Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 14
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Nominations for the Arbitration Committee elections
- Should the length of a recall petition be shortened?
- Striking others' comments from archives
- Amending/Abolishing the "In the news" main page column
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Henry Brown (1873-1950) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This author seems to have little or no notability and I can't verify much of this article. Neither of the books published in London is in the British Library catalogue (http://www.bl.uk/), which suggests that the publisher is very minor (although it does seem to be a genuine one). DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The article's author, the subject's great-nephew, is ignoring numerous warnings and starting articles of the lyrics of Brown's individual poems. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Favonian (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of WP:Verifiability. It's impossible to see how much of this is correct. No objection to recreation if reliable sources can prove both existence and importance. • Anakin (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Anakin. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 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. Wizardman 17:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOWsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN search engine which has not yet launched. Good faith gsearch turns up lots of ads, but not notability. Another editor's prod contested by author without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this search engine. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam or hoax. The site is not a general search engine comparable to anything like Google. It seems to be actually a niche winter travel/holiday search engine. Unreferenced and unverifiable. No Google News coverage. Written by a SPA. I don't know where all the technical detail comes from but it smells like the work of an insider, if it is not a hoax. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable spam. --Bejnar (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL (as the site hasn't launched yet) and WP:SPAM. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unlaunched site with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL applies. -- Samir 06:33, 18 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. Wizardman 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, created by a single purpose account. More importantly, fails WP:AUTHOR. His website lists two reviews by The Spokesman-Review, which I don't think qualifies as "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which is pretty much his only hope under WP:AUTHOR right now. Delete for now, but who knows, maybe in the future. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - coverage limited to the local paper. This is not surprising for a self-published book. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 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. Wizardman 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Loc'd Life Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New magainze with virtually no independent coverage (outside of forums). Therefore, does not appear to be notable. I wasn't sure if a magazine with a print component fell under scope of A7, hence the nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article's author put his comments at the article's talk page instead of this discussion. I have replied and asked him to join in the discussion at this page. Singularity42 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 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. Wizardman 17:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay Rimmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Does not appear in the cast list for Alice in Wonderland (even amongst the "uncredited" members). Other roles are too minor for the notability threshold. No sources cited. Content hints at autobiography. Marasmusine (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't meet notability. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - until he is notable, which he isn't yet. --Bejnar (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he was also added to the notable Alumni at Bangor University by 217.39.7.198 even though only a student there. The same IP number seems to have been used to add the name and other vandalism on a series of pages on 14th Nov --jmb (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searches cannot WP:Verify anything in the article. Fails WP:BLP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:V, spam, non-notable, etc. Newt (winkle) 20:18, 20 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. with no prejudice against re-creation if the game is released and attracts enough independent comment to be notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebel Planet: Orion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a game that has been in development since 2007 and has still not been released - no evidence given for notability. A few mentions on the web but nothing that I think makes it notable. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Delete - There seem to be some Russian articles mentioning it briefly in 2006 but there's nothing to suggest it meets WP:N PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Game site still up and game developers are still working on the game as of November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Existence and development are not substitutes for notability. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They have a track record of releasing computer games. Independent Developers are now much more notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.37.247 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This whole deletion recommendation is nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.16.193 (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) — 72.78.16.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- How so? Could you please explain why? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This game is just delayed. It may not have a definitive date of release, but the game is still very much in the works. If you want to delete this, then you should do so with all the other pages on Wiki with the same level of notability. User:Lord_Hawk 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI agree - they probably should be deleted. Note our guidlines for films (which I think are a good comparison) say "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be discussed on the relevant policy's talk page. I would advise against proposing this however, because it is in essence an all-or-nothing proposal that promotes instruction creep, so it is likely to be shot down fairly quickly. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability (WP:N) and no reliable, independent verification. This may change after the game's release and we can examine the topic again then. Marasmusine (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant coverage, votes for keep have no rationale as to why. I support recreation later on if the game receives significant coverage, but I couldn't find anything useful on the game as of now. If the game had received any notable press I would support keeping it, but I found very little to support it. As far as deleting "other games like it" any user is welcome to nominate other games with similar notability. --Teancum (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sigfnificant coverage to establish notability for an unreleased video game. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As the founder of Rebel Planet Creations, Peter Churness, I can assure everyone the game is still in active development, though progress admittedly has been slow. We had tabled the project a couple years ago in order to finish a separate game, Axys Adventures, which we successfully finished and brought to market and won an award for. Rebel Planet: Orion went back into development during the summer of 2009 and we are aiming for a Christmas 2010 release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchurness (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Pchurness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment - Being in active development is not a criterion for keeping the article at Wikipedia. At issue is notability which is a set of inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Then why are certain PS3 games that have been in development for six+ years (and which have yet to see much in terms of gameplay) allowed to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you list what these games are? Without knowing what games you are talking about a good assesment can't be made. It may be possible that the other articles should be deleted as well or that the other games have had more mainsream coverage as well as reporting from reliabe sources making the article notiable. In short, vague references about other aricles will not help save this one and does noting to counter the notability concerns.--76.71.213.19 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or in other words WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- Whpq (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/therebelplanet1orion/index.html Was originally supposed to be a Xbox game, but now looks to be a PC game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is more in-depth coverage please let us know, but this would fall under a press release, since no actual previews of the game exist in that reference - just fact sheets and media, which unfortunately doesn't cover notability. --Teancum (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/therebelplanet1orion/index.html Was originally supposed to be a Xbox game, but now looks to be a PC game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing demonstrating notability within the article, sources available to salvage the article or guaranteed to appear when the game is released. Whether it's released or in development or whatever is irrelevant, the question is do reliable sources cover the game in depth? Currently, no. Since The Axys Adventures: Truth Seeker, Rebel Planet's previous game, is showing no signs of being notable by Wikipedia standards either, there's zero guarantee that will change. Despite which, best of luck with the project, Truth Seeker looks like a sweet game. Someoneanother 18:29, 19 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. Wizardman 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Skywave (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the band's albums:
- Synthstatic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Echodrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fails WP:N. Band has not been the subject of significant third-party coverage, albums released on non-notable independent labels. Does not meet any criteria for WP:MUSIC. Conical Johnson (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 20:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with Conical Johnson, can find nothing to satisfy WP:BAND. Article says that they were a major part of the shoegaze revival, but they aren't even mentioned at the page for that genre. J04n(talk page) 21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no RS for this band; appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Gongshow Talk 05:28, 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 no consensus to do anything -- Y not? 14:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel_Mastretta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This stub has been abandoned for 2 and a half years without any sources (the latest change was from an admin who added sorces so that it wouldn't be speed deleted)... How is this person important? A person that designed a prototype car. The issue was covered on a couple of specialized online car magazines back then. The supossed car hasn't even reached production. From what I understand of the notability guidelines, this is in no way notable. Just because there are a couple of online magazine articles mentioning this person's name it doesn't mean we should have an article for him. I mean if you type any person's name these days on google you're likely to get results... Cerealito (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Cerealito (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither ref is an "online magazine," they're major Australian and UK newspapers, respectively. That aside, if we decide Daniel Mastretta is not independently notable then a merge to Mastretta would be more in order, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't specifically talking about the references that were cited in the article, but about the more general coverage that we can find in google... Taking into consideration all the web results that I can find, there hasn't been significant coverage, specially taking into account that notability is not temporary.Cerealito (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this is a biography of a living person whose bio perfecly qualifies as unencyclopedic: he's been cited in secondary sources because of a single event (designing a prototype car). This means that the media coverage (which is itself quite mediocre and non significant) was made BECAUSE of the car and not because of him.Cerealito (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I added two readily available sources to the article, in order to document the claimed notability (the subject designed Mexico's first sports car). Since notability was claimed, CSD A7 didn't fit - but I agree that notability is thin on the ground, with this article. I cannot find evidence that the car ever made it into production, which is a problem. Should the article be deleted? Meh. But I will say this - if the article is to be deleted, then I would recommend a merge to Mastretta which, I note, is also tagged for Notability. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:36, 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, JForget 22:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ultra, we shouldnt get too hung-up over the presence of a notability tag, it's quite often an argument from ignorance or the result of somebody not doing serious searching. I added the following six refs to the Mastretta page, many of them also mention Mr. Mastretta. At the very least he should redirect to Mastretta
- "Mastretta MTX: Take it to the Mex". The Independent. 23 October 2007. Retrieved 7 November 2009.
