPOV policy; there are 2 POVs, that it is a coup and that it is not a coup; at wikipedia we take sides at our peril; we cannot decide one side has a valid argument and the other does not so claiming it was or wasn't a coup as fact and negating the other POV is the only POV pushing going on here. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try to restrict the discussion to the article's existence, not its name? Or is that the reason you nominated this (and not its twin sister articles) for AFD after all? Homunq (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - any concerns over POV name issues can be addressed through either an eventual name change or by explaining controversy in the lede. Moogwrench (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete - What the editor handling this AfD needs to understand, is that this article was a redirect to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis[8].
The reason for that is that the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article was renamed, "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis".
This was the result of rampant nationalist POV warriors, that didn't want the word "coup" in the name of the article about the coup -- so the article about the coup was renamed, "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis".
Before this fork the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis article was the 2009 Honduran coup d'état article, and most all of us really know it.
This fork is just an end run around policy.
The right way to handle the WP:NAME violation would be to add a Name change request to the misnamed article's talk page, not to create an article out of the redirect (just because it is titled with the name WP:NAME policy supports) -- that became a redirect after an admin declared the coup deniers/apologists right and the editors that wanted to comply with Wikipedia policy wrong.
And yes, this is absolutely a POV fork. All it does is evade the Name change loss.
I was so excited to see this end run around rampant nationalist POV warriors, that I forgot what kind of a Wikipedian I want to be. -- Rico 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rico, please assume good faith on my part. The resolution to the name war on "constitutional crisis" was that the article should stay at "constitutional crisis", with a subhead named "coup", because it covered more than just the coup - that is, it covered before, during, and after the coup. That's fine. Then the article got too big - >156K, around number 350 on Special:LongPages - and needed splitting into sub-articles. The most logical split was to make sub-articles for before, during, and after the coup, which I did. This is the second of those three articles, and it is NOT the same as 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. While this article does have brief, one-paragraph summaries for before and for after the coup, those are generally out-of-scope, which is why it's about a third the size of the parent article. The parent article, for its part, has now dropped from 157K (over 70K readable text) to 112K (under 40K readable text, a nearly proper size).

The three new sub-articles needed some name. I did my best to follow WP:NAME for each on its own right. On this article, that meant following the existing subhead in the parent article and the broad majority of RS, ~~as you know and agree~~.

I understand your suspicion of an action which gives a result that's so convenient for those who thought that the original article should have been named "coup" in the first place. But for a minute, forget about the high emotions, and just put yourself in my place. Once I decided to follow policy and do a WP:Split, what else could I have done? I must admit, some part of me felt the same glee you did in being able to at last put an article under this well-deserved name, but that was NOT my motivation for doing this split; it just needed to be done and so I did it following policy. (Well OK, I think I didn't do the edit summary right, mea culpa).

Also, one interesting point: now that the split has happened, it's clear to me that the tug-of-war over the parent article's title resulted in the RIGHT decision. If you and I had prevailed earlier and located the overall article at the "coup" name, I would have had to move it when splitting. So: I was wrong. To me, it's another confirmation that there's often more wisdom in a collaborative process than you realize at the time. Homunq (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a mind reader? Is that how you know what I "realize"?

You've replied to what I hadn't written, as if I had, and now you've put thoughts in my head (as if there's some way you could know what's in there). I'd write that you don't give a flying fuck about civility, but then, I would have to be a mind reader to know what you care about, wouldn't I?

Regarding, "The resolution to the name war on 'constitutional crisis' was that the article should stay at "constitutional crisis", with a subhead named 'coup'.

This is not true. "The resolution to the name war on 'constitutional crisis' was that the article should stay at "constitutional crisis."

Now you've started a second article with the name that wasn't chosen after the Name change ran its course. -- Rico 00:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm no mind reader. And I'm really sorry. I did not mean to offend you. I was trying to signal that I understood where you were coming from, in order to be friendly, and obviously that was a mistake. I've stricken through the text that, as far as I can tell, offended you, and I don't know what else I can do.

I understand that my informal tone was an error, but I don't understand more than a little bit of your response directly above, so I really can't respond to it on the substance, just the tone, and so I repeat my apology. Peace.

Is there anything I can do to clarify my response above? Basically, my point is that I changed 2009 Honduran coup d'état from a redirect into a subarticle because 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis needed to be WP:Split, not as a sneaky way of moving the article and breaking the truce on the name war. I was trying to cite the (limited and weak) evidence which would help an observer distinguish my intent. And in the process I was being too clever by half. Homunq (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. POV fork at best, incorrect article at worst. The original name as noted above as part of a consensus situation is more valid. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Wood's Wig, you have also considered the parent article to be incorrect and POV. Is this article any different in that regard? In other words, is it in your opinion a WP:CFORK, or just a WP:Split of a bad article? Homunq (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is project-wide at this point, but this is almost certainly a POV split from folks who are angry that the current articles don't reflect unreality enough. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. This is effectively a content fork of that article, and in fact contains much of the same content; we don't need two articles that duplicate each other. In theory, it might be acceptable to have a sub-article on the coup d'etat as a part of the ongoing constitutional crisis in Honduras, but this isn't it. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: we're still working on pairing down the parent article. Obviously, we had to take the content from somewhere. It's hard to tell whether people are equivocating over split vs. fork, at this point, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC) No-one's called for a spoon![reply]

Keep There can be disagreement about the article's title but there is not doubt that the subject is notable and there is enough material to make a valid sub-article of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. You may call it coup, President's removal, forced exile or whatever but there is no reason for deletion. JRSP (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has lots of valuable info specific to the coup itself. Helvetica (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems that since the argument for the title was not won, then instead this article was created as an alternative. The Constitutional Crisis talk page has plenty of arguments pro and against calling "Coup D'Etat" don't see how can the alternative that was not finally utilized, in a separate article could add nothing more than confusion to the readers Wikihonduras (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? Homunq (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has its place within the larger context of the situation. It is in the popular lexicon and is a distinct historical event. --Xaliqen (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Counting the !votes, this is in favor of deletion but the strength of arguments is roughly equal with no clear consensus. Allow me to elaborate: There are three different delete !votes: a.) no assertion of notability, b.) not enough coverage and c.) coverage is local only. a.) has been refuted by the addition of multiple reliable sources. c.) is not a valid reasoning for deletion since WP:N does not require that the coverage needs to be on any scope, except when it comes to significance. That leaves us with the question whether the coverage is enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria (b.)) and there is no consensus whether the coverage really is enough to satisfy the relevant criteria. As such, "no consensus" was the only way to close this discussion. Regards So Why 08:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Center of Hope

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

I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of charity's notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - (1) WP:CSD#A7 The article makes no assertion of the notability of its subject; (2) WP:RS No sources are provided attesting to the notability of the article's subject; (3) WP:N The subject of the article is, in fact, non notable, as reliable sources testifying to its notability have not been turned up through good faith searches, and (4) WP:CSD#A1 The article lacks sufficient information about its subject to enable future editors to find additional information ("The Center of Hope" appears to be a common name for not-for-profits throughout the Western world). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per expansion of article and additional sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of these references. When the subject of an article has the same name as others, it helps to include the organization's location in your Google search. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I don't think that local news show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - no evidence of national notability; all coverage is local, only in Worcester, Massachusetts. I agree here with Joe Chill. Some of the local newspaper articles have truly trivial mentions - a memorial donation in an obituary to the charity, a short interview with a volunteer, a fundraiser listing for Special Olympics, or the like. I'd change my mind if something more substantial could be found. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find it. Shadowjams (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled hadouken! 2nd album

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

non-notable album that doesn't even have a title (also known as WP:HAMMER). KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HAMMER. Tavix | Talk 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's called For The Masses and has a proper article. I'd say "merge", but all of the content seems to already be in either the Hadouken! article or else the one for the album. -- Bobyllib (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Bobyllib, noting the existence of For the Masses (album) and believing this article to contain no significant additional content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since we have For the Masses (album) (which is the name of the second album), this is completely redundant. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks in Zamboanga City

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

This article is a list of banks for a specific city within the Phillipines. At this granular breakdown of geography, what we have is essentially a directory contrary wo WP:NOT. Note that there is a List of banks in the Philippines. Whpq (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Stop the madness now! We must draw the line somewhere! Next are coming articles on each of the janitors who work in each of those banks! Qworty (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of camera clubs in Ireland

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, neither it is a collection of external links. Donnie Park (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It Yesterday. Seriously, somebody needs to get a life. But okay, technically: Wikipedia is not a directory. Amen. Qworty (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

You might not like it or think it a waste of time but it serves a purpose. I saw a list of hits it received one time and was amazed at how much interest there was. Dunno how to show this but maybe someone else does. I don't see how it is any different to these other lists, which are not up for deletion...

If you need sources (although I thought I had included them) here are two other lists of photography clubs on the web...

Irish Photographic Federation
Institute of Photography

Jaqian (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As this is coming from the creator, I will say this is not a matter of whether I like it or not, it is the matter of this list failing to meet guidelines and serves a purpose to provide links to other clubs who do not have their own article and are not likely to meet notability guidelines themselves. Answer this, why should your list be significant compared to those that you have mentioned here, which meets notability guidelines and are notable in a sense, plus they bluelinked and does any of yours, I don't see any. The number of hits on your page is not relative to this nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as the article consists of nothing but inappropriate external links which do not meet WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a spam repository or a linkfarm. Them From Space 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how about I create List of Bicycle shops in Kentucky or List of KFC Restaurants in Yorkshire or List of high school softball teams in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona all of which would be equally notable to this list. -Drdisque (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XiRCON

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

On June 8, I requested some third party, reliable sources to attest to this software's notability [[9]], and none has been added. I searched for some mentions, and everything I found was either trivial or not reliable. I don't think this software is notable by wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significnat coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: un-notable article. South Bay (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

articles don't need to be notable, but the subjects they cover do. riffic (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Canterbury Cathedral, not that implausible and redirects are cheap. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury cathedral facts

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

Delete. Unencyclopeadic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can be brief too: delete. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, to expand a little, nothing in here isn't already in Canterbury Cathedral, and the title is an implausible redirect--besides, the information in here is random and unverified. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not familiar with the cathedral itself, but I can say we don't need fact-pages about places here in Wikipedia. Facts can be included in main article if necessary (if there is one - if not, then create one). Ilyushka88 talk 20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. --Barret (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Any useful facts can be put into the main article, we don't need a separate article for them. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against merging or renominating less notable entries. There appears to be a rough consensus that at least some of the material in some of these articles should be retained. Obviously, there is a wide variety of quality in both content and notability here and some (or even many) articles probably shouldn't be retained as stand-alone articles. However, a mass AfD like this can not accurately judge consensus on individual articles, and thus should only be evaluated as a question of the general principle: "should articles like this exist at all?" I see no consensus that they shouldn't, so this AfD must close as keep. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Check Game

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

Unsourced article filled with trivia related to a specific audience that perpetually keeps these articles as fansites. As another similar AFD states, "No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for lack of sources since 11/07 with no improvement." Sottolacqua (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fit the criteria above and are unsourced or use fansites as only sources:[reply]

