Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 9

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. SilkTork *^YES! 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" – news · books · scholar · images)

This page is composed almost entirely of OR backed up with pseudoscientific psych-speak. If it has been documented in any notable source (which excludes damninteresting.com, thank you), I have been unable to find it. An earlier AfD seemed to fail mostly on the basis that the original nominator