- Mexican Sports car Mastretta Mxt at British Motor Show (PDF). Vol. 19. Mexican Embassy Newsletter. September–October 2008. Retrieved 7 November 2009.
- Vijay Pattni (17 July 2008). "Mastretta MXT: Mexican-built 150mph sportscar". Autotrader. Retrieved 7 November 2009.
- "Mastretta overview". Motorbase. Retrieved 7 November 2009. (seems to have ed oversight, eg RS, should be looked into
- Nate Martinez (July 16, 2008). "Muy Rapido: Mexico's Mastretta set to debut country's first sports car". Motortrend. Retrieved 7 November 2009.
- Russell Hotten (21 Jul 2008). "Mexico's motoring hopes ride on new Mastretta roadster". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 November 2009.
- Again, all the references are about THE EVENT. Not about THE GUY. Very nice research work, but the notability of the guy is still near 0. Cerealito (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, right, but what concerned me is that there were so few sources in Spanish. If he (and his brother) pulls this feat off, it's quite remarkable. At the face of it, he (they) should be notable in Mexico. I had expected a swell of Mexican general press, business magazines etc - but nil turns up. I suspect some sort of bias in Google. I just felt it's odd. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, all the references are about THE EVENT. Not about THE GUY. Very nice research work, but the notability of the guy is still near 0. Cerealito (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 20:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 20:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at the very least Merge with Mastretta Design I've added an article from CNN (Mexico) about him, his family, the company, and the car. I've also added his official biography from the Bienal Iberoamericana de Diseño which fleshes out a few more biographical details. Actually, I ended up here by 'accident' as this is listed at list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? As for the lack of coverage in the Mexican press, I suspect there was a lot, but almost all of the papers archives are subscription only and deliberately hidden (by the papers) from Google news search. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tenor's comments moves me into keep. Prima facie notable, sources exist beyond reasonable doubt, no immediate Google footprint due to various WP:BIAS issues. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Mastretta Design. Based on the available sourcing, the notability of the two articles stem from the same coverage and represent the same things from a notability standpoint. -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
Delete. Clearly does not meet WP:BAND.Seriously though, why is this listed on Deletion sorting/Music? — Gwalla | Talk 23:13, 18 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 and redirect to Comparison of feed aggregators. If any information can be found about this software, then it can be entered there. If not, then th entry can be removed from there, and the redirect removed. Black Kite 15:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NewsBreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. I found this, but it is a blog. I found this, but it is self published. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I dont get this Joe. Sometimes your nominations are way off. Book mention, "is one of the best RSS readers" here [1], ok, arguably not the most indepth, but still RS. How do you know Clinton Fitch is self-published [2], not obvious to me; 10,000 Ghits [3] for "Ilium Software NewsBreak"; review presumably published by Pocket PC — September, 2005 (page 35) [4]; comparative review "News Aggregators on Your PDA: Ilium Software NewsBreak vs. Spb Software House Insight" here [5]. This has no resemblance to your sort of standardized statement "I can't find significant coverage for this software". What is going on? Power.corrupts (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the home page. What's going on? There are editors that have better luck than others on finding sources for certain articles (Why do you think AfD exists)?. Joe Chill (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This entire article consists of one sentence that says it is a news reader. Wikipedia will have lost nothing by not having this sentence in a standalone article. Sources uncovered by Power.corrupts are good sources, but not significant. If deleted, I have no prejudice against this being re-written in the future if sources turn up. I think it is dying, so the fleeting coverage that already exists will be all that is ever available. Miami33139 (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea if it is dying or not, in fact I had no idea this thing existed. What matters is that there are RS. I did not claim to have located all sources, I stop when i have refuted that no RS exist. Wikipedia is always WP:IMPERFECT - presently being in a bad shape is NO valid reason for deletion. See also Alternatives to deletion Power.corrupts (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said that no reliable sources exist. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is imperfect, and there is one sentence. Why does this single sentence need to stand alone? This single sentence would better present itself and it's content in a more substantive article, regardless of how many RS. If this article is a substantial subject, the matter can be broken out again later. Please answer, why should one sentence on this subject be kept as a standalone article? Miami33139 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To Miami. Per policy, see WP:PRESERVE information. Many, many articles start as one-sentence stubs. If they are deleted merely for being stubs, they will never have opportunity to grow. Maybe the information could go into another article, the Software company Ilium Software is presently a redlink, dont know why, seems notable to me. I have no interest the subject and wont start it, bottom line though is that I see no reason to delete based on a one-sentence-only rationale. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To Joe. The unfortunate issue about the notablity guidelines is that the qualifier "significant" is entirely subjective. This is one of the reasons why the community has repeatedly rejected it being promoted to policy. You argue it be deleted from negative evidence, that you were unable to find significant coverage. I reply that I (easily) found more than you, and stopped when I thought it was "significant". Power.corrupts (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most nominations are done because the nominator couldn't find coverage that he/she thinks is enough. You don't care about notability. All that you care about is verifiability. Your problem is with most editors, not just me. Joe Chill (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea if it is dying or not, in fact I had no idea this thing existed. What matters is that there are RS. I did not claim to have located all sources, I stop when i have refuted that no RS exist. Wikipedia is always WP:IMPERFECT - presently being in a bad shape is NO valid reason for deletion. See also Alternatives to deletion Power.corrupts (talk) 20:13, 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, GedUK 19:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE does not ask us to keep non-notable stubs. "Preserving information does not necessarily mean preserving subjects or topics." Similarly, our stub guidelines still require sourcing and warn the article will be deleted without it. Miami33139 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We already mention this software under List of feed aggregators and Comparison of feed aggregators, so "delete" is not an appropriate outcome: if we decide not to keep a separate article with this title, then we should have a redirect. And indeed having a redirect is consistent with both WP:N (because un-notable things should not have separate articles) and WP:PRESERVE (because all the information in the article is still available on Wikipedia).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I created the original article, intending to write a whole lot on it - but never got around to it. That was 3 years ago, and noone else seemed to have picked it up in the meantime, so I think it's fair enough to go ahead and delete it - it can always be recreated if there's more information which can be added.