Merge all to List of The Price Is Right pricing games, they don't deserve individual articles, however a bundled article could possibly be sourced UltraMagnus^speak 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entire lot please and quick. This is not encyclopedic, it contributes zilch to humanities base of knowledge, and I really vote delete rarely. Merge under the Price is Right article if you absolutely have to, but that is a waste of space as well. Turqoise127 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced indiscriminate trivia. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unsourced fancruft. There is absolutely no way that any of the information could be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The games are already listed in the List of The Price Is Right pricing games. This is one of the most famous game shows of all times and the games made up a significant and much discussed part of it. I can't see how deleting these articles improves the encyclopedia. On the contrary I think there is substantial interest in the show as it's been on for decades and readers are likely to benefit from coverage of the major components. If there were fewer games a merge would be appropriate, and some of the more minor ones can certainly be merged, but the bigger ones are fine as sub articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to single The Price Is Right pricing games article. ^Bongo_matic 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; it doesn't seem appropriate to have a Wikipedia article for every pricing game on The Price Is Right. I disagree with the characterizations of the material as "fancruft", but altogether they do comprise a somewhat less than discriminate collection of information, and individually, one one game has received significant enough coverage to qualify it as notable. Robert K S (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per UltraMagnus. Tavix | Talk 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundle because not all of those need to be deleted. I'll run with delete all those with "(pricing game)", "(retired pricing game)", or "$" signs in the article name as fundamentally unfit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia—but that still leaves a substantial number to consider separately, because many are plausible search terms that ought to redirect somewhere. "Check Game", "Check-Out", "Clearance Sale" etc. are all things that someone looking for useful information might type in the search box.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fail notability. Lack independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of each game. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, and is not an indoscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only — If we're going to delete the individual articles, then keep the List of The Price is Right pricing games (where in that afd debate, there are several keep votes as well as some arguing to delete) and give a brief description of each game (which at this point should suffice). Also, redirects are in order, so that someone typing in — say, Plinko — into the search box will not be confused. He'll still get what info he's looking for, just in a different place and in a different format. I also recommend transwiki-ing the articles, but that's a discussion for the list article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
Merge to list: There may be information within these articles which would be valuable in the list. For example I just dug up a Baltimore Sun article where the authors took the time to rework the games into actual finance practices in honour of Bob Barker's retirement or somesuch. here. - BalthCat (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate articles. I agree with ChildofMidnight, but strongly disagree with Turqoise127. Wasn't the point of the separate articles to make sure that a single article on all of the show's pricing games wasn't overloaded? And all that info is sourced, but nobody wants to believe TPIRFanSteve. Daniel Benfield (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TPIRFanSteve's sources are self-published sources and are part of original, non-sourced and non-verified research. Golden-Road.net, as a fansite, does not meet the criteria of a reliable third-party publication. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should point out that most of the other individual pricing games not listed in this afd are headed for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all pricing game articles. No evidence that any of them are independently notable, and a merge would also not be appropriate as (a) there is no evidence of their notability even within the context of The Price Is Right, and (b) they do not meaningfully contribute to an understanding of the topic "The Price Is Right". - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plinko, otherwise Merge to list with Redirects If a person is looking for info on a specific game, a page listing all the games with descriptions would suffice. Plinko is easily the show's most famous game, and is THE game most synonymous with the show, so I have substantially less disagreement with it's continued existence. DJBullfish 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. These are absolutely not notable on their own. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plinko and clean up the page, and merge the rest into List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, I actually have virtually no doubts as to the legitimacy of the source (the Golden-Road.net fansite) for information presented. I just don't think that the overwhelming majority of the games are, outside of the game show universe, noteworthy of their own articles. I tend to be minimalist on such things - it to me is the equivalent of giving every match variation in pro wrestling *it's* own page. What you wind up seeing with the latter is a few of the most interesting and noteworthy (IE: Hell in a Cell get their own articles while the rest go into a more broad-based list. Something similar would seem apt for the pricing games.
- "I just don't think that the overwhelming majority of the games are, outside of the game show universe, noteworthy of their own articles." Does this logic apply to certain game shows, like The Big Showdown or Call My Bluff, then? Since both games (among many others – The Money Maze, 3 for the Money, and 100 Grand come to mind) were relatively short-lived and virtually unknown outside of the "game show universe", should they be deleted as well? No, they shouldn't, because somebody remembers these shows and wants to find out more about them. Same goes for the pricing games – even the shorter-lived ones, such as Professor Price and Telephone Game, have those who want to know the who-where-and-why about them. Basically, if we can have huge detailed articles dedicated to each and every one of the 236 episodes of some 1980s sitcom, then why can't we have 103 articles about the games used on a long-running game show with tons of history both on-camera and off? Daniel Benfield (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your argument still does not address why all of these need to have separate individual articles. The vast majority of articles containing synopses of television shows place the synopses within one sole article for that series, not individual articles for each episode. This is not an argument of whether or not someone will remember these games; the argument is whether or not these are noteworthy enough to merit their own articles, in addition to whether or not the information contained within them can be legitimately sourced. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, addressing the argument of Mr. Benfield: Except that Punch a Bunch isn't a television It's one sub-element of a television show. You mentioned articles for episodes of obscure television shows - fact is I oppose the existence of most of those articles too into an episode list. I'm a huge believer in simplicity. When it comes to how to present information on the site, I personally prefer as few articles as possible. There's no need to say in 104 pages what you can just as easily say in two. And Sottolacqua is quite correct: The vast majority of shows' episodes ARE condensed into episode lists, and those that aren't are probably an AfD process away from the same fate. DJBullfish 04:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with comment. Yes, it may seem somewhat overdetailed in the large scope of things, but remember this: Wikipedia has full articles on every Family Guy, South Park and The Simpsons episode, regardless of how notable or well-sourced they are (most of the episode titles aren't even known to the general public). I fail to see how having articles for each pricing game on this show is different, considering that each one has been played multiple times, and I don't think it's a good idea to be biased in favor of scripted programming. (For the record, I favor eliminating those articles, too.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination states boldly that "No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced". However in just a minute or so of searching, I find a source which discusses the details of these pricing games: Daytime Television Game Shows and the Celebration of Merchandise: The Price is Right. The nomination is thus proven false - a clear failure of our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That source has a copyright of 1993, after which 30 pricing games listed above debuted:

Balance Game
Barker's Markers/Make Your Mark
Bonkers
Clearance Sale
Coming or Going
Cover Up
Easy as 123
Flip Flop
Fortune Hunter
Freeze Frame

Gas Money
Half Off
It's in the Bag
Joker
Let 'em Roll
Line 'em Up
Magic Number
More or Less
On the Spot
One Wrong Price

Pass the Buck
Pocket Change
Push Over
Shopping Spree
Split Decision
Stack the Deck
Step Up
That's Too Much
Time is Money
Triple Play

Your source is not directly applicable to most of these articles being nominated for deletion. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination wants to delete all of the games - every one of them. No careful analysis of each of them has been done - it's just an indiscriminate bonfire based upon a false premise. If you want to do the careful work of checking each of them out against the available sources then please go ahead and get back to us after the proper process described at WP:BEFORE has been completed. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia in question is statements such as these:

Cliff Hangers: Cliff Hangers was one of five pricing games introduced in the fifth and final nighttime season hosted by Dennis James – the other four being Danger Price, Dice Game, Hurdles, and Three Strikes. It also made appearances on the final nighttime show in 1980 and both subsequent syndicated versions (see below).
Danger Price: The 1980s nighttime version hosted by Tom Kennedy used both sets of Danger Price, the change coming near the end of the run.
Dice Game: On January 8, 1988 the game offered its last car priced under $6,667, after which the five-digit version became permanent. In September 1988, at the beginning of Season 17, the "Deluxe" title was dropped.
Double Prices: According to former producer Roger Dobkowitz, Double Prices has been played more often than any other pricing game (but by a slim margin).
Five Price Tags: The correct price of the car was originally an orange version of the price tag in front of it. This was changed to the current "WIN!" tag sometime in the 1990s.

...et cetera. Most of this is superfluous information that adds no understanding about the subject. It's minutia.

Additionally, coming late to the discussion, you've missed a large argument throughout this nomination in that none of these articles are notable enough to warrant separate pages. They can all easily be edited down and merged into The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wanting to merge all these articles then you've come to the wrong place - AFD is for deletion in which none of the original is retained. Please see WP:MERGE for the correct process. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This started as an AfD, but the emerging (no pun intended) consensus seems to be Merge. Another editor and I have been adding brief summaries to the List article, as suggested. JTRH (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose of AFD is to determine whether an admin should be pressing his delete button for the nominated articles. If we are agreed that deletion is not appropriate then the nominator should withdraw his nomination and a merge discussion be started. This should be a separate discussion because it would involve editors of the target article(s) who may not yet be aware of this matter as those articles were not included in this bundle. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which "target articles" you're referring to that "were not included in this bundle." Some of the pricing game articles have been AfD'd separately, and some of those have already closed with a Delete. With the exception of one of the major authors of these pages, who hasn't responded to my e-mail notifying him of this, I think this AfD discussion has included everyone who might have an interest. If the consensus here is a Merge, there's no reason to re-open it instead of just going with the decision here. JTRH (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some, this AFD runs afoul of the Pokémon test. While I can say that some of the "famous" and classic games like Plinko and Cliff Hangers (come on, who doesn't love Yodel Guy?), most of it...why does such a stupid game as say, one of those games they use to fill up time from bigger ones, even have articles? ViperSnake151 Talk 15:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many things nominated at once! Many games from the Price is Right, which are not found anywhere else, should probably be merged together. If it doesn't fit in the main article, then have a side article listing just all the games, provided no detail is lost. Anything played for more than thirty years, decides a thorough encyclopedic entry about it so an interested reader can fully understand it. Dream Focus 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the colonel. Nice job searching for sources. Ikip (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one source that doesn't apply to 1/3 of the articles that are being nominated. Additionally, that source still doesn't address the trivial content in most of these articles, nor does it validate the notability requirements. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A source doesn't validate notability requirements? Removing trival content is done by removing that content, not deleting a notable article. So nominate 1/3 of the articles that are not mentioned by the source. this is like nominating notable article 1, notable article 2, non-notable article 1 and saying notable article 1 and 2 should be deleted because of non-notable article. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of these articles are notable on their own. At most they should be merged into List of The Price Is Right pricing games Sottolacqua (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Showcase Showdown, Talk:The Showcase (The Price Is Right), Talk:The Price Is Right (U.S. game show), and Talk:One Bid page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Note I notified the 50+ editors who participated in the AFD two years ago, excluding only those editors who have retired or who have had their page blanked. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or include all pertinent information (including but not limited to gameplay, rule changes, set changes, and lifespan) on each game in the list of games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallpriest9 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most to a single article about the pricing games and later de-merge games which would meet notability requirements if the show itself were not notable. There may be a few on the list which are part of Americana, but certainly not most. Do not delete content, but rather redirect all and lock the redirects, requiring a per-redirect deletion review to unlock it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Derivative articles for additional guidance on sub-articles of notable topics. "Price Is Right pricing games" probably is a suitable sub-article, as might be a handful or less of the actual games. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Moone

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

Non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE (as he has never "competed at the fully professional level of a sport"; the league he plays is is not fully professional) and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") - note the original PROD was contested waaaay back in August 2009. Giant Snowman 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article creator is Bmoone (talk · contribs) - there is probably a WP:COI here as well, although that is not a valid grounds for deletion. Giant Snowman 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't played professional football Spiderone 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ATHLETE. South Bay (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability at WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. --Jimbo^[online] 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to T. F. Green Airport#1999 Runway Incursion. There may not be enough "notability" for a standalone article but the information is noteworthy and this target looks to be a logical location for it indeed. Shereth 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article about a non-event--a thing that never happened. On the first AfD a year and a half ago, the result was no consensus. The closest thing we have to a guideline for aircraft events is here [10]. There is a lot of verbiage on that page, but note that most of it is related to the notability of accidents--not the notability of non-accidents, non-events, or near-misses. I think most editors would agree that articles should be about things that have actually happened, not about things that didn't happen or "nearly" happened. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear: the incursion happened, and that's what the article is about. It may well be non-notable, as you argue, but we don't have a policy that things have to go ka-boom for them to be notable. Just sayin'. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If something had to go kaboom to be notable, Wikipedia would only have a couple thousand articles. Tavix | Talk 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nodding my previous nomination. A runway incursion is when two planes become closer than normal to each other. That means it was a "near-accident" but still not an accident. These happen way more than one might think so I really don't see how this should be a special case. Tavix | Talk 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. --Triadian (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to T. F. Green Airport#1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion. A short burst of news reports doesn't not grant notability, per WP:NOTNEWS. There was no significant coverage beyond 2000, and the event seems to have had little real impact. It can be covered briefly at the airport article, but the event isn't notable enough for its own article. Fences&Windows 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to T. F. Green Airport#1999 T. F. Green Airport Runway Incursion per above and WP:PRESERVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of accidents that could have happened but didn't, or nonnotable mistakes that people made. Edison (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident involved not two (per infobox) but three aircraft. It meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria L2 and P2 at least. An accident or incident does not need to have multiple deaths to establish notability. In this case, there was the potential for multiple deaths, which was only averted by the actions of the captain of MetroJet Flight 2998. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a "potential for multiple deaths" every time a pilot gets on a plane. And every time you get in your car. Qworty (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a potential for an accident = a potential for notability. Hey guess what: it wasn't an accident, it was an incursion; so your claim fails. Tavix | Talk 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion and the 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion also had the potential for hundreds of deaths, and they are also notable enough to have articles. As I stated above, this incident involved three aircraft, not two.