- OTOH, it's not doing much harm leaving it there, and there is precious little software on the Wikipedia on this subject for Windows Mobile devices. Cralar (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article doesnt actually say anything other than what it is. The one sentence main content has not changed since 2006. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 19 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. and will salt GedUK 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Azula Malfoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable fan-fiction charecter. Tresiden (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per nom. Fails WP:MADEUP. I note that it's also had a G4 tag added. Tevildo (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete (G4) and SALT I previously nominated the page for speedy and it was deleted. Evidently it has been recreated since. So tagged. HJMitchell You rang? 17:37, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see no reason for this article to exist. Normally this would be a merge issue, but the subject is already adequately covered in the main article. This article, however, is a "X said Y about Sheehan" quotefarm and a magnet for POV, OR and SYNTH from both sides. Not encyclopedic, not needed. Black Kite 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There doesnt appear to be any support or critique of any factual material Ms. Sheehan has provided. these are personal opinions only. any truly relevant, sourced, opinions, esp. from veterans organizations, the president, official statements from war protest organizations, political parties, etc can easily go in her main article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Have been meaning to get around to it myself. The few notable criticisms easily can be moved into the main article which I have edited a lot to source and to remove WP:undue material, pro and con. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Cindy who?" Seriously, this is an article that never needed to be created in the first place, and I'm surprised that it stayed up for three years (and it's hard to believe that it's been three years since Cindy Sheehan's famous protest against the Iraq war). Nowadays, this type of quotable-quote, "what did Rush have to say" article usually gets nominated the moment it's created. We've come a long way. Mandsford (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reason to merge as this article is a bunch of so-and-so said this type of material. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it as a coatrack. RayTalk 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or maybe rename to "Stuff that doesn't belong in the real article about Cindy Sheehan but someone cared about it a lot so we had to compromise." EvanHarper (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is essentially a WP:NOTNEWS issue. This content may have seemed highly important and relevant at the time, but it hardly does now (and our inclusion standards have risen since then). Any useful content here could be merged to the Cindy Sheehan article, but to be honest I don't think there's much worth merging - this is basically just a list of quotes about her. Robofish (talk) 20:39, 18 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. Wizardman 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coley (instrument) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It can't be classed as notable if its fictional and only contained in one book. Tresiden (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definitely non-notable. This should have just a 1-or-2 sentence mention in the article on the book itself - put it there. Specs112 (Talk!) 17:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Shockwave Rider, no independent notability. (or existence!) pablohablo. 15:53, 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. Wizardman 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conrad Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable candidate... fails WP:POLITICIAN... Adolphus79 (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I do not believe the article should be deleted. He is a notable candidate in a competitive congressional race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandy99 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I read the refs, he is a candidate for nomination, which means he hasn't even been nominated to run yet... please read WP:POLITICIAN #3... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 19:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if he had the nomination, he's not got much in the way of notability. Congressmen are (supposedly) notable. Mere candidates aren't necessarily so - unless they've done something to become notable. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. RayTalk 23:06, 18 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. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Carolyn Joyce Carty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously blanked and redirected, but I beleive it deserves a chance at AfD. That said, teh subject shows no particular signs of notability outside of a claim of authorship of Footprints (poem), in which she is not unique. Artw (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Artw (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, fair enough. Delete. Subject is one of three or four main contenders who has claimed authorship of Footprints (poem), but is otherwise not notable. This article was most likely to a large degree penned by the subject herself (Compare and contrast with [6] or [7]). henrik•talk 16:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Her only claim to fame is alleged authorship of a poem. An authorship that was rejected by the New York District Court. The previous AfD was withdrawn, due to OTRS concerns/issues according to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 25. jonathon (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a bit more complex than that actually. That is a deletion review discussion, asking that the article be created as a redirect. That request to create it was withdrawn when the OTRS ticket was uncovered. It was deleted and salted (protected from recreation) by User:Swatjester. Unfortunately, when User:Aervanath restored it temporarily to note the OTRS number, he forgot to reprotect it against creation, and here we are again. :) In October, 2009 it was recreated, most likely by the same person who had been previously banned from Wikipedia for making legal threats. Regardless, I think it would be useful to have a community consensus on whether we want to have an article on this subject at all without taking all that backdrop into account: we should evaluate this article on its own merits. henrik•talk 22:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete from "child prodigy" to being thanked by the Pope, this article is all fluff and garbage. Any attempt to clean it up results in a slam of links to amazon.com selling this book or countless category tags. Kill it!Vinithehat (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete subject has no notability ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, WP:AB. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:07, 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 redirect to The Goss Girls. There's nothing demonstrating individual notability here, and similarly nothing worth merging, either. Black Kite 21:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amy Watts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Charli Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These two tabloid journalists do not seem to be notable other than as The Goss Girls and they already have an article in this capacity. Nothing they have done outside of this seems to be referenced or significant. DanielRigal (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and provide redirects from both names to the group article. Sussexonian (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per nom. --75.161.108.5 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the few bits of information not already duplicated into The Goss Girls, then Redirect. I would at least keep redirects as they would be useful links.
- Merge/Redirect - Two very short articles which do not seem notable on their own. Any relevant information could be included in The Goss Girls with redirects from Amy Watts and Charli Morgan. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.
- Merge to The Goss Girls. At the very least redirect as it is a very plausible search term -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From Heaven We Are Born (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deprodded. Poem with no evidence of impact or individual notability and no third party references that I could find. henrik•talk 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Also:[reply]
Artw (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Carolyn Joyce Carty. Artw (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Which I have just nominated for deletion, so probably that's the same as delete. Artw (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense. :) There are a few more very similar articles with more poems by the same author: Thou Art My Joy and Obedient Children of God. They should probably also be closed the same way, closing admin. henrik•talk 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of adding AfD notices. Artw (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! henrik•talk 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of adding AfD notices. Artw (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense. :) There are a few more very similar articles with more poems by the same author: Thou Art My Joy and Obedient Children of God. They should probably also be closed the same way, closing admin. henrik•talk 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which I have just nominated for deletion, so probably that's the same as delete. Artw (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not only are claims for notability lacking, but availability of the poems is lacking. (You can find better poetry at the Whidby island Poetry Slams.)jonathon (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: lacking notability, it is also part of a gaggle of related articles also lacking notability as well as containing illegitimate references, linkfarms etc. Lets merge them all with Carolyn Joyce Carty then delete them all at once! (haha!)Vinithehat (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete posted by banned user, non notable poem ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No decient google hits, can't find any reliable sources or significant coverage or anything like that. Non-notable. Would recommend related articles be deleted also, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:59, 20 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 Nomination Withdrawn, there being no editors recommending that the article be deleted. Discussion on the forms and merits of disambiguation pages in general should have a look at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for a starting point. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- John Wingfield (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete MOS:DAB recommends in cases where there is a primary and only two entries that disambiguation is served via a hatnote rather than a disambiguation page. In this case, there is only one entry whose name was 'John Wingfield' and his article has hatnote to anyone who mistakenly types in John Wingfield looking for the similarly named John de Wingfield.
Was nominated for deletion via {db-disambig} and prod, rem by BrownHaired Girl, reason given: Dab page may have potential for expansion. This may be true, but as this is a navigational tool to find articles on WP, rather than an article itself, I think we must judge it, per MOS:DAB guidelines, on how it is at the moment, and at the moment it serves no purpose at all. If future articles are created are other men of this name, then it will take two seconds to recreate a dab. Boleyn3 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deletion. Dab page does no harm, and serves the useful maintenance purpose of generating an entry in Category:Human name disambiguation pages. Dab pages may also need to be expanded in the future, and no useful purpose is served by deleting them.
This editor appears to be on a mission to delete dab pages, but is not doing sufficient checks. In this case, for example, there is anothjer John Wingfield linked from 1972 European Formula Two season; it appears that this person may be notable. This sort of thing frequently happens with human names, which are mostly ambiguous, and dab pages shou;d be expanded not deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. One-and-a-half element "dab page" - the two articles linked don't even have the same title. Per WP:DAB, three entries are the recommended minimum for a full dab page rather than using hatnotes.Tevildo (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination is now a useful page. Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We now have five entries - the page is good. Tevildo (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While I am delighted that this nomination has been withdrawn, I believe that it is yet another illustration of the disruptive effects of Boleyn (talk · contribs)'s rapid-fire deletion of dab pages. In the last few days, I have encountered several such pages whose ddeletion at Boleyn's request has caused a mess which needs to be undone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Does anyone else find the new standard format for disambiguation pages both confusing and ugly? The first line doesn't have a bullet and is in bold so that it stands out. To me it is forcing the reader to see one entry as the correct entry. It also is visually cluttered, the eye is drawn to the first entry because it is both in bold and is unbulleted. Why does one entry have to be given prederence over the other. I am assuming it is because it has the same name as the disambiguation page, but no one goes to a disambiguation page directly, they come from the page called "John Smith" to get to the page called "John Smith (disambiguation)" if the person wasn't who they were looking for. So why is "John Smith" in bold and unbulleted? Anyone know where this is discussed to try and change it? Anyone else find it ugly and confusing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 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 g3, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Glavine Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hoax. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this award exists. Sole ghit is for the Wikipedia page. Nancy talk 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as obvious hoax. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it fails WP:Search engine test with no results other than the article itself and the AFD. Specs112 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:23, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Louis Scharring-Hausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable biography. Article seems superficially cited, but if you actually look at the sources, the claims to fame are not supported by references. He is referenced as having been a graduate of Rutgers University in that his name appears as a single line in a list of graduates. Rest of sources are either self published, registration data or doesn't mention the subject. For example, he is claimed to have been a neighbor of Einstein, cited source does not mention him by name. This is part of a series of questionable articles created by the same user. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella H. Scharring-Hausen) henrik•talk 15:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems liek a very puffed up description of someone who is probably not notable - certainly none of the sources establish notability for him. The footprints (poem) claim might, but it;s uncited and sounds somewhat dubious. Artw (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources that are cited don't appear to support the article content. This was one of almost a dozen articles created by the same person, around that person. jonathon (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible to Keep but only if it is pared down to what is truly notable (I know that is subjective) and protect it? I doubt this man will be doing any more notable things any time soon. Vinithehat (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The response to the ( { { d b-a7 } }, { { db-person } } ) request was a prod that was contested on the grounds that founding Library Week is notable. The earliest documented Library Week was sponsored by the New York Library Association in 1890's at Lake Placid. This was a conference for librarians. The Google Timeline on Library Week makes no mention of the subject of this article. All Ghits for "Library Week" and "Scharring-Hausen" are either wiki mirrors or were written by Carolyn.jonathon (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above reasons; also was created by sockpuppet of banned user ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:49, 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 redirect to Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album)#Remixes EP. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Metamorphosis Remixes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hilary Duff is obviously a notable musician, but there are some albums that really aren't notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. This is one of them. This is an exclusive-release, limited-run remix EP. A quick Google search doesn't bring up any sites except for this article, some listings on Amazon, and most importantly no reliable sources discussing this album.
I added a prod to this article, but it was removed. Chase wc91 15:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album), there is already a section covering it there so no need to merge. J04n(talk page) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album)#Remixes EP -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album) per above. Gongshow Talk 05:31, 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 Speedy G5 by Swatjester. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ella H. Scharring-Hausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability, references doesn't check out. Claim to fame is to have been 'the founding mother of Library Week in 1921'. References given for that claim doesn't mention a Ella Scharring-Hausen. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Louis Scharring-Hausen) henrik•talk 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - quite the walled garden here. Artw (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : Co-founding Library Week is not notable --- especially since both articles are equally unsubstantiated. jonathon (talk) 20:53, 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 delete. Wizardman 17:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vampires (Anita Blake mythology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also nominating Humans (Anita Blake mythology). The topics are more suitable for literary analysis (which these articles are) than encyclopedia articles. Mm40 (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. This is just in-universe stuff. I know that "other stuff exists" (which also could be nominated). Northwestgnome (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge any notable information into the article's main topics. The information really only pertains to the author's particular works, and as such doesn't strike me as notable. It does seem to contain a lot of information, though, that might be valuable and merit inclusion in other articles about this author's works. Cocytus [»talk«] 18:28, 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. TNXMan 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Miss tourism universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable Internet-exclusive beauty pageant. Google searches turn up nothing to suggest this has any prestige or recognition. Warrah (talk) 13:20, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeremy Szafron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined speedy - asserts importance. Has been previously deleted, so bringing to AfD for discussion. Minor TV personality, spammy (though there's a slightly better version in the history), created by subject. Black Kite 13:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 23:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks to fail WP:BIO. I normally PROD these when I run across them. RayTalk 23:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourcable violation of WP:BLP. Searches for this name find wiki-mirrors and personal blogs... and nothing on any CTV site. Sadly, nothing has changed since it was deleted 17 months ago... and this one has the same self-promtional problems as did THAT one. Too soon Jeremy... too soon. Build your career and get some press and then let someone else write about you here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Schmidt. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 19 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, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Christie Goodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I having to nominate this as the WP:PROD have been contested a number of times by a COI SPA user, even if he have been warned.
I cannot see any trace of reliable third party sources for this article, neither can I see any notability backed by third party reliable sources, hence nomination for this promotional article.
Being edited by a SPA SPA user dosen't help its notability, neither is photographs , that is linked to reliable third party sources but only credits the photographer. I am willing to withdraw this nomination if notability can be proven. Donnie Park (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have been talking to Patrickcusse SPA, he has posted on the talk page that there are a couple of indepth articles on her. They are not online but the information, if accurate, might establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 14:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If he can get these news article and use it as a source, I will withdraw my nomination as notability is proven, but I don't feel that being credited itself (as those links states) is going to count as notability. Donnie Park (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But on the other hand, I will withdraw this nomination to allow this article to improve considering it have improved from being a vanity article, only if notability can be proven. Donnie Park (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am assuming good faith about the two indepth magazine articles that have been added to the article. They establish notability. The article still needs to be checked for neutrality because it has been extensively edited by a person with a revealed conflict of interest, but that is an editing issue not a deletion issue. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider the nomination withdrawn. Donnie Park (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Veronica Sage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this porn star. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication subject meets the GNG or any specialized guideline, or that the article is capable of expansion beyond stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Free lottery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be largely advertising and WP:OR, existing to provide promotional links to various lottery companies/games. I see nothing here that isn't already covered by Lottery. EyeSerenetalk 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks too much like a linkfarm. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it seems that the sole reason for creation of this article was to link to the sites included within. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 23:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Piispansilta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a non-notable road in Finland. It has no number, and a quick research on google maps [8] shows that it is only a very short road which works obviously as sort of front-drive for the shopping mall. This is also depicted on the image included in the article. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete perhaps, since there's no real rationale for keeping... but there might be a language barrier here, so maybe just Redirect to the mall article for the time being. The way the mall article mentions the road makes it sound like it could be important. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no language barrier. This is a purely local street without even regional significance, let alone national one. BTW, it probably does have an administrative number because even non-drivable paths may have one. However, that is not a proof of notability. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Triadian (talk) 05:49, 21 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. Per G7, the IP is obviously the user that created the article, and has reqested the article be deleted. As there are no comments from anyone requesting the article be kept, I'm speedy deleting the article per CSD G7 and IAR. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Natascha E Tallowin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Apparently written solely by Natascha E Tallowin (WP:COI)
- No proof of notability Pingveno 08:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please contact United Press if you are after proof of notability. They will confirm that I am a published poet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss natascha (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Web search only finds self-published stuff, news search yields nothing. Regarding author's comment above: The question is not whether you have had some of your works published, but you need to document that reliable, third-party, published sources have written about you. Favonian (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:CREATIVE - no coverage in third-party sources. Tevildo (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THIRD PARTY CONTENT - http://www.spokenwar.com/poetry.html published in online magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss natascha (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Natascha, please read WP:CREATIVE. This isn't intended as any criticism of your work, but, in order for us to have an article on you, we need evidence that you've "won significant critical attention" or "had works in many significant libraries". I hope your career progresses to the point where you'll pass the criterion, but, until then, we can't have an article on you. Tevildo (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Natascha, I was more worried about you writing your own biography. That is (almost) strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. - Pingveno 19:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't write my own biography, I simply copied it from the biography that was printed along with my poems in an anthology. I will not continue to try and save this page as I see it's a complete waste of time. Please don't waste any more of your own time and delete it right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.119.146 (talk • contribs) 20:43, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, I would recommend that you add the G7 tag {{db-author}} to the article, so that the process can be concluded quickly. Tevildo (talk) 20:53, 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. Wizardman 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sexy Boy: Soyokaze ni Yorisotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Song appears to have charted in Japan. Edward321 (talk) 14:45, 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, JForget 23:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. agree with Edward321, charting on Oricon is WP:N, I would like to see the chart referenced though. I tried to find a ref but I cant get the Japanese search engine at [9] to work well through 'Google translate'. J04n(talk page) 01:55, 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 ∞ 08:52, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rachelle Ann Go: Concerts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
de proded