Comment. Then those two articles should also go! Thank you for pointing them out. I love absurd phrases such as "the near-collision occurred at"--I'm sorry, but that is a thing that did not happen! It did not occur at any time! Talk about dishonest phrasing. Qworty (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge What makes this runway incursion more notable than any of the others that happen regularly all over the world that don't get a WP article? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Roger (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The case is clear in the above discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge', this meets criteria L2 of WP:AIRCRASH if you classify T.G. Green Airport as major (I hold no opinion on this), but nothing else - the unsourced statement about the crew of 2998 being honoured does not meet criteria P2's requirements of "a prestigious national, international or industry award". Even if P2 was met, it would not make the air crew notable for their own article (see WP:1E) and so coverage of the incident would still be best on the article about the airport. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New album - Rotting Christ

AfDs for this article:

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

Also per the PROD comments on the page. Airplaneman ^talk 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is this at AfD if there is still an unexpired, uncontested prod on the page? KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I figured this out. I redirected New album - Rotting Chist to New album so as to allow this deletion discussion to continue without two identical, copied-and-pasted articles creating confusion. I've also removed the prod tag from New album so that only one deletion template is present on the article. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TN X Man 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable band but the info on this album is too crystaly at this time. Would have liked to see a few sources and definitive tracklisting per paragraphs 4 & 5 of WP:NALBUMS. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm beginning to think this sort of thing should be a speedy criteria... "Sequels, followups and other projected works which don't even have a title yet." etc. - BalthCat (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We sort of do - see WP:HAMMER. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. At best, article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Un-notable album. South Bay (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero 6

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

Article that hinges on half a sentence in Activision's annual report. No other sources, no firm release date, no indication that this will even be the title of the game. There's no need for this article until more sources show up; for now, it needs hit with the WP:HAMMER. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not WP's job to write about things that will happen in the future. IMO (and I know I am in the minority here) one article on a game should be enough, not one on each update. Redddogg (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if more news preemptively talks about GH6, it should be salted as a redirect to GH until there's enough confirmation of it being released and its title. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough substance out there to even satisfy a stub at the moment. I'm sure a year down the road it'll need to be recreated, but right now there's just nothing to stand on. --Teancum (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this really will be an actual game. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gongshow ^Talk 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People just don't seem to get that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; if there are no reliable sources available, we don't cover it. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL. Just saying that there's going to be a game isn't enough. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i think we can all say it together, WP:CRYSTAL. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for contributing to Wikipedia. Jerks. (Orbital Drop Shock Wikipedian (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. In the process of writing an article, you have to provide reliable sources for verifiability. We don't allow original research and thus speculation because they cannot be verified. In this case, the article is based entirely on assumptions rather than references, and since references could not be found the article has been nominated for deletion. If you can prove that Guitar Hero 6 is in development, then by all means add the reference. In the meantime, please take a look at Wikipedia's policies and consider how you might be able to contribute. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitey much? That said, Heavyweight Gamer is correct, and ODSW, please stay civil. BlazerKnight (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Jones (linguist)

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet the notability guideline for academics; the article makes a reasonably strong case that his research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline of Tibeto-Burman comparative linguistics. Not sure why anyone would imagine this was a speedy candidate. And that episode where he found that artifact in the temple and was chased by Nazis got some attention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His memorial makes a better case for his notability than the article does, but even without that the volume of cited publications in the article would almost certainly carry him over WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question The biggest cite on GS is 11 for his book. Is this enough? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

From his memorial, which is published by the university and I would accept as a consensus of his peers: "His Ph.D. dissertation was a descriptive and historical study of the major languages in the Karen language family (Sgaw, Pho, and Pa’o), spoken in Burma and Thailand. [...] The resulting study was published in the University of California linguistic series as Karen Linguistic Studies. This monograph is among the most thoroughgoing studies of any Tibeto-Burman language and is still the most authoritative single-volume study of the Karen family." Satisfies WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone through this systematically, but GS says Karen Linguistic Studies has 38 cites. --Chris Johnson (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His papers have been acquired by Cornell University and are now part of the rare books and manuscripts collection. If a university library considers the rubish someone leaves at death worthy of indefinate storage in a publically accessible archive, the university at any event seems to regard him as important. http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ead/htmldocs/RMM04901.html Tibetologist (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am persuaded by emerging evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge is possible here. Let me know so that I can provide content. Tone 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Parnell (Australian)

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

Very poorly sourced biography of a living person. Closedmouth (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLPs such as this shouldn't be kept. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Delete. My view on this has changed since I wrote this, per WP:BLP1E. –Moondyne 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vandalism remained unreverted in the article for about five months (pieces of this edit were corrected soon after the edit was made, most (and the worst) was not corrected until I fixed it a few minutes ago). BLP1E case for someone who has otherwise remained out of the public eye. Lara 17:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's unsourced doesn't make it unsourceable. At AfD, what we normally do with unsourced articles is look for sources. And with all due respect for Jennavecia's good faith concerns about BLPs, are we to delete every BLP that's been vandalised? I think we need a better answer than that, and one that deals with vandalism that targets people outside BLP articles too.
BLP1E is a fair criticism, though. It's a stretch—eleven years is pretty long for "one event"—but I recognise that prevailing opinion on Wikipedia at the moment stretches the BLP1E criterion about as far as it'll logically go. I'll run with redirect back to List of Australians imprisoned or executed abroad.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable prisoner arrested in Indonesia in 11 years. The reason another Australian prisoner Schapelle Corby imprisoned in Bali after smuggling cocaine. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure, withdrawn by nominator, see this edit ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walser German

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

Lord of the Pit (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, see this edit: the nominator seems to have decided that AFD isn't a good idea here. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inka Games

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

Non-notable board game. Was declined for speedy G11 (I agree with that decline). DMacks (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this board game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't find anything for the board game, but there is a video game with the same name that has been reviewed by some blogs, e.g. here, which sounds hilarious - Barack Obama and Rafael Nadal saving pandas! Bearian (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Chill. SyG (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rated R (Rihanna album). Cirt (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Your Turn (Rihanna Song)

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

Topic fails WP:NSONGS. This song from Rated R (Rihanna album) has not been confirmed as a single, despite prior reports by the song's producer Stargate (production team). Samples from it were used in promotion of the album. That's I believe why it is named a "promo single" in the current version of the article.
Was redirected by several editors to the parent album, but keeps being recreated both at Wait Your Turn and Wait Your Turn (Rihanna Song) (and previously at The Wait is Ova + alternative spellings). Note that there are older versions in the respective histories that are slightly more detailed than this current version. Still, I believe the topic fails community consensus about notability of songs, detailed at WP:NSONGS, and information should be (and already is!) placed in the album article. Amalthea 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rated R (Rihanna album) and full protect. Also, Hard (song), The Wait is Ova, and any similarly-titled versions of the listed article should be full-protected until there is enough sourced information about them to have a decently-sized article. I have redirected pages like this several times over the last week, but some of these Rihanna fans do not seem to grasp the concept of WP:ITEXISTS and WP:N which is why these articles need to be fully protected. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hard (song) is on a different topic, and would need a separate AfD. Amalthea 20:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Hard" seems to be notable enough now. It's decently-sized (barely) and it has charted on R&B/Hip-Hop Songs in the U.S.. However, this song is still not notable. Chase wc ⁹¹ 05:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and this is coming from a WP:DELETIONIST. WP:NSONGS says "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". A music video has been made and there are plenty of sources. You said that - "Note that there are older versions in the respective histories that are slightly more detailed than this current version", meaning that the issues are more editorial than AfD-based as there are other sources around. Dale 21:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect - To Dalejenkins, the line before what you quoted in WP:NSONGS says "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." It then goes on to say "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article."... reliable sources or not, this song has not charted, nor won any awards... therefore, it does not pass the notability concerns, and should be redirected... At least "Hard" has charted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - the song has now been confirmed as the album's official 3rd single, rather than just a promotional single. Dale 17:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source for that? I see lots of outdated information floating around from when it was said to be the second single release, but nothing new on google news (and I don't consider the list entry at radio1.gr reliable in that respect. Rihannanow.com doesn't confirm it.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Being a single -- or a future single -- does not make a song notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Protect - No indication of notability unless and until it is released and charts or otherwise meets WP:NSONGS. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Protect per nom. SnottyWong talk 14:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masta-

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

Looks like a Hoax. No mention of masta found at external link http://www.bipm.org/en/home/ or elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the current list from BIPM website. There's no masta, so "por favor, no mas". Created by an SPA, no surprise there, probably the "lasta" article that will ever be posted under that username. Nice try. Mandsford (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily, since this is a blatant hoax. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How the Earth Was Made

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

Interesting series, but also unnotable. Fails WP:N. Prod removed by an IP with note of see talk page, on talk page they statd "There are plenty of other articles on lesser-than-notable History channel programs. This article is not an orphan." Neither of which demonstrates any notability for the program or shows it was given any significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. The only news mentions I found were two mentions in passing listing it among the many done by Pioneer Productions which was recently acquired by Tinopolis, one local news paper noting the Gold episode was filmed there, and one newspaper report confirming the series' launch. It exists is not a valid keep reason, nor personal enjoyment of the series (which is quite fascinating), nor insignificant/passing news mentions as noted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources available, doesn't meet general notability guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming. A series which aired on The History Channel is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Needs sources and such, but that's fixable. Tagging for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, not a legitimate notability guideline, but a personal essay. The essay also notes that airing alone is not a notability criteria, without sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sources for possible inclusion. Amazon demonstrates V, and shows some reviews. Geology.com--possibly an RS? This UK site asserts that the series won an Emmy. At least one episode was featured as a TV pick by The Seattle Times. HD Report highlighted the Blu-Ray release. Multichannel reports a new season in the works. The Oakland Press has a more detailed piece about the creation of an episode for the series. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not needed for V - the History channels on website does that. Geology.com, if RS, is a short review. HD-Report is not significant coverage, and Blu-Ray was announced by History itself. Multichannel isn't clear about a new season. Of those, the best are The Oakland Press (which is a little production data), and BroadcastNow. Checked and the Emmy it won was for editing achievement. With that morsel, found a Variety article stating it "averag[ed] 1.4 million total viewers" in the first season. Will withdraw.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globo Thermo Tour 2009

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Globo Thermo Tour 2009 (2nd nomination)

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

This is not notable and is an advertisement for an upcoming tour created by DANECOOKISFUNNY, either someone that loves Dane Cook, an employee of Dane Cook's, or Cook himself. This is pure promotion and I can't find a single bit of information on the page that can be merged with the main Dane Cook article, as it's all useless, non-encyclopædic promotion. PÆonU (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The opening paragraph and ending criticism can be merged to Dane Cook. Lists of tour dates are not encyclopedic material. Miami33139 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not notable that a comedian is currently touring a show. The reference for the touring award talks about Madonna (nothing to do with this article), and mentions some other stuff, then devotes eight words to the subject of this article. I see that Dane Cook has other advertising here (Dane Cook: Vicious Circle, Rough Around the Edges: Live from Madison Square Garden and more), nevertheless a list of tour dates and locations (including future dates) is not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Weinberg