List of concerts. It's much more cleaned up than when I originally prodded it, but I suspect those cleanups were done irrespective of the underlying content, which I see no indication of notability of, not to mention the content is unencylcopedic save some additional text. Shadowjams (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; unless the concerts were notable in some way, there is nothing to backstop an article. Anything important can be merged to Rachelle Ann Go. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:00, 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, JForget 22:30, 7 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 ∞ 08:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Entirely devoid of notable content. Jnthn0898 (talk) 22:56, 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. Wizardman 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Diabolic (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NN band - fails WP:Music, twice nominated for CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Immortal Technique, some of the info should be merged there as well. At this point he is just mentioned in blogs or trivially in spots primarily on Immortal Technique. J04n(talk page) 11:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is sourced to the likes of myspace (yes, I just said myspace), blogs, and similar unreliable sources. Delete this content as mandated by WP:BLP and then hard protect a redirect if necessary. DO NOT MERGE. JBsupreme (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Just another myspace band really. Google shows various hit on myspace and album entries on Wikipedia - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:56, 19 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. Secret account 16:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cesar Del Penes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominated for deletion by Lancini87. No reason given (though I suspect notability/hoax issues). This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Delete - Thank you for completing the nomination process. No information about this person can be found elsewhere than Wikipedia. I believe the article was created for vandalistic purposes. Needles to say, the supposed surname of the person 'Del Penes' translates to 'Of the Penis(es)', so that obviously gives it away. -- Lancini87 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Almost certainly a hoax - and probably a fail of WP:ATHLETE, even if the person existed. Tevildo (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under G3, obvious hoax - pure vandalism! GiantSnowman 15:58, 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 (Criteria G7). Article blanked by original author and no other significant contributors. --Allen3 talk 10:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Batista and Rey Mysterio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable tag team. They have not done anything since an article on them was deleted in 2007 (in the 2 years since that AFD, they have teamed up only 1 time). TJ Spyke 06:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 07:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: IMO they have done enough to warrant an article and we certainly have enough reliable sources and information to have a decent article.--WillC 07:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they notable? They were a team for 3 weeks and had a 2 week reign as champions. If you want to lower the bar that low, there would be hundreds of more articles on tag teams that were together for a brief period and held gold ("Rick Steiner and Kenny Kaos", "John Cena and Batista", "John Cena and Shawn Michaels", etc.). They weren't in any notable feuds, weren't in any notable storylines, didn't do anything notable (it's been established in many AFD's that just winning a tag title doesn't make a team notable). The article only has 1 source (a primary source listing all the history of the tag title). You can find sources on ANY tag team. Nothing has changed since the last AFD, they weren't notable then and thy haven't done anything to become notable in this past 2 years. TJ Spyke 07:52, 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 delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources has been demonstrated. Black Kite 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seongha Jeong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. I looked up all of the information present; all of the sources either primary or just links to his YouTube videos. Outside of YouTube, there is nothing else about this kid. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, this was a contested speedy and I was just pointed out to an appearance on the Seoul Broadcasting System channel, which can be seen at YouTube. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Delete - I nominated this article as a hoax initially because the revised romanization spelling of the name brought up no information. I have been talking back and forth on this article's talk page with the creator about this article, and have asked him on both the talk page and on his user talk page to read and provide evidence that this person meets the notability guidelines. Until this article does meet the notability guidelines, I would have to vote delete. Frmatt (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only is he just a YouTube "star", the article only lists where he is placed on YouTube's popularity charts, nothing really about him, his music or what he does, etc. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seongha has won 12 site awards on YouTube, 6 of which are for first place. Who knows of a YouTube channel that has at least 12 awards, and/or at least 6 1st-place awards, that does not have a presence on Wikipedia? Moreover, he has over 90,000 Google hits, and appeared on a show segment on a channel of the Seoul Broadcasting System. Seongha has played in several major live concerts, one of which was this live concert for Mr. Big on October 24. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 07:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After I looked at the links again, after the SBS video, I noticed it was mostly blogs, facebook pages, (no wikipedia mirrors that I could find) or illegal file sharing sites that had videos or mp3 encodes of his videos. Other than that SBS clip, which looks like a Korean Star Search, I cannot find anything that makes him notable now. A few months down the road, maybe. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No one has answered my question: What YouTube channel has at least 12 site awards, and/or 6 first-place awards, that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 08:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. The main focus of this deletion debate is the following; other than that one off appearance on SBS and having youtube clips, is there anything else that makes this guy famous? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just found him on The New York Times! I dug this up after sifting through these 18 news articles and searching for the article titles and newspapers together. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 09:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad that you are so excited and want to make good contributions to the 'pedia. You also seem to have good searching skills (and a lot more patience than I do!) Whatever happens with this article, I hope that you stay around and put your skills to work improving other articles! Frmatt (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree. We are not trying to be harsh LUUSAP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree - you are exactly the kind of editor Wikipedia needs, so whatever the result of this AfD, please keep contributing! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree. We are not trying to be harsh LUUSAP. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad that you are so excited and want to make good contributions to the 'pedia. You also seem to have good searching skills (and a lot more patience than I do!) Whatever happens with this article, I hope that you stay around and put your skills to work improving other articles! Frmatt (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just found him on The New York Times! I dug this up after sifting through these 18 news articles and searching for the article titles and newspapers together. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 09:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. The main focus of this deletion debate is the following; other than that one off appearance on SBS and having youtube clips, is there anything else that makes this guy famous? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Hello, I'm an user from korean wikipedia. There are a lot of news which introduce and mention Seongha Jeong from press outside youtube like korea's big portal naver news search. And I show you google search result when I search with his hangul name. Also, this article needs to move to Jung Seongha in accordance with the naming policy of Korean person name order on the wikipedia. --122.35.109.196 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are almost like search results for his videos. I tried to use his Korean name before and I did not find much. If the article is kept, then it will be moved to match policy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link(news from naver news search) above is not about video search results but news from Korean press. I wonder when you searched him in the website you tried to use his correct Korean name 정성하 (cation : his Korean name is not 성하정. 정(Jung) is his surname.)--122.35.109.196 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, then expand the article with the Korean sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link(news from naver news search) above is not about video search results but news from Korean press. I wonder when you searched him in the website you tried to use his correct Korean name 정성하 (cation : his Korean name is not 성하정. 정(Jung) is his surname.)--122.35.109.196 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are almost like search results for his videos. I tried to use his Korean name before and I did not find much. If the article is kept, then it will be moved to match policy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. OH MY GOD!!! 12 AWARDS ON YOUTUBE!!! WOW!!! He won 12 fake awards, none of which matter. Lets look at some of these awards, shall we? "#10 - Most Viewed (Today) - Musicians - South Korea", for example. So he's a slightly popular member of a popular category that covers a tiny section of the world, and was popular for an entire day? WOW. The references are almost all unreliable, and this article does not pass WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Four of his All-Time awards are for the #1 spot. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will be looking at this article and sources later today when I have the time to do it properly, but I will say that if the Awards were from a reliable source like a highly-respected national or international music organisation or newspaper/magazine, it might be worth making that argument, but YouTube is not counted as a reliable source. Having 12 awards on a non-reliable site is not a sign of notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me clarify: YouTube on its own is not reliable enough as a main source of information about a subject, as it is effectively self-published. It has a use as a 'back-up' source for information from a highly-regarded reliable source. On YouTube, anyone can upload anything - there is no verification that the footage is original and unedited. I could download one of Jeong's videos, edit it, and re-upload it - how is that reliable? I have no objection to the use of YouTube footage, but it should not be used as a primary indicator of notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will be looking at this article and sources later today when I have the time to do it properly, but I will say that if the Awards were from a reliable source like a highly-respected national or international music organisation or newspaper/magazine, it might be worth making that argument, but YouTube is not counted as a reliable source. Having 12 awards on a non-reliable site is not a sign of notability. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Four of his All-Time awards are for the #1 spot. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment There are multiple concerns with this article (see WP:ELNO for one) but the most important thing is making sure notability is established and verifiable. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria needs to be reviewed. Coverage from independent and reliable sources need to be provided. Use the [10] and find the original versions. Double check to see if they are WP:RELIABLE and then use them as inline citations. Ignore Youtube and ignore his website as the sole basis for notability. These are not sufficient to establish notability on their own. However, significant coverage of these by reputable media will be good. I looked up the NY Times source and it might be OK. It is by the "TV critic for the Arts section of The Times". The Seoul Broadcasting System source might be OK with a Template:Cite episode but if it is just a Star Search like program much more will be needed. Also, take a look at WP:NONENG if you use Korean sources. Google news was not much help so 122.35.109.196 might have a point. Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up:
- "Blogs" can be used if selected properly. "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more 'traditional' 20th-century format of a classic news story." - Wikipedia:Reliable sources (read the other info in those sections as well since opnions need to be handled with caution .)
- [11] is from Metro International. Nanok Bie seems to be their tech editorial guy. Take a look at all of the links at [12]. Also, Google translate will be needed for review since these are in Swedish.
- [13] is from New York Times (mentioned above). She is a critic for the paper and info can be found at The New York Times or Virginia Heffernan. <-- By the way: We should get an image on her Wikipedia article
- I'll poke around more but these were the first to jump out. General notability guidelines (again: see the basic criteria) since Internet celebrities do not have special criteria and the subject does not meet that for musicians. Cptnono (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Some of the news hits seem to be comments. A couple are good, though. I am curious to see the media coverage from Seoul since that might be the deciding factor. Cptnono (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up:
- Delete fail WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO - won some quite easy to manipulate youtube awards - big deal. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment I just typed in my real name into Google, and I got over 600,000 hits. Do I have a Wikipedia article? No. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Did you conduct an "exact phrase" search by quoting it? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, nevermind then. Sorry about that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you conduct an "exact phrase" search by quoting it? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 00:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LUUSAP: Take a step back and look at the wikilinks provided please. Google hits do not equal notability. Google news or scholar hits do. Also, other stuff exists is wikilinked for you above as well. Stop debating and start fixing and this might be possible.Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Captain Nono, did you see the findsources links on his Hangeul form of his name? There are 40 Google News hits through a search of 정성하. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 10:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LUUSAP, can you add some of those references to the article? I'm only half paying attention to Wikipedia, as the kids are around (!), so I'll be looking at this later when I can spend the time to give it justice. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 40 sounds good. Keep in mind that sometimes these are not actually "news". Common sense and adhearance to the guidelines are still needed when reviewing but it is a great way to cut out the garbage. I cannot do Hangeul since I do not have the fonts installed. Provide some links and I will see what I see by pasting them into translate.Cptnono (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LUUSAP, can you add some of those references to the article? I'm only half paying attention to Wikipedia, as the kids are around (!), so I'll be looking at this later when I can spend the time to give it justice. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Captain Nono, did you see the findsources links on his Hangeul form of his name? There are 40 Google News hits through a search of 정성하. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 10:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It appears to me that the mentions in the media do not amount to significant coverage, as required by the notability guidelines. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Where does an imaginary boundary line demarcate between "significant," and insignificant coverage? --129.130.238.182 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. - WP:GNGCptnono (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and PhantomSteve. YouTube awards do not confer sufficient notability. GlassCobra 04:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Message for 70.179.165.153 and LUUSAP: You asked for a citation for the fact that YouTube does not establish notability - could you please leave a message here explaining under what section of the Reliable Sources guidelines you believe that YouTube *does*? YouTube is an unmoderated site, where anyone can upload anything. Does YouTube verify content? No. They don't even verify copyright status - videos are removed when they receive a request from the copyright owner (or from other users who report it). The guidelines say Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.. How does YouTube match up to this? I am removing both of the 'citations needed' that were added above, as I believe that this quote is the citation you require. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:08, 18 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. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PB&Jay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unwritten book, no appropriate CSD category, as per WP:CRYSTAL Frmatt (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This unwritten book is in no way notable per a complete lack of third-party sources. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SNOW. AcroX 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above: a forward-looking article about an unreleased product. Cliff smith talk 00:27, 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 speedy keep . Withdrawn by nominator; no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 05:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simeon Makedonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a single sentence about a non-notable Bulgarian Swimmer who placed 38th at the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Frmatt (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Athletes who participate in the Olympics are by definition notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw...I missed that part of WP:NOTABLE. My fault! Frmatt (talk) 05:21, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ergotopography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism; it refers to a sub-sub-species of emoticons/ASCII art. Some sources, but no evidence of widespread use or notability of the term or what it describes. Hairhorn (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - neologism peculiar to the lettercol of one magazine. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above; word invented this July. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trent Waterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No senior professional appearances to meet WP:Athlete. Some mention of the player in reliable sources but I don't see anything that would constitute significant coverage to meet WP:N, just some match reports from the semi professional VPL and some brief mentions of trialling for professional clubs. Camw (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG at present. Steve-Ho (talk) 10:25, 20 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. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam Conkie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No senior professional appearances in order to meet WP:Athlete. No significant coverage that I can see that would meet the notability guidelines. Camw (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG at present. Steve-Ho (talk) 10:24, 20 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. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shaun Conkie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No senior professional appearances in order to meet WP:Athlete. There are some trivial mentions in reliable sources (Such as this and this), but no significant coverage that would meet the notability guidelines that I can find. Camw (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG at present. Steve-Ho (talk) 10:24, 20 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. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dalton Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actor with only one credit to his name (at the age of two). Frmatt (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete – Fails WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable actor only known for a minor role. Please note the "claim[s] of importance or significance" required to escape speedy deletion is a lower standard than notability. Intelligentsium 03:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ENT and WP:BLP. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:19, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rafael Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP. Claims to meet WP:Athlete through a season with CD Ourense playing in the Spanish Segunda Division B but this is not listed as a professional league here. If it is shown that the Segunda Division B was fully professional during 05/06 and that this player appeared for them then I'm happy to withdraw but there is no significant coverage to meet the notability guidelines otherwise. Camw (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG at present. Steve-Ho (talk) 10:24, 20 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. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Catherine Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Could not find any evidence of actual notability. No evidence of the supposed upcoming Patrick Dempsey thing or of the magazines or anything. Possibly even a hoax? I nearly speedy deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't seem to be sufficiently covered by reliable sources for establishing notability.--Staberinde (talk) 20:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Burim Ahmedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unferenced BLP and I cannot find references to meet either WP:Athlete or the notability guidelines. Playing history lists Parramatta Power which would probably lead to the player meeting WP:Athlete if a senior appearance was made, but a Google and Google News search was unable to find any confirmation of this, plus there is no mention of him playing games for the club at OzFootball. Camw (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence that he has made an appearance Spiderone 15:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG at present. Steve-Ho (talk) 10:23, 20 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 the entirety of this material is found and referenced in Afghan National Army Air Corps and I have redirected this link there as a somewhat plausible redirect -- Samir 06:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Army Air Force of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no sources whatsoever. Zhang He (talk) 02:44, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neko Vujevich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeT 06:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No senior professional appearances so fails WP:Athlete. No significant coverage in reliable sources to support notability requirements, references in article are a profile page and a page that doesn't mention the player. Google news search shows two trivial mentions as part of a team listing. Camw (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. One I had on my list to check out, and would have nominated myself had I not been busy this week. No evidence to show he has played at a sufficient level for ATHLETE and no notable independent subject of article type coverage other than standard player profile stuff. not made it yet, recreate if and when --ClubOranjeT 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So representing Australia in the Youth Olympics is not high enough amateur youth football for WP:Athlete? This squad is pre-selected for the next Olympics. --Topsaint 05:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsaint (talk • contribs)