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

This article is about a person who is not, and has not been, in the public domain for any significant incident or for any significant amount of time, thereby making the article meaningless to Wikipedia Count-kostaki (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, easily satisfies WP:PROF, by virtue of position, citation, and news coverage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Citation link has a long list of publications to peruse. - BalthCat (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not a whole lot of citability in googlescholar. However, according to the info page[11] at the City University of London, he is an elected fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. That seems sufficient for passing citerion 3 of WP:PROF. Kinoq (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes at least criteria 3 (FRCP) and 6 (acting vice chancellor - note that in England vice-chancellor is the top job, with the chancellor being a figurehead) of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of position at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - inhabited places are generally notable, and neighborhoods of larger cities (especially ones that formerly were separate towns, villages, or cities) are almost always notable. No valid argument has been given to delete this article or list. Several newly registered users, who have had virtually no other input, have been active in this disussion, leading the closing administrator to discount their arguments of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia

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

Columbus neighborhoods are not exactly notable. Truthteller234 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point of view is it depends on where you live. Neighborhoods of Atlanta aren't notable to me because I don't live there and haven't heard of many of them... I live in Columbus and I've heard of all of these places. Of course, that's just my view on it... Shark96z (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'd say that this AfD nomination is still incomplete. This is simply the tip of the iceberg for an entire project devoted to writing an article about all the neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia. I doubt that any of them are notable enough for an article of their own, but there's no point in nominating or discussing the only useful part of that project. Since this is only about the list, I don't see any reason to delete the list. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many neighborhoods of cities were once independent towns or villages, and hence historically notable. A map of the Columbus area from 100 or 150 years ago would show many such towns or villages which were not then considered part of Columbus. Once notable, always notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Columbus/Muscogee County form a consolidated city-county, many of these communities were once municipalities, and thus clearly notable. Even if post-consolidation neighborhoods are a problem, this list could easily be converted into a list of former municipalities in Muscogee County. Consider the list of this type at Act of Consolidation, 1854, section "Districts, townships and boroughs consolidated into Philadelphia". Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a list of neighborhoods, regardless of whether they would be notable or not. The notability of the individual blue-links on the template are another matter, but that's not been brought up for debate. Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as someone very familiar with Columbus, some of these neighborhoods are not notable for residents much less the rest of the world. The major sections of town are already handled in the Columbus, Georgia article. No need for this detail here.65.13.81.233 (talk)
Delete the individual neighborhood articles and expand the main list. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many good reasons for having articles about the neighborhoods of a large city. --Orlady (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This looks to me like it might be a bad-faith deletion nomination motivated by an anti-Columbus point of view. The nominator (who seems to be a WP:SPA) also festooned the Columbus, Georgia article with templates including {{disputed}}, {{disputeabout}}, {{notability}}, {{POV-check}}, and {{unbalanced}}, and 65.13.81.233 (who voted for deletion) nominated the city article for speedy deletion using {{db-spam}}. --Orlady (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's from Phenix City.... Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--This is trivial. Few people even use the names of some of these areas.Freddyboy (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who cares about this?LinwoodJoe (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The debate itself is pointless. It's like throwing away the yellow pages because you don't like the businesses. Mandsford (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hope the AFD closer will note that no policy-based reason for deletion has been provided... just classic "It's not very important to me" stuff that should be seen as clearly invalid. This article is an obviously valid list per WP:LISTS, which allows for lists that are "an Index of articles page presents an alphabetical list of articles related to the subject of the index." I think you'd have to show that few of the neighborhoods are notable before deleting the list would make sense (since it would no longer be indexing many actual articles). I think that would be best explored by nominating the neighborhoods individually, but just picking a neighborhood at random there seems to be sources out there. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Oaks Mall (Springfield, Illinois)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Doesn't seem to be something like Mall of America, just an average shopping mall. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article describes mall as a super-regional shopping mall. While some small enclosed malls may not deserved separate articles, generally all regional malls are considered notable.--Milowent (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because this editor orginally created the article and thus would have a conflict of interest if he took a position on this question; but keep in mind that this shopping mall has 912,000 square feet of shopping space. It might be useful if Wikipedia were to develop a consensus on which retail developments should be covered/not covered, using objective criteria such as square footage, etc.Bigturtle (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some cites, and put in a question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers#Standards_for_Inclusion to see if there is better guidance on that question.--Milowent (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several Proposed Guidelines have attempted to gain consensus, but they all fail. I am currently working on this one. At the moment, there is no consensus. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Superregional malls, like this one with 912,000 square feet of retail space, have generally been kept in past AFDs. See also notability essay WP:MALL. Edison (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not average at all. Its a Super Regional, the largest Class of Mall there is. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Sandstein's suggestion is the consensus here, so the appropriate close is merge. Since the proposed target is not currently in a state that would allow merging there, further work and discussion (preferably by editors familiar to the subject) is needed, so I have not added List of legal Latin terms as the "official" target. Consensus is in favor of merging this article (and the AFD is only about this article) to a list of such phrases but the target can change if further discussion favors such a change. Regards So Why 08:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prout patet per recordum

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

Wikipedia is neither a Latin dictionary, nor a glossary of legal terms. Powers ^T 13:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --Fartherred (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination rationale is incorrectly stated. Perhaps what was intended was

Wikipedia is intended—per policy / guideline—to be neither a Latin dictionary, nor a glossary of legal terms.

In fact, Wikipedia is those things. See Category:Latin words and phrases, Category:Latin legal phrases, and Category:Legal terms, which include many hundreds if not thousands of entries. ^Bongo_matic 14:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are categories for articles that are related to latin legal phrases and legal terms; the articles are never supposed to be about those terms, they're at most about the meaning of those terms. It's subtly different, but a really important distinction.- Wolfkeeper 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was borrowing the simple declarative form of WP:NOT. Powers ^T 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a listified version of List of legal Latin terms, and merge the other stubs listed there likewise. That would make them part of a technical glossary, which is an acceptable form of list per WP:DICDEF#Wikipedia is not a usage guide, which states in its last paragraph that "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries (i.e., more than simply lists of dictionary definitions) on the jargon of various industries and fields; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." Keeping this article as a permastub is not helpful, since it does not appear that much more than this one sentence can be said about this phrase. Sandstein 14:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion goes far beyond the scope of this discussion. Concepts such as habeus corpus and ad valorum are not simple matters which should compressed into some concise glossary, as can be seen from their articles. Our topic here is more than a form of words; it is also a legal concept and matter of precise ritual. Explaining this properly requires more than a single sentence. I have made a start on this but don't fully grasp all the details myself yet. If we have established that the topic is notable and so should not be deleted then there is nothing more to be done here. Rewriting great swathes of legal articles is a larger task which would be ultra vires. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any article that can grow beyond a perma-stub should indeed be a full article (in these cases, with summary in and link from a glossary article. As per the other glossaries). -- Quiddity (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - agree with Sandstein's reasoning. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and then Merge to List of legal Latin terms to form a glossary, I suppose. Glossaries are really weird in the Wikipedia though; really they should all be in Wiktionary.- Wolfkeeper 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (as article creator). I agree that a standalone article isn't the ideal way of including this sort of information in the encyclopaedia - on the other hand, changing List of legal Latin terms from the simple list it is now to a proper glossary will involve quite a bit of work, and this AfD is not the right forum to discuss a change of such magnitude. I think the term should be in the encyclopaedia somewhere - I'm not particularly bothered whether it has its own article, but it seems like the least-bad solution at the moment. Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete The "Prout patet per recordum" article functionally duplicates the entry in "The Free Dictionary" for that phrase but Wikipedia will not functionally duplicate the Legal dictionary section of The Free Dictionary any time soon. Keeping phrases like this with "requiescat in pace" and "Lebellus de Medicinalibus Indorum Herbis" and a random assortment of odd Latin phrases serves no reasonable purpose. It is not and will not be comprehensive in any reasonable category. We should not add one more member to this mismatched menagerie. We lack the authority to deal with this mess as it ought to be handled but we can avoid making it worse by deleting "Prout patet per recordum."--Fartherred (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sandstein -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sandstein's argument. An overall glossary makes sense, but not an article per phrase. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Let us not give the wrong impression to someone who might read this AfD as to what the votes mean. When the AfD is closed, the decision is either keep or delete. The vote of merge can be understood as a vote to keep until the article is merged with some more suitable article and then delete the word article title; but the closing administrator will not do that work. In a recent AfD about "How now brown cow" there were votes of merge by Jujutacular, Datheisen, Ultraexactzz and Chris Johnson. It was closed as "keep without prejudice against merge" on the 27th of October, but a merge has not happened yet. An AfD is not necessary for a merge, but I hope in this case that if there is a vote to merge, those who voted that way will get together and do the work.

As to Bongomatic's contention that a few hundred word articles failing to follow the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary means that there is no such policy, there are three million articles that do follow policy. It seems like a case of the fly on the steer addressing the rancher and saying, "I am no longer a fly speck. I deserve some respect. Tie that steer's tail down so I can get to the serious business of producing more of my kind." I am just disappointed that so many get taken in by Bongomatic's argument. Let's hope that the policies we actually follow do not turn Wikipedia into a maggot infested corpse.

In any case some of the Category:Latin words and phrases and the List of legal Latin terms are not hopelessly irredeemable dictionary articles such as Libellus de Medicinalibus Indorum Herbis and Magna Carta--Fartherred (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)(minor fix)--Fartherred (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misconstrue my point. In no way am I saying that "there is no such policy". I am saying that to the extent it applies to this sort of entry (I am not making any claim as to the extent, despite the ironic tone of my original comment) is inconsistent with policy, policy is not being followed.

I am not even making a claim about the consensus of thoughtful editors with respect to this sort of entry, though of course there is a reasonable possibility (I haven't done any of the research, nor do I intend to) that editors who opine at AfDs have a consensus that varies from policy. There could be an empirical survey done of how such articles fare at AfD to add to the received wisdom at WP:OUTCOMES. The fact is that consensus frequently differs from policy and guideline in many subtle or not subtle ways, and in some of those ways, it is consensus that matters.

My original comment was not accompanied by an opinion to keep this article, but was intended as a humorous way to point out that practice and policy / guideline may differ, and that such differences may (or may not) be instructive. ^Bongo_matic 06:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Bongomatic for serving as an exemplary straw man, even if this role was unintentional. His backing away from and disowning the argument that I tried to pin on him served to discredit that argument as much as I could have hoped for. I will not require the service of a sock puppet.

To elaborate upon Bongomatic's cogent and apt analysis of the relation between policy and consensus, consensus, to the extent that it exists on Wikipedia, is policy. The written statements of policy are attempts to summarize that consensus, leaving as few exceptions as practical. The usefulness and necessity of written policy in communicating consensus is such that it can be desirable to modify the consensus to make it easier to summarize.--Fartherred (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more to this topic than translating this phrase from Latin to English. The correct inclusion of the phrase in legal pleadings and other matters was essential. Use some other phrase such as hoc paratus est verificare and your case was toast. There are extensive legal works which discuss these fine points of jurisprudence which are almost as complex and baffling as Wikipedia's volumes of policies. The topic should therefore not be deleted purely on the basis of some blanket prejudice against Latin phrases. In the case of requiescat in pace referred to above, I found that there was plenty of scope to write upon such matters given time to properly research them and this is the thrust of our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Colonel Warden ignores WP:NOTGUIDE when he warns that substituting "hoc paratus est verificare" for "prout patet per recordum" would harm a person's case in court. Wikipedia is not in the business of training second rate amateur lawyers. I do not oppose inclusion of a "Prout patet per recordum" article because it is a Latin phrase, I oppose it because it is a phrase and not a thing. Phrases would ordinarily belong in a phrase dictionary. The one in question belongs in the legal phrase dictionary that it came out of. Including the warning about not using the phrase correctly does not improve the article. Even if the warning would not be included in a legal phrase dictionary, it is still about the phrase, and there is no special reason that the group of legal phrases that have been put in Wikipedia as a portion of all legal phrases should be in Wikipedia.

Colonel Warden seems to take the position that because editors have been putting a few hundred word and phrase articles into Wikipedia over the last few years without people successfully opposing them that constitutes a policy of accepting word and phrase articles. I disagree. That is a bad way to make policy. There has never been consensus for those articles all along.