- The Australian Youth Olympic Festival isn't the same as the Youth Olympics, it's just a small competition run by the Australian Olympic Committee and only four countries competed in the Football section. WP:Athlete specifically mentions the Olympics themselves as the usual level at which notability would be assumed through the WP:Athlete criteria at the amateur level. The next Olympics are a long way off and I wouldn't assume the majority of the people in this team would be a part of the 2012 Olympic team, especially as a number of people selected were withdrawn in order to play in the domestic league that weekend instead. Camw (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG at present. Steve-Ho (talk) 10:22, 20 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 per consensus, with particular regard to the argument raised by Phil Bridger -- Samir 08:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sos and Victoria Petrosyans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's a magic act with a few hits on youtube, but everything I see looks to have the same text, and this appears to be copied as well. Would require a fundamental rewrite and I'm not sure there are sources either. And a COI. Shadowjams (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are 192 words about the subject in this local newspaper, an identical 56 words in these two magazines and a mention in the first sentence of this 337-word article in a regional newspaper, but, judging by the abstract available online, it doesn't seem that the whole article focuses on this subject. Google web and News searches in cyrillic only come up with passing mentions. I wouldn't consider this to be enough to show notability, but, as I have in recent days seen one article about a living person kept (and supported at deletion review) on the basis of 20 words in a university alumni publication, and another heading for deletion at AfD despite multiple book sources from reputable publishers being produced, including an 18-page chapter devoted to the subject, I really have no idea what the consensus is now for what constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would hesitate to gauge AfD's consensus on a few recent examples. There is a small contingent interested in keeping articles on the thinnest pretense. That shouldn't stop editors with the more longstanding view on the article from commenting to the contrary. There is a real value to WP:N. The number of active editors at any one time is finite, and as the article base grows those efforts are spread and quality declines. Sometimes a new article is worth more than a better article. But sometimes it is not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it shouldn't really make any difference to the outcome, as AfDs are supposed to be judged on the arguments, but I'll put put the word "delete" in bold, because just recently I've seen a tendency for discussions to be closed on a vote-counting basis. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would hesitate to gauge AfD's consensus on a few recent examples. There is a small contingent interested in keeping articles on the thinnest pretense. That shouldn't stop editors with the more longstanding view on the article from commenting to the contrary. There is a real value to WP:N. The number of active editors at any one time is finite, and as the article base grows those efforts are spread and quality declines. Sometimes a new article is worth more than a better article. But sometimes it is not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 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, JForget 22:41, 6 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 01:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Procedural vote, this should not have been relisted, it should have expired as delete two weeks ago. (but also, this is not notable, so delete it for that reason too.) Miami33139 (talk) 05:20, 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 default to keep -- Samir 08:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Orvetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability Romrem04 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I have to concur that the biography doesn't appear to be notable, as most of the references are from his own website and the other mentions were done in passing. Weak delete because there might be some notability associated with his appearance on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? ThemFromSpace 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: At first blush, it may seem this person isn't notable, but I particularly remember his website from the 2000 elections. I added a ref to a 2000 Wired article which discusses him, and will look for more. This article has existed for over 4 years, but never got the improvement it needed.--Milowent (talk) 21:24, 12 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 01:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Milowent. Also note that he has written for multiple notable media outlets.--JayJasper (talk) 05:37, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaxtr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertisement Orange Mike | Talk 00:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:IveFoundit --Orange Mike | Talk 02:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The references cited prior to the removal of the "history" section[14] meet WP:GNG; any stylistic problems can be remedied through judicious editing. Andrea105 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see the advertisement part here (and I've removed that tag). I just added an article from The Washington Post; I have no doubt that there's a lot more to be found besides just Reuters articles. The history referred to above isn't exactly overflowing with reliable sources, but the sheer multitude of hits is enough to suggest notability for me. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator's rationale doesn't really apply, as this article does not read like an advertisement. If that's the only rationale for deletion, then let's keep the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - the majority of the article is about "competitive rates" and "offers" this and "provides" that, in a tone that reeks to me of a commercial press release trying to sell you on their product. That's why I tagged it as an ad. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 20 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 per Phil Bridger. Although both phrases are in use, "Composition with creditors" seems much more common, and I shall move the article to that title, leaving the other as a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Composition of creditors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this. It also reads like a dictionary definition. Joe Chill (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to insolvency. I agree that there is no significant coverage and it reads like a dictionary definition, which means it fails WP:N and WP:DICDEF; thus, it should not have its own article. However, it is verifiable that the phrase is used with a specific meaning, which makes it a plausible search term. I would say "redirect", except that our present coverage of insolvency does not cover the idea of a composition with creditors and it should.
As an aside, I want to point out that it is very common in legal agreements and mortgages in the UK that a party must declare that it "has not within the past five years been bankrupt or entered into a composition with creditors", or similar language. Financially independent adults in Britain will certainly have encountered the term.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or send to Wikionary.--SPhilbrickT 02:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is certainly an encyclopedic topic, with the scope for the article to have information on how this concept is addressed in various legal jurisdictions, as can been seen from just a cursory scan of the Google Books search linked above. It may well be that this would better be covered in another article, but that's a decision that should be made as part of the standard editing process rather than a matter for AfD. Whatever decision is made this should at the very least remain as a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 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, JForget 00:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Phil Bridger's analysis is on target. The fact that the first version of an article begins by reading like a dicdef is simply not evidence that the article can't be meaningfully expnded, and the nominator's claim of being unable to find coverage is contradicted by the immense number of Google search hits. Legal concepts that ubiquitous merit articles explaining the subject to laypeople. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that the Google hits show notability for this to have its own article. I didn't think of merging until it was brought up here. What I said wasn't contradicted because I couldn't per my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Certainly a familiar _term_ in UK insolvency law, but I'm not completely convinced that it's worth its own article. We already have CVA, and I doubt that there's any other form of composition that's regularly used these days. However, the article might have potential for expansion. Tevildo (talk) 12:02, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Key Elements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I saw this article when it was first created and left it alone though I did put it on my watchlist, but after a few days I see that the article author has not added any reliable sources to it
So, I searched Gnews and Google for significant independent coverage for this group, and I can find none so therefore they don't pass WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, nor WP:BAND. ArcAngel (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources to indicate it meets the relevant notability requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this student music group. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -Is there any proof they toured Ireland? Bearian (talk) 21:36, 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 redirect to Sports-related curses. already merged and redirected JForget 15:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
===Sports in Philadelphia===
(formerly Curse of the Inauguration)
- Curse of the Inauguration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page references a single article in the Philadelphia Daily News, which is the only possible reference I have been able to find regarding this alleged "curse". It seems to be a fabrication of one particular sportswriter in Philadelphia. There are other references to it in a search that seem to be simple mirrors of the original article. No other sources are available. The topic has not received significant coverage per WP:N. I don't believe it's appropriate for a stand-alone article; suggest deletion and redirect to Sports-related curses, where it is already mentioned with its single reference. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the creator redirected it to Sports in Philadelphia, though I don't know if that's the most appropriate location; since the article had only one source, redirecting to the Philly sports article instead of the location in Sports-related curses that actually talks about the curse could create an issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even in trying to look at the history of the redirect, I can't tell what the content of the "Curse of the Inauguration" article was supposed to be, or whether "Sports in Philadelphia" existed before "Curse" did. In any event, the curse article seems to have been broken. Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Sports in Philadelphia has been around for quite some time, and I am not under any circumstances proposing that it be deleted. I was proposing the deletion of the Curse of the Inauguration, but it seems to have be subsumed. If you're looking for the pre-redirected version, see here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm glad that the "curse" article is gone, hopefully never to rear its ugly head again. Mandsford (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Repoint to Sports-related curses per nom. The term is too broad to apply only to Philly. GlassCobra 02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems to have no merit - the article refers to a COLUMN in the Philly Daily News. Unlike a NEWS ARTICLE, columnists are permitted to editorialize and sensationalize, which is clearly done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sme3 (talk • contribs)
- The content is already in Sports-related curses; the best purpose this article can serve now is as a redirect. GlassCobra 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I almost changed my stand to redirecting to Sports-related curses, but looking at other entries in that article, I find no substantive reason to believe that the so-called curse even exists (to the extent that any "curse" can be "credible"). Examples: The Curse of the Bambino has been widely documented: it has a cause (trading of Babe Ruth) and notable effect (86 years without a championship). The Curse of Billy Penn has been well documented, has a cause (agreement broken when structures built higher than the City Hall statue), and an effect (curse "broken" when a figurine was set on the Comcast Center). This so-called curse has been only mentioned once by one columnist, has no apparent cause or origin, and, as per the article, the city is not winless in inauguration years - just on a 7-game losing streak. That's all it is - a streak. There is no lure, and I doubt anyone even made the connection before this columnist. I'd delete the article and remove the reference from the Sports-related curses article. But if that doesn't pass, I suppose I support redirecting to the "Curses" article as a second-choice -Sme3 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, the question of whether this material belongs in Sports-related curses is a discussion for that article's talk page. This AfD is merely meant to decide the fate of this article,