Colonel Warden's butchering of the "Prout patet per recordum" article when he edited it on the 16th of November at 18:23hours does not give confidence in his good judgement. He added a reference for the warning about the improper use of "prout patet per recordum" and removed the reference for its meaning.--Fartherred (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal to WP:NOTGUIDE is inapplicable because we are concerned here with the history and significance of the phrase, not just its plain meaning. See Pleading for a more extensive article on the matter. This would be the most appropriate merge target, if we were here to discuss merger but we are not. The case in question is whether this article is so lacking in merit and hopeless of improvement that it should be summarily deleted. It should not - the petition is disruption - an attempt to remove a whole class of articles for no good policy reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please retract your claim that this AfD was opened in bad faith. Powers ^T 14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some editors look at the exemptions to the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and think that they have a loophole that they could sail the USS Nimitz through. We should have some understanding of the allowable exemptions. The exemplary articles Macedonia (terminology) and Truthiness are really quite exceptional.

The use of the name, Macedonia, for various places in the region of the Balkans is integral to the complexities of the history of that area for many centuries. The lack of a single geographical location to associate with the name makes an article on a country named "Macedonia" difficult, and the name itself have been the subject of diplomatic dispute.

While politicians have probably been making high sounding empty statements since before recorded history, the satirical use of "truthiness" was the epitome of current comedic response to such statements. It was appropriate to put the article about that satire and people's response to it under the title Truthiness.

Other word article topics might not be quite so exceptional and still rate an exemption from the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy but Prout patet per recordum is not one of them. It is one drop in a vast sea of information that gets put into a lawyer's head in law school and in work as an associate. It is of interest to lawyers and law school professors but rates no exemption to be included as a phrase based article in Wikipedia.--Fartherred (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Prout patet per recordum to a listified version of List of legal Latin terms, as this is especially obscure; I've been lawyer for 17 years and I've never seen the phrase. No comment on the others legal Latin phrases, but I'd lean towards keeping all of those. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Cannon (novel)

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

Article that consists only of the plot of a novel, and makes no assertion towards the notability of the book. A quick search finds no major reviews or other discussion, aside from an Amazon.com page. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one or two reader reviews, but I have been unable to find any professional reviews. Search results yield only seller websites. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the five notability criteria set forth in WP:BK. Tan | 39 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Vann

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

Can't find any evidence online that this person exists. ISBNs do not match books by that name. Worldcat lists no such books under any ISBN, and Google Scholar hasn't heard of this "academic". Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Probable WP:HOAX. MuffledThud (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. I looked around and also found no evidence of existence of either the author or the books. Kinoq (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anyone who doubts that this is a hoax can search the Cambridge University Press catalogue (and someone should have a word with the CUP about their spelling). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Mellor

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

Does not seem to be notable. First (and only) major editor gave reasons for notability on the discussion page only, which are not convincing. Being president of a sub-organisation with an unknown number of members whose notability is not established should not be enough to claim an entry at Wikipedia. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that she's really done enough and been covered enough to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mellor is the founding member and President of an organization that's come to national attention. The Daily Telegraph does not report trivial events. Mellor is also a trustee of the Strummerville charity which is notable in its own right. Unknown Unknowns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Unknown Unknowns. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being covered by the Daily Telegraph twice is enough to pass the WP:GNG, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject's notability has been established. The article does need to be fleshed out some as there's a dearth of text on the page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — absolutely not notable at all. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - only notable for the single thing; maybe make an article on the Shoreditch WI & redirect this there, which answers Spongefrog's point. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Spongefrog. Shoreditch WI are only notable for Jazz Mellor's activities. Bamber Clarte (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I struggle to see any noticeable notability criteria being established. Otherwise we list the presidents of every WI, do we?! However, as an inclusionist ..... Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Otherwise we list the presidents of every WI, do we?

No - Just those WI presidents who have two or more Daily Telegraph articles written about them. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are there some Telegraph articles other than those in the article, then? Because the two quoted are not about Mellow; yes, she is mentioned in each, but neither is about her, even in the greatest stretch of those words, and mere mention in the Telegraph is not enough to prove notability. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, I should have said two mentions in the national press. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-woo

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

Prodded twice for being unexpandable from a dictionary definition (the term is already defined in Wiktionary). Beyond the definition, the article reads like a WP:COATRACK personal essay, covering ground already dealt with in much more depth by the scientific skepticism article. McGeddon (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has provided no support for the purported ubiquity of the phrase. Of all the references none speaks to what "woo" is, how it should be used, nor how it's use has spread. In fact, none of the references mentions "woo" at all except for the blog sciencebasedmedicine which uses it twice but is clearly a blog. No differentiation is made between the concept of "woo" and the concept of scientific skepticism. Padillah (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this isn't about the word "woo-woo" (which has other usages as well, such as an expression someone shouts after becoming extremely inebriated inside a gentleman's club). Essentially, this seems to be about things that the authors think are "woo woo". It's akin to writing an article about the word "bullshit" and then making a list of things you think merit that adjective. Conspiracy theories are woo-woo, supernatural stuff is woo-woo, new age things are woo-woo, etc. etc. My take on it is that articles that use the word "woo-woo" are woo-woo. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is woo-woo, basically. Lots of synthesis and little substance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. How could anyone hope to write an article about "woo-woo" and not mention Etta Candy? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't use appropriate sources that deal with "woo-woo" directly, probably because it's impossible for this topic. And I'll hang my hat and WP:COAT on that. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no comparative word to encompass these issues, and a simple definition does not do the subject justice. Of course the article reads like my opinion, I am one of the two people that added text to the page. The others only removed material(mostly sourced material), I would think that deletion--both of material and of the article-- would come after the editing process and not before a third person has worked on it. It is true that "...this seems to be about things that the authors think are 'woo woo'" if you consider the authors to be hundreds of thousands of scientists, philosophers, and critical thinkers.TheThomas (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by McGeddon. GDallimore (Talk) 12:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete enough with the neologism woo-woo please Unomi (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poser porn

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

I can find no documentation that this pornography genre actually exists. Sure, I can imagine how such a program could be applied to create porn, but having attempted to to google around to see if such porn actually exists (including going to a site liike xtube) I am not cinvinced that this is other than a projection of future developments meco (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence the term satisfies WP:NOTABILITY. Edison (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Cartoon porn, perhaps? -- Bobyllib (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a potential genre or peculiar fetish of porn could exist, it probably does. That does not make it notable. Miami33139 (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Ross

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

Non-notable artist who doesn't seem to have any reliable third-party coverage that I can find. Neither Billboard nor AMG have any, which I consider to be the two most reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren has had news on PopJustice and has been friends with RedOne. Go on Google and find it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not seem to have the coverage by reliable sources required by WP:MUSICBIO. Article does not list references. Web/news searches don't yield anything interesting after all the other persons of that name have been removed. The author of the article claims that sources exist, but in spite of WP:BURDEN seems to think that we should find them ourselves. Favonian (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though he doesn't seem to be particularly famous it appears he does meet criterion #5 of WP:MUSICBIO:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"

since he has apparently released at least 2 albums with Sony, this qualifies. However, the article could really use a clean-up and some citations. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence which could verify that he's actually signed with Sony. Whilst his blog says he was offered the opportunity to sign in late September, he is not listed on Sony's website. Having viewed some of his "music" videos at his YouTube page I'm thinking hoax. Guest9999 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell this is some kind of bizarre hoax. Claims to have sold hundreds of thousands of records yet has an average of about 15 views for each of the videos in his YouTube channel. I did indeed do a google search for coverage at Popjustice (as suggested above) but could only find forum posts which detail an apparent campaign to get false information about this "artist" on to Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is just an new artist to sony music label, you think sony would give all the details of world now, he always likes to stay quiet and surprise people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So he's got two albums on Sony, but he's so newly signed that he's not listed by them? I don't buy it for a moment. Delete this chunk of self-promoting misinformation, delete the album articles, and open a sockpuppet investigation on User:Croniclataus re: User:Michelangelo24 for suspected block dodging per User:Grutness below. — Gwalla | Talk 19:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no WP:RS which supports the claim that he's released two albums on Sony. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 22:37, 9 November

2009 (UTC)

Keep Go on Amazon MP3 or iTunes and put Darren Ross and it will have the record label "Sony Music". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.235.74 (talk • contribs) 22:41, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
Note: From the edit histories this IP would seem to be Croniclataus (talk · contribs) in a logged out state. Favonian (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the IP (whoever it is) is correct that some of the the artist;s iTunes listings (or at least this one) do list Sony BMG as being the copyright holder. I do not know how that information is entered into iTunes and frankly I'm yet to be convinced. Guest9999 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, both iTunes and Amazon list Sony as this guy's record label/ publisher, but I don't know how that information gets there either, and I know iTunes and Amazon are not 100% reliable: I even suspect a possibility they might share (mis)information, since both mislabelled Vitas' songs Opera #1 and Opera #2 the wrong way around, which seems an unlikely (though not entirely incredible) coincidence. I note that the album article for Disco Man lists Cronic Records and Sony under "labels", and states "Darren has signed to Sony BMG record label and plans to stay with Cronic Records", but I can find no evidence of any association between Cronic Records (which does not appear to be notable) and Sony. If these articles are for real, perhaps some reliable sources will emerge after the forthcoming album release: my advice to the author would be wait till then and try again with suitable references should any become available. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 06:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the page has been repeatedly recreated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Copyright info on iTunes is not particularly reliable, nor convincing. It's is worth noting that the speedying of it in July was a little faulty - G4 doesn't apply since it had previously been speedied and prodded, but not deleted via a deletion discussion. Intriguingly, BTW, the person who created the page for the third time, in early July this year, was none other than User:Croniclataus. The creator of the previous version to that, in September 2008, was User:Michelangelo24, who was blocked for repeated (re)creation of inappropriate articles despite numerous final warnings - in early July this year. Croniclataus has also, from time to time, created articles at Darren ross, Darren Ross (singer), and Darren Ronald Ross, as well as the articles Michelangelo (producer) and Cronic lataus. In this latter deleted article, it says that Cronic lataus is a band whose members include (wait for it) "Michelangelo, mark ross, sally morgan. darren ross, nick james" (sic). Now, I like to assume good faith, and I'm certainly not happy to point fingers here, but the similarity of style and editing subject matter of Croniclataus and Michelangelo24, as indicated by their User talk histories, is intriguingly indicative, to say the least, as is the fact that Croniclataus started to create new articles with the earlier deleted Darren Ross article) at almost the same time Michelangelo24 was blocked (withing 48 hours, to be precise)... it's all circumstantial, but... Grutness...wha? 09:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete No evidence of notability. Creator of the article has received multiple notifications for AfD and appears unwilling to follow accepted wiki practice. Anon user who has made multiple edits to this article looks like sockpuppet for preceding. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof that he's been on Sony label; no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof that he's signed to Sony & Disco Man#Cancelled which has me believe it is a hoax. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 11:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find any reliable sources that substantiate the claims in this article. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F.R.E.E

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

Song doesn't have a shred of coverage that I can find. It fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC based on that criteria. ArcAngel (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song is on itunes and amazon mp3 and every where else it should stay because people think it is interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being on those sites doesn't make it notable - it has to have had significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, and so far I am not seeing any. ArcAngel (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per my entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go U Good Thing about article related to the same singer. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no WP:RS to suggest this meets WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Man

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

Non-notable album that does not have any significant third-party coverage at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This albums wikipedia page should not be removed because the artist music is very popular and people would like to know more about this artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have independent third-party sources that say otherwise? ArcAngel (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per my entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go U Good Thing about article related to the same singer. Favonian (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment the album is on itunes and amazon mp3 and many more i can say and it should stay in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This merely indicates that the album is for sale, which is not the same as being notable. Favonian (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.popjustice.com/forum/index.php?topic=16349.120 - look at this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no WP:RS to suggest this meets WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Darren Collection

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

Non-notable future album that doesn't pass WP:N nor WP:RS at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This albums wikipedia page should not be removed because you are damaging an artist page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is faulty reasoning. The album is not yet notable and doesn't appear to have any significant third-party coverage, which is a requirement for articles to be included on Wikipedia. Secondly this album (and the others of this artist) can't pass the WP:MUSIC criteria at this time. If and when these albums receive significant coverage would they be worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per my entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go U Good Thing about article related to the same singer. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the album will be released on every digital download store in the world and you need more proof, Google "Darren Ross Disco Man" and you will get thousands of proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approximately 268 hits come up on that search, and in none of the hits could I see any relaible, third-party sources of significant coverage. ArcAngel (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.popjustice.com/forum/index.php?topic=16349.120 - look at this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a forum — not usually considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gongshow ^Talk 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, smells of hoax. The image isn't even the right aspect ratio for release artwork, and the metadata indicates it's a cell phone photo. Hairhorn (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go U Good Thing

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

Contested PROD by article author. Reasoning is this is a non-notable future album that doesn't pass WP:N nor WP:RS at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Strongly Think This Article should not be removed because this music artist is getting more popular over the world and is growing very strongly on the internet. (talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The relevant passage from WikiScripture is WP:NSONG, which means that the notability of this single hinges on that of Darren Ross whose article lacks sources to back the claim and has been tagged as such since September. This article is part of a whole series by Croniclataus (talk • contribs), who according to the Darren Ross template seems to have a conflict of interest. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Think that it should not be deleted because people think he is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason for keeping the article around though. Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion, and so far you have not provided any proof that the albums (or the artist) passes any of these guidelines. ArcAngel (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Darren Ross Disco Man" and you will see heaps of proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can find no WP:RS to indicate this meets WP:NSONG. Gongshow ^Talk 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I smell a hoax, the supposed album cover is a cell phone photo. Hairhorn (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsplattered Joe

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

This bears all the marks of a hoax. There is nothing in IMDb about this film or its star Warren McAddams, the blue-links for director and writers go to unconnected people, Google finds nothing, nor is there any trace of the studio. The only source cited is a website littered with spelling mistakes which claims that three films have been released and two more are coming. Contested PROD: the author Buffyfan882 (talk · contribs) maintains on the article talk page that it is not a hoax. His user page says that he is Warren McAddams and lists 11 films already out and 14 more coming with dates out to 2014. I have checked a few without finding any reference except this user page and McAddams' website, e.g. [12], [13], [14]. Even if this is real, it completely fails WP:V and WP:NF. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be BS to me. I cannot find a single reliable source. In fact, the only sources I can find seem to all come from one individual, adding to the feeling that this is a hoax. Either way, there is not a chance of it meeting WP:N. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find any hits on this. B-Movie, C-Movie or Z-Movie, someone needs to have written about it for us to verify bare notability.--Milowent (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. - Zhang He (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as G3 hoax. Only source is the Warren McAddams website... where he lists films he's made that are themselves unsourcable. Despite the claims made on the article's talk page, nothing in the article can be verified, and they're not even covered in blogs.... much less reliable sources. Seems like something someone made up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folded Wing

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

non-notable business, poorly written, unreferenced Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a horribly written article, but they have indeed won a very significant award - the Sony Radio Academy Award for Best Internet Programme (source here). I'd also accept a rename/redirect to Book Slam Podcast but that might require that page being created first. Note also that it appears it's the production company that accepts the award on behalf of the programme, so it's appropriate for the notability to accrue to Folded Wing (formerly Karen P Productions) rather than the program itself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DustFormsWords. A Sony is a "notable award" per WP:ANYBIO. Tevildo (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per DustFormsWords. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The part-membership of Brent Kutzle, even if taken into account for the band's notability, would still fail to satisfy WP:BAND that requires (#6) two notable members. As such, the criteria to judge this, since the band fails WP:BAND, is the general notability guideline and consensus here is that they do not have achieved sufficient coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable for inclusion at this point of time. Regards So Why 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Allure

AfDs for this article:

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

This band apparently does not meet the notability standards of WP:BAND. A Google search shows plenty of entries to the band's MySpace page, but nothing of an independent nature. Furthermore, a Billboard Magazine search (www.billboard.com) shows no hit activity on any chart. Ref provided is to a distinct URL (thisallure.com) but redirects to the band's MySpace page. Manway (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With one independent label EP released some four years ago, 120 listeners on last.fm[15], and some youtube videos This Allure does not satisfy WP:BAND. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 14:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Apologies for the removal of the original prod. I don't have experience with deletion policies on Wikipedia and had erroneously thought it was to be removed once edits were made. Anyway, while I understand the concern that this band is not widely known, I believe they are notable due to a few reasons. ---Firstly, the high-profile status of one of their previous members. The former member's current band had the highest-selling single of the decade ("Apologize") and since he is musically linked to this band/artist, it seems relevant and notable, in my opinion. ---Second, if we are to use Last.fm plays and/or listeners as an indication of a band/artist's popularity or notability, cannot other social media website numbers be used similarly? This band has significant current YouTube video plays (15,000+), Myspace plays (25,000+) and Myspace friends (2500+). While not gargantuan numbers, they are of note. In reference to Billboard.com, while that is most certainly a valid source, chart activity does not always reflect notability. Ravi Shankar has never charted a song on Billboard either, and while he's achieved much on his own, he was initially notable because of his connection with The Beatles. ---Thirdly, included in the article are cited references from outside sources and I did my best to remove the potentially biased/conflicted sources. ---Furthermore, while not eligible for inclusion at this point, I know that this band/artist is speaking with two Grammy-nominated/winning producers, but since there are currently no citable sources, I've refrained from including that in the article, per inclusion guidelines. I will readily admit that I am a fan of this band's music, which is one reason I'd taken the time to create the article to begin with, however, the article was NOT created to be, nor is it, a "sales pitch" for them. It was created to be informative and factual; no more, no less. I believe they are notable at present and while Wikipedia is certainly not a speculation site, believe they will become increasingly notable in the near future. JYumikawa (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JYumikawa, just a note - you were perfectly within your rights to remove the initial prod. That particular one can be removed. And you are doing right by not removing this one. So far so good! I'm a musician as well, and despite my AfD, I wish your band the best of luck in breaking through - I know it's a rough road. --Manway (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manway, thank you for understanding and the encouragement. Want to go about all this the right way! What do you play? I'm not musical myself, but really enjoy finding new music and hearing the different songs that people make. JYumikawa (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a member was a current member of the unquestionably notable band OneRepublic, I'm going to have to vote keep. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Brent Kutzle was a member of This Allure - THEN joined One Republic - not the other way around, according to the article. Kutzle is not a current member of This Allure. The MySpace page shows him as a "guest artist." --Manway (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to agree with delirious and lost here, just not notable enough and fails WP:BAND. Athe Weatherman 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, despite some edits to U2 related articles i am also a big fan of many indie bands and musicians. If there is a band that has established themselves over many years with at least a few releases and widespread touring of venues where tickets are sold through services such as Ticketmaster then i am more inclined to not vote for delete per this archived discussion of notability regarding indie artists. One such example is Carbon Leaf who did not have any charting on Billboard until their sixth studio album but won an AMA for a song on their fourth album. At this time This Allure's first full length album is WP:CRYSTAL. If notability is to be ascribed to them entirely because of a former member then all of Brent Kutzle's former associations would be due their respective notability too. To do that would be a mis-application of notability guidelines as Brent Kutzle, according to the chronology presented in the article and his BLP, did not contribute to This Allure's first EP. I do see an honest attempt at an article for This Allure. I never intended to imply the article was created as a sales pitch and would not be opposed to moving it to userspace for ongoing development if someone feels they can satisfy WP:BAND in some way before too long. As i am a big fan of cello rock i am going to at least do some minor copy editing on the article. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 19:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. No significant coverage. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. A browse through the results on Google return no indication that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close English Translation of Gloomy Sunday's Lyrics

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Close English Translation of Gloomy Sunday's Lyrics

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

The song in question is already covered at Gloomy Sunday, no need for this article, but no appropriate CSD area to sort it into. Frmatt (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate that we have a new editor and contributions are welcome, but this has problems, the number one of which is that it is unsourced -- I imagine that the author is looking at Hungarian lyrics and then translating them based on his knowledge of Hungarian and English. Even if sourced, however, not necessary as a separate page. There's a very useful link in the Gloomy Sunday article-- [16] that can be referred to. Ideally, an article would incorporate the Hungarian lyrics and English translation into a section, but it's likely that it would be a copyright violation, so posting the link is how the article has to accomplish that task. Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even a translation may be deemed to be a copyvio. Already covered at Gloomy Sunday. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copyvio. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (Though not so speedy...) Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer's disease

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mortimer's disease

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

Suggest deletion due to failing WP:N. I can find no reference to this disease in PubMed and the only source is self-published. Suggest delete. Basket of Puppies 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note [17] yerm in usage in 1899. [18] found in a medical dictionary of 2004 (making it hard to see how it could not be found, to be sure). See also [19] [20] and many more. Notable, findable, and not "only self-published" but found in actual medical literature. Collect (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How interesting! I did not see it in the last two references, but I surely see that it is in the older medical book. When PubMed had nothing on it and google revealed little more than a self-published reference I had just assumed it was a non-notable eponym. Now I see that I have been proven otherwise, which I thank you for. Thus, I would like to withdraw this AfD. Basket of Puppies 19:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Collect. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splash player

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

Free software. Of the two sources listed, one is a French blog. Another appears to be an Israeli blog, but am not entirely certain. Article has been tagged for sourcing and notability for a month without improvement. Durova³⁶⁰ 06:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crosswiki-spam - I was just about to nominate Polish version for deletion. Non-notable, free software with minuscule (if any) significance. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dechronication

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

Unsourced fringe-theory suggested by supposedly one individual. Could at best be merged into the article Robert Freitas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable fringe theory. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection How do you call 13 printed sources non-notable? They are in books, for goodness sakes! Did you see the link proving that? --70.179.170.40 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go to your local library and sifft through all the junk you can find in... books. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or put another way, just because something is mentioned in a book (or books) doesn't make it notable. We would need sources discussing the subject in a substantial way, which I don't think those did. Which isn't surprising, given that this is all pure speculation. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per WP:N. No independent reliable sources are provided in the article and a good faith Google search fails to uncover any. Appropriate content could be merged to Robert Freitas but "merge" is not an acceptable outcome of AfD discussions and policy doesn't support a Keep. Also, "13 Hits on Google Books" is not an appropriate form of citation, the link provided for that citation searches for "dechronification", which is not the title of the article, and 7 of the hits are dictionaries or quotation books. (I should note that if this is all a simple spelling error and the article was meant to be titled "dechronification" that would be a different discussion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also note the existence of Dechronication/Hypotheticals which I'm pretty sure isn't in accordance with policy on subpages. In the unlikely event of a Keep vote on the main article, the Hypotheticals subpage should be separately relisted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, it already is. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only six Google hits including Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Swann

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

Apparently some sort of minor celebrity in the UK. Article has been tagged with COI and POV tags (apparently, someone thinks that the article's creator and subject may be the same individual), and it was PRODded for lack of notability; it's only in existence now because it was previously PRODded and declined for an unrelated reason. There are no sources on this article, and there's no evidence that this person passes the notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article makes a backhanded claim ("acted extensively in the theatre") against WP:ENT criterion 3 ("Has made [...] prolific contributions to a field of entertainment") but that claim is not supported by IMDB (which admittedly doesn't list theatre roles) or Google (which shows several reviews of his performance in "Outside Edge" but no other theatre credits I can find). As such, unless further sources emerge, he doesn't pass WP:N or WP:ENT and is therefore not notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for own article. BearShare998 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Central Connecticut State University#Residence halls. Feel free to merge the content as appropriate. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Carroll Hall