Sports in PhiladelphiaCurse of the Inauguration. As we've already seen, this curse does not deserve a standalone article and has already had its content merged to the parent; thus, this article is now best suited to be a redirect, until such time may arrive that the material is removed from the main curses article. GlassCobra 19:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD was never meant to determine the fate of Sports in Philadelphia. It was about the curse article, which is now gone. This AfD should be procedurally closed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GlassCobra, I agree that this is not the place to debate what belongs in Sports-related curses, I mentioned it just to not appear contradictory. Killervogel5 is correct -- this discussion is about Curse of the Inauguration, however it does still exist, here (as a redirect). (Sports in Philadelphia dates back to 2006 and is not, to my knowledge, up for discussion) By the way, this is not the first time this user has redirected an article while under AfD. -Sme3 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion should probably be ported over to WP:Redirects for discussion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, that is my mistake, I'd meant to say Curse of the Inauguration above. I'd agree with a procedural close since the article is now a redirect, which is what I'd been arguing for (though it points to Sports in Philadelphia, not Sports-related curses, which should be fixed). If one of you would like to initiate an RfD or discussion of content at Talk:Sports-related curses, I have no objection to that. GlassCobra 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, the question of whether this material belongs in Sports-related curses is a discussion for that article's talk page. This AfD is merely meant to decide the fate of this article,
- I'm not so sure moving it to RfD is the right thing to do, as the original author changed it to a redirect for the very purpose of avoiding the AfD -- just like he/she did with the Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994 article I referenced earlier. That article was deleted under the AfD procedure here (and apparently recreated earlier this week). Either way, while the procedure and fate surrounding this article are debated, I'm going to boldly redirect it to Sports-related curses. I think we all agree that this redirect is more relevant than the current one. (If I am overstepping some procedural bounds I don't know about, please feel free to revert and accept my apologies). -Sme3 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BOLD is of course still a guideline, so I have no issues with your change at all. :) I think we can close this issue and this AfD safely now. However, I did investigate Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994 and agree that this needs attention. Unless the material from the former article is explicitly mentioned in the MSG article, the redirect ought to be taken to RfD and deleted. GlassCobra 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've had a change of heart -- I guess we should evaluate the article based on the RfD criteria now, which is much more generous than the AfD criteria. On the remote chance that some stumbles on the Daily News column and types the term into Wikipedia, I guess I can't object to it staying. I wouldn't shed a tear, though, if it were to go away! :) -Sme3 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 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 delete. Several editors have searched but failed to find enough sources to establish notability to Wikipedia standard. JohnCD (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim Chestney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable writer-artist with a couple of friends in bands. Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An author who has published a book with Random House, part of the library of congress, published in three different languages with readership across the globe should not be considered "non-notable." Akia Cherstine | Talk 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)— AkiaCherstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- reply Why not? If the subject fails our standards of notability, having a book in the LoC doesn't exempt them. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Multiple publishings in itself, by huge publishing houses, implies notability. There is no way around that. Several different media sources spent thousands of dollars to publish this person's ideas. Note: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic." You, yourself, may not consider this "notable" but obviously others do. --AkiaCherstine (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)— AkiaCherstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just got online with this. Content is clear and shows notability. No deletion.KCH111609 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)— KCH111609 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Fluffy article for a non-notable author. Google News gives us a few mentions in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but none of them seem to offer much significant discussion of the topic. Google Books delivers only the books by this "intuitive." No notability, no WP article. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest adding more details about the books content. --AkiaCherstine (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)— AkiaCherstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well, I would suggest that too, and seeing as how you are the article's main contributor, perhaps you should take your advice to heart. If I would have found anything worth mentioning, I would have added it, thank you very much. See below for Phantom Steve's results. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete following a search for sources. Google Scholar has 2 hits, one of which is her own book; the other is a one-sentence quote from her; Google Books has 4 hits: 2 are her books, the other is the one quoted in Scholar with the one-sentence quote from her, the other is "Deutsche Nationalbibliografie: Amtsblatt" - which woudl presumably have a basic entry; Google News has no hits; Google News Archive has 5 hits - all short paragraphs. No significant coverage found. Google Search shows either books shops' listing her books, or her own sites (web, twitter, facebook, etc). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Drmies. I scoured Google News but couldn't find anything beyond a few bare mentions pushing the book in local media. If significant published reviews of the book, or articles focusing on Chestney specifically exist, I encourage AkiaCherstine to add them and I'll take another look. I know its frustrating when an article that a new author creates gets put on the chopping block, because many new authors learn the hard way that their personal favorite author, friend, band, etc., may not pass wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. For example, 1/2 the music i own is probably from bands with no chance of having a wikipedia page, even if it is the best music ever recorded.--Milowent (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Milowent, 1/2 is probably an understatement--you know you listen to trash. But if you need some NOTABLE music, I have a Creepmime CD here for you. Only been played once, and only halfway through. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks promising, as my current favorite Pebbly Mammogram was not notable.--Milowent (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, then. Thanks to those of you who took the time to look into this -- that would be everyone with the exception of Drmies...I am not sure who lets you participate in Wikipedia, but your input is unprofessional, at best. OAO.--AkiaCherstine (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC) — AkiaCherstine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- AkiaCherstine, I'm going to comment on your statement: Drmies did look for sources of information, if you read what they typed. As for "who lets you participate in Wikipedia" - this is a volunteer project. Drmies is a volunteer who has been with Wikipedia for more than two years with almost 23 thousand edits. As to their "input is unprofessional, at best": we are not professional editors here - no one gets paid here. They looked up information, and gave their views, as did the rest of us who commented here. You may not agree with them, but that is the purpose of these AfDs. Anyone who wants to comment on them can - and it is expected that editors who do comment will take the time to look for suitable references - which Drmies did. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Akia, sorry, I had no intention of belittling the topic of the article or you, though I did feel that your first response to my 'delete' vote was a bit condescending and I responded in kind; still, I hope you will take my joking around with Milowent as just that. I assure you that I did look for sources, especially since with writers my first instinct is to try and keep them--but in this case, I didn't find anything to counter the nominator. All the best, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve, I just want to point out that I am a professional editor; but that here on Wikipedia I'm just another volunteer editor. (My professional experience as a professional editor and book reviewer [as well as 31 years in the retail book trade] does, of course, influence my viewpoint as to notability of writers and how it can best be gauged.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike, I should have said "we are not paid to be editors here" - obviously some of the editors (yourself included) are professional editors (as we have editors from practically every profession possible, I would guess) - but none of them are editing in their capacity of professional editors, albeit they will use those skills when editing! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:30, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A billion ernies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only 3 very brief mentions come up in a Google news search. Does not meet WP:BAND RadioFan (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find evidence of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete artist fails WP:MUSIC. Article never asserts notability for subject and none of the three sources are reliable ones. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 09:43, 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 delete. Wizardman 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David J. Pollay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence that this WP:BLP meets the notability criteria for inclusion. Claim to fame appears to be a single syndicated essay. Looking in to the International Academy of Visual Arts Award for the spin-off short film it appears that to win one you just need to pay the entrance fee. Nancy talk 16:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is the work of a hideous WP:SPA that has come here solely to inflict WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM upon us. One of his self-promotional articles was relegated to red-link land and then redirected to his autobio article--what a treat for us! Mr. Pollay has no notability whatsoever. There are real writers out there who are known for multiple works throughout the years. Even a cursory look at his record reveals that he is not one of them. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete™ - while Pollay has had a passing mention in one Business Week article, it's down on page 2 of the online version, thus failing the requirement of "Significant coverage". That is the only reliable source in the whole article, and the burden of verification is on the creator (Pollay or his agent) to prove. Wikipedia is not a web host to be filled with trademark neologisms and self promotion. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's reposted his page as a user profile, still coming up under a Google search for his essay + wikipedia. LOL
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lameishasherri/David_J._Pollay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.228.221 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feeders (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film Orange Mike | Talk 05:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19]. Joe Chill (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible Keep: even though this film may be put into the "it's so bad, it's good" catagory, it now seems to have attracted something of a cult status. There is a fair bit of info out there about it too. (Mr Real Natural (talk) 05:24, 13 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) 00:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Joe Chill and Mr. Real Natural's observations. Plus, the film and its creators were cited in this book: [20]. Warrah (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Coverage in reliable sources seems to be established. — Hunter Kahn (c) 07:13, 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. Wizardman 17:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gemini Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 05:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. It is a major employer in Huron County, Michigan. Finding references for the company and its operating units is made more difficult by the fact that there are unrelated companies with similar names, such as and Gemini Group Electrical Systems Inc. in Canada and Cap Gemini Group in Europe. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that it's referenced. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:16, 10 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) 00:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Keep. We have a couple of references from a local newspaper: we have some awards from one of their (major, admittedly) customers. Possibly just enough to scrape through WP:CORP. Tevildo (talk) 19:07, 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.