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

Non-notable residential hall of a college (Central Connecticut State University). Can't see why this deserves an article at all - beyond being a building on the campus of CCSU, it has no claim to fame of any kind. SMC (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central Connecticut State University or delete. Doesn't look like there is any information worth salvaging, which is why I'm not !voting merge. tedder (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that this building is notable, and the article content is very trivial information. But do add the photo of the building to Central Connecticut State University. --Orlady (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tedder: while the article fails notability, this isn't too unlikely of a search target, and I don't see anything wrong with having it as a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Central Connecticut State University#Residence halls. TerriersFan (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That redirect target is a good idea (I confess that I failed to notice that section when I skimmed the CCSU article). Although I !voted "delete", I don't necessarily object to a redirect -- it's just that I couldn't imagine anybody expecting to find an encyclopedia article about this dormitory. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yuma Nakayama w/B.I.Shadow. And delete current useless content. Sandstein 06:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kikuchi Fuma

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

This is hard to understand and unotable. Btilm 04:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- After a lot of head scratching and puzzling over this cryptic article I think I can tentatively hypothesize that it is about a member of a Japanese boy band. A google search throws up a lot of hits, but these seem to be various fansites and many are in Japanese and I cannot judge their reliability. But judging from the fact that Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar yield nothing at all, I have to say this person is likely to be rather non-notable. Reyk _YO! 05:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nakayama Yuma w/ B.I.Shadow, of whom he is a member (as stated in the article's first sentence, or see their agency's website). I have no particular opinion on the notability of the group either, but perhaps being under the umbrella of Johnny & Associates means they pass WP:N. Or not. cab (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band. The band itself is notable; it has a #1 single. Dekimasuよ! 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Telephone card per WP:BB. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rechargeable Calling Card

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

Is this really necessary in an encyclopedia? Should this be redirected to calling card? Btilm 03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Telephone card. Airplaneman ^talk 04:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's one criteria to delete this, SNOW. In this case, a reasonable move. Tone 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dechronication/Hypotheticals

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dechronication/Hypotheticals

Related AfD:

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE Airplaneman ^talk 03:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia really isn't the place to list the potential ramifications of non-existent technology. (As the article doesn't make clear, this page is devoted to listing the potential benefits/drawbacks of a technology that could magically make everyone whatever age they desired to be). Aside from the arguments that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball or a place to host an unsourced essay, nothing here is remotely verifiable. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete: :Dechronication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a non-notable non-existent technology. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection, your honor. There are 13 printed sources over this subject. For a subject to be gone over in 13 sources ought to make some kind of statement. Moreover, to call for deleting its host-page, you would have to make a separate AFD for that host-page. --70.179.170.40 (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

really? I just found 649 printed sources about slipping on a banana. Oh and, the separate AfD has been launched. See box above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Was at once copied off of http://www.ibpassociation.org/encyclopedia/medicine/Dechronification.php. Btilm 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that link does not work for me. They're a respectable organization, and I can not imagine them hosting nonsense like this. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- What the...? This is why we need a speedy deletion criterion such as "WP:CSD#41- You've got to be kidding!" to cover articles like this one. Reyk _YO! 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do have a close speedy criterion, and it's G1, nonsense. But it is better that this be seen by the community, for it could conceivably be about some notable fiction, though I personally doubt it. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fundamentally unverifiable original research and speculation. Also, I wasn't aware that articles forked off other articles like this (ie Article/Subarticle) were allowable - am I wrong? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you're absolutely right. we're dealing with a single IP contesting both speedy and prod *sigh* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I am perfectly willing to let someone have such stuff in userspace. Collect (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting essay, looks like a good outline on which to base a science fiction novel, but not a Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & WP:SNOW.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nakunta River

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

I proposed deletion as "I can find mention of this river in a handful of books, but existence =/= notability. I can find no descriptions of the river, not even where exactly it is. Without anything to say about the river, there is no purpose in having the article." Deprodded as "Geographical features are notable".

As I can't expand it and I don't expect anyone else can I still think we should delete the article. I don't think it will ever have any meaningful content. Fences&Windows 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, as there not a snowball's chance in hell of this being deleted, despite the lack of sources. Fences&Windows 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with you. Articles ought to have content. I doubt this AfD will get very far though, because there is a substantial number of people who believe every real place on Earth automatically needs an article, and these people almost invariably get their way. Empty, unexpandable microstub wastes of time and space are unfortunately what happens when "must have an article cos it exists" meets "can't have an article because there's nothing to say". Reyk _YO! 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Right you are, there is indeed a consensus that every major geographic feature is notable, and if this is called a river in some good source, it counts. But this does not apply to every geographic feature. We have deleted a number of creeks and streams and such, when there's no additional factors for notability. Reyk, we're not as over-inclusive as you seem to think, and the deprodder was abbvreviating things a little. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying, I don't understand the point of having a single-line article that merely states the existence of the thing in question and cannot conceivably be expanded, ever, because there's simply nothing to say about it. Reyk _YO! 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: A potential solution is to collapse those stubs into articles such as Rivers in New Brunswick as a compromise; otherwise, stubs they stay! - BalthCat (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is, as a geographical feature, notable, per consensus and per common sense, IMO. That it "cannot be conceivably be expanded" sounds like crystal ballery to me. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few seconds on google comes up with this map among other sources, with a precise location Latitude: 15° 11' 56" N Longitude: 83° 46' 40" W. As it appears to be a "major geographic feature", in all likelihood, more work would yield more. John Z (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is hard to find information about it. Not entirely sure which river Google Maps means. I'm not sure if this source is saying it feeds the Caratasca Lagoon or just the system of lagoons that includes that one. There seem to have been Nicaraguan refugee camps in the area during the civil war ([21], [22], [23]). Some of the other books might have something vaguely interesting to say, if the snippets were a little larger. --Chris Johnson (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On Wikipedia, defined geographic features have always been inherently notable, and because of that, it's one of the few instances where stubs are tolerated. Thus, there is room for rivers, lakes, islands, peninsulas, etc; and inhabited towns, whether incorporated or not. The theory is that, even if such an article currently lacks content, someone in the world will write more about it (and geographic features will be there tomorrow and the next day). In this case, it's 71 miles long [24], not exactly a babbling brook. I've added that fact and source to the article, and encourage others to throw in what they have learned. Mandsford (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no good reason to consider this river nonnotable when major geographical features such as rivers are always so treated. Not sure why you say that it's unexpandable: there's surely plenty of information locally about it, and a local photographer could easily get good images. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford's rationale. I added a few more details, using this map showing its location.--Milowent (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Not sure why you say that it's unexpandable". Because in good faith I looked for information about it and could find nothing other than it existing. At least we know where it is now. This article is a prime example of why we shouldn't have bot-created stubs, as they contain little or no information and aren't properly verified. Editors are resorting to primary sources, i.e. maps. and iguide; the airy expectation that secondary sources can be found to expand it doesn't match with Chrajohn's experience. BalthCat's suggestion to merge this kind of stub is a good one. Fences&Windows 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you nominated the article, which is now getting an amount of attention that it otherwise would not have. I have no respect for the "deadbeat Dad" approach to Wikipedia, where someone creates a stub (usually as part of a large group of "thisisastub" pages and then leaves it to someone else to improve it. And sometimes the automatic notability rule gets pushed to ridiculous extremes, especially when it comes to inhabited locations -- many a time I've seen someone try to argue that their neighborhood is inherently notable, sometimes even a street -- but a river is notable, as long as it really is a river and not simply a brook, stream, creek, minor branch, etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to a book that references the river's outlet location. Serious question, is a map really a source different that a book that describes in words what a map shows, e.g, the location and outlet of the river?--Milowent (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A river. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any admin wandrin' by, please close per WP:SNOW! Fences&Windows 16:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The effort that went into writing the article is not a relevant criterion for deciding whether to keep the article or not and despite the sole keep !vote's claim, reliable sources to establish notability have not been demonstrated to exist. If anyone is willing to transwiki it to a specialized project, please contact me and I will restore it for such purposes. Regards So Why 08:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seinfeld fictional films

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Seinfeld fictional films (2nd nomination)

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

What's the deal with this article? It's about fictional films within a fictional universe, with no real world information. It's mainly OR, with only source mentioning that one of the films was the name of a Larry David script that wasn't produced. This isn't the Seinfeld wiki fansite. Coasttocoast (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator. It's mostly original research, and excessive detail on fictional trivia- and there's hardly a source to be seen. There are enough fan sites out there; let's not turn this serious encyclopedia into yet another one. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree that it is not properly sourced, on the other hand the article is of considerable length and a lot of effort has been put into it. So the article lemma itself is not the problem, only that it's not properly sourced. If sources can be brought, forward I would agree to keep it. --hroest 08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one would work better as an addition to the Seinfeld wiki. Back in 2006, before entertainment wikis, there was a place for such items on Wikipedia, but these are moving across town to a new neighborhood. Mandsford (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously a reasonable topic for WP -- such articles are commonly found here, and therefore there is no strong reason for deletion. Questions regarding RS belong on the article talk page, since RS can easily be found for this; therefore, there is no reason to debate RS on AfD. These movies are extremely well-known--better-known, in fact, than many movies that actually exist. This list does not need to make historical claims about real movies, only that these movies are related to Seinfeld and are known to millions of people. Qworty (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would need to see some independent sources to establish notability ... I reserve the right to change my mind, but my brief look turned up nothing that seemed to establish the notability of this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Send it to Seinfeld-pedia, if there is one. This is a lot like List of Peter Griffin's jobs, in that it's a cute little in-universe article that would be great for a wiki specifically devoted to the show, but has no place whatsoever in a general-interest encyclopedia. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Movie 13

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

I can't find any reliable third party sources for this movie. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Where exactly would you get sources for anime movies? Games have IGN and such. There is no doubt that this will be notable. and there is no doubt this doesnt exist because there is an official website. I guess you could merge it to Pokémon (anime)#Feature films. Look at the other films though. Many of them probably have no reliable third party sources. They source the official site, bulbanews, and pokeani. That doesn't mean they aren't notable though. Its just nobody talks about them much, so it is hard to find sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the movie, news updates, etc. I can't find any reliable source online that states this movie even exists. The only thing I can find are fansites, wikis, and the official site (WP:PRIMARY). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said though, many of the other movies are of the same status. They dont have any reliable third party sources. That doesnt mean they should be deleted. Half of Wikipedia doesnt have reliable sources. They stay because they are not trivial subjects that dont need to be covered. Ignore all rules? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources for anime works. The anime/manga project has a list of online ones and a library of magazines and book sources owned by project members available. There are dozens of anime/manga books available. Notable series are covered by reliable sources, as can easily be seen by featured level anime articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as stated below, the Pokemon Project isnt very experienced with finding anime/movie sources. We mainly focus on the games. So if that project would help us, them maybe we could actually have better movie articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though we know a film is being made from a teaser trailer at the end of the last movie, that's pretty much all we know. And having a page which says "This movie is being made" just doesn't cut it. It can be recreated when we have some concrete information on it (title, release date, and even a plot summary or pre-production notes would be nice). There's no point in having an article when there is almost no information on the topic at hand. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article can be re-created once independent reliable sources are available. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure WP:crystal article without any independent sources and thus to delete. --hroest 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reduce to verified information This isn't a speculated future film or sequal, it's a confirmed 2010 film currently in production. Stubify, and expand when more information is released. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources that show that the movie is confirmed? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official site would be a good start. and I am sure that it is confirmed by reliables sources, but as I said in my original statement where would you find such sources?... Please find a source on any of the other Pokemon movie articles and tell me where it is. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon_4Ever#Reviews, for example. Please remember that notability is not inherited. The leftorium 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rottentomatoes, IMBD (for some things, as I know some is user-submitted, wiki style), [25] for the first movie, newspapers (as shown in the first movie as well). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the majority of the Pokémon films is that little work is put into them beyond plot and cast. Most of the Pokémon WikiProject's efforts go into the species and games articles, and the Films WikiProject doesn't do much more than assess. Sources can and will be found if more people, myself included, put the effort into them. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[26] BAM! There it is! A reliable third party source talking about the movie on the Anime News Network, which you just verified a reliable source above. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, alone that one source does not meet notability for a future film. It would be usable for noting in the appropriate Film list section in the main article that another film is in production, but it isn't enough for a whole article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I found another source, which I am sure it is out there, it would just have most of the same information. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Future Film notability criteria. Not in production and its title is tentative at best (apparently has already been used for that franchise). Way too soon. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When more information comes out and it is more confirmed than ok remake the article, but for now delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for now. A 13th Pokémon film appears to be in the works, but Wikipedia can happily wait until there is more. Heck... they have not even decided on a name yet. Just a tad too soon to be on Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it's Pokemon. Ok, I'm kidding.

Just per above, no confirmation, no name, nothing verifiable at this moment. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Let's see: 12 profitable previous movies, an announcement in said movies, an official website, coverage by ANN and Japanese periodicals... Opposing it for lack of a name is like opposing United States presidential election, 2012 because we don't know the name of the Republican nominee. --Gwern (contribs) 16:55 14 November 2009 (GMT)

that comparison is just ridiculous and I hope you know it. For one to not happen, some funding / management decisions have to be made, for the other not to occur one of the biggest democratic countries would have to collapse. It is enough to have an article about the movie AFTER it is out. --hroest 08:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely wont be after the movie is out. It will be after another announcement comes up that gives more information. I think I would be fine with redirecting it to Pokémon (anime)'s movie section until said announcement comes up. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A thirteenth movie may indeed be in the works, but until actual information about the film is available from reliable sources it should not get a page. Reach Out to the Truth 21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gathera

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

Somewhat spammy article on a peice of software which fails to establish it's notability. Artw (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The two references are about social aggregation in general, not the software that the article focuses on. A GNews search reveals only one hit, which is matched only because of a typo. Based on the actual article, it could even be an CSD A7 deletion. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 04:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyfm

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

Non-notable radio station, presumably a low power non-commercial station. It appears not to have its own domain, using instead free web hosts. I am unable to find any google hits other than those directly controlled by the station. gadfium 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has no claim to notability, and Wikipedia is not the Listener! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:RS. ArcAngel (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca de Ravenel

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

Non-notable individual. Limited GHIts and zero GHits of substance. References are unsubstantial in nature. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even remotely notable Vartanza (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Delete even though I started the article. It was an ill-judged and bad idea. --ACRSM 18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Sandstein 06:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armorize Technologies

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

Non-notable tech business. References provided are inclusions on unreachable product category surveys, or trivial press releases announcing financing or co-ventures. This has been speedily deleted four times as blatant advertising or as a business with no minimal showing of importance.[27] Google News hits seem to be press releases announcing financing, security alerts, and mentions in stories about trade show appearances. Taking this to AfD to establish a precedent for protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Keep. Financing announcements dealing with millions of dollars should not be dismissed as trivial. The InfoWorld article is not a listing of all the exhibitors at DemoWorld, but rather (in its words) "the startup companies that could change your work life", which sounds like notability to me. Reports by companies such as Forrester Research, Inc. are reliable sources, although Forrester's report only mentions the company as one of several vendors with certain capabilities -- Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - From our perspective, press releases about financing deals don't show enough importance to make a business notable, even if "trivial" was a poor choice of words. Every business that gets that kind of capital does not become an encyclopedia subject automatically. The InfoWorld article is indeed telling: it's about a "startup company" that "could change" an aspect of online security; this suggests only that they might be notable in the future, but may not be yet. Investment reports may be reliable sources, but the businesses and researchers that write them are driven by customer demand, rather than an editorial judgment of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - getting funded by Venture capitalists is a good thing for a startup, but it doesn't establish notability, especially when that coverage is self-generated through press releases. There is no significant coverage about the cmpany to establish notability. The Infoworld article is one of those show roundups and isn't that significant. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The InfoWorld article provides insignificant coverage of Armorize Technologies, and a Google News Archive search returns only press releases and passing mentions. This company fails WP:N. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routine coverage given this firm is not enough to establish notability. Article also doesn't explain why this company is of encyclopedic interest. Abductive (reasoning) 06:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Butler Senior High School, which is the target of the redirect at Butler High School (Butler, Pennsylvania). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butler Golden Tornado Marching Band

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

Not cited, likely not notable, fails to meet WP:GNG Blue Rasberry 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Butler High School (Butler, Pennsylvania). Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Butler High School (Butler, Pennsylvania), which is the best alternative to deletion. I have completed the merge. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: is best option - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to parent page; obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuki no Misaki

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

This article is about a particular location in Tokyo that is not particularly notable by itself. I would be amenable to merging it to an article describing the "seven capes" of Tokyo, should that be notable enough to pass muster. armagebedar (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it was the subject of multiple Hiroshige paintings. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I'm not entirely convinced of this one. The article itself seems to say that it isn't even sure that this is the location that Hiroshige's print is supposed to show. How much of the information in the article can actually be verified? --Paularblaster (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I believe you can find the place-name Yatsuyama (八つ山) in the painting drawn by Hiroshige. I know another painting also showing Yatsuyama (八つ山), which I can't find on the web yet. --Excavator (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly seem so, and the Brooklyn Museum of Art also accepts the 100 Famous Views print as being of a brothel at Yatsuyama. So are there two different locations called Tsuki no Misaki? Or is Hiroshige just using it as a (generic?) title for pictures of moons viewed from headlands? (I've also come across an award-winning play, apparently set in Nagasaki, with the title Tsuki no Misaki, so if we have three distinct notable items that take the same name, perhaps we need to disambiguate?) --Paularblaster (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the article, not my personal reading of the Japanese sources, it's notable in a range of Japanese literature and art. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in concordance with DGG. I can't read these sources, but I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and assume on good faith that the references bear out the information in the article--which makes the subject notable. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per three above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment on Paularblaster's issues: Hiroshige's Tsuki no Misaki or Yatsuyama was not associated with any other documents in Edo period as far as I know. Concerning the award-winning play Tsuki no Misaki, some information on the web shows it is a play in an isolated island --- the island name doesn't appear. So, I guess it is a symbolic name or something. I also checked whether Tsuki no Misaki is in Nagasaki by using the service of Geographical Survey Institute, one of governmental institutes in Japan, but the result was negative. --Excavator (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments to keep Kevin (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Jackson

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

No notability other than relationship shown. Unsourced and full of rumors and other dubious material. BLP issue. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation of a legitimate article. Article creator has a history of creating fictitious biographies of people, sometimes real & notable people, sometimes made-up ones, sometimes nn ones. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus that there is no significant, reliable coverage evident. Skomorokh, barbarian 05:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shed Skin

(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) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This software is the creation of one programmer, who is also the creator of the article (which suggests WP:COI, especially since the same time frame saw him adding detailed discussion of Shed Skin to the main Python article) There do not seem to have been large improvements to the software since its initial creation and alpha/beta release, and it remains an "interesting toy" as of today, as far as I can tell. That said, I have also spoken with prominent members of the Python community who mentioned an interest in the software without prompting by me (i.e. I have made the main improvements to the article following its creation by Shed Skin's creator). It might well just be that this awareness by Pythonistas hasn't reached published sources, and hence not notability for WP purposes. LotLE×talk 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the software is primarily the work of a single person, it is useful (I've used it several times)and not merely a toy. There are articles on comparable software Psyco and Unladen Swallow. My vote is to not delete the article. I wouldn't object, however, if these several articles about software projects to improve Python's performance were to be grouped into a single article or sub-article of Python.71.38.174.228 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If that's the case, then it also may fail WP:NPOV. Agreed, not enough coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetchcomms (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only commented initially, but now lean towards delete largely because of the comment by 71.38.174.228 above. Partially, I wonder if that anon is the same creator of Shed Skin who has promoted the article. But more importantly, I think the contrast with Psyco and Unladen Swallow clarifies my thinking. Those are long term projects by many developers; and importantly, both of them are feature-complete compilers for the entire Python language rather than a test compiler of a narrow subset of the language. Given than Shed Skin is the work of just one person, and has not been significantly improved since its developer's thesis project creating it, it just doesn't seem like any reason to keep it now. If, someday in the future, the project becomes more than it is now, we can re-create the article. LotLE×talk 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant tool for Python developers (I use it myself). While I reckon the lack of secondary sources to write a detailed article about Shed Skin, it's mentioned on several developer blogs, sometimes with benchmarks showing that it's not just a toy compared to Psycho / Pypy..., what IMHO is enough for this short article. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] — Arkanosis ^✉ 11:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like every proposed source that Arkanosis mentions is a blog entry. It is true that Shed Skin has been moderately mentioned in the blogosphere (or was back in 2007 when all these sources were written), but it doesn't seem to have gotten any actual mainstream coverage in WP:RS-type publications. LotLE×talk 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm these are blog entries, if not clear in my first intervention. — Arkanosis ^✉ 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh, barbarian 05:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ergastolo

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. All that the article has is "Ergastolo is a 1952 Italian film.", an IMDB link, and an infobox. Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to be covered in several Italian sources, like this. There's probably more available offline. For a non-English film from the 1950s, I'd err on the side of keep. Zagalejo^^^ 01:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow stub to grow as Italian-reading Wikipedians come forward to provide and translate the Italian reviews and sources for a 1952 Italian film. With respects to the nominator, sources exist, even if not in English [33] [34]. I have made the article somewhat prettier in hopes for the Italian assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just notified the article's author of this discussion. Perhaps he will himself expand and source the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

45 Special

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

fails WP:CORP. lacks third party coverage [35]. nothing particularly special about this night club (and we don't create articles for every night club in the world). LibStar (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you have inherent notability for every licensed radio station, why not for every licensed liquor sales location? OK, I'm not really serious about this point but I am seriously pushing for a low bar to licensed radio amateur to have notability if you accept commercial stations on that basis. Broadcasts below about 30Mhz have potential international notice. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find significant coverage of the nightclub. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable night club that has had no coverage at all, from what I see. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. M. Humphrey

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

From a couple of quick google searches, this guy does not seem notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent/significant coverage. --Jmundo (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to confirm that some of the books that he wrote are held by the Library of Congress, and I also found a list of hymns for which he wrote the lyrics. Of his books, Worldcat reports that Select fruits from the highlands of Beulah is held by 8 academic and research libraries, which should be considered in the context of the fact that the book was published in 1913. X-ray Sermons is held by 11 libraries and was published in 1924. See http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-no88-6547 for more about his books. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. He and his works do appear to be notable. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Eastmain. Joe Chill (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Would "from a couple of quick google searches" really meet the spirit of WP:BEFORE? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mallavoodoo

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

Delete No claim of notability under WP:BAND. There are no independent sources referenced in the article, and the only substantial Google results I could find were a band website, and a listing on Last.fm. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My French skills allows me a limited understanding of Portuguese and I have added two cites, one from the Pernambucano music conservatory and another from a Portuguese language Jazz site, eJazz, about them headlining a festival gig. It is my understanding that they are a significant band in Pernambuco (with Brazil unquestionably home to one of the world's most vibrant jazz scenes). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a bylined news cite from Universo Online on the release of their 2001 album, O Inverno e a Garça. I acknowledge that their absence from the Portuguese Wikipedia raises doubts. Maybe some Brazilian editors here can shed some light. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With these added WP:RS I believe the article now meets the first criteria for WP:BAND. The article creator has also added two refs (one of which appears to be more of a mention in passing). But I think we do have the multiple significant coverage needed, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that there have been several articles added, I would agree that it meets the criteria under WP:BAND. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

v t e 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis
Stages	Honduran fourth ballot box referendum 2009 Honduran coup d'état Interim Presidency of Roberto Micheletti
Timeline of events	Chronology of the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis
Related articles	Guaymuras dialogue – Tegucigalpa/San José accord International reaction to the 2009 Honduran coup d'état Public opinion on the 2009 Honduran coup d'état Constitution of Honduras Honduras–United States relations Law Library of Congress (US) report Honduran general election, 2009
People	Manuel Zelaya Roberto Micheletti Romeo Vásquez Velásquez Porfirio Lobo Sosa José Miguel Insulza Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Óscar Arias David Romero Ellner Hugo Chávez Daniel Ortega
Institutions (official)	Supreme Court of Honduras Congress of Honduras
Organizations	Frente Nacional contra el Golpe de Estado en Honduras CODEH COFADEH Unión Cívica Democrática
Honduras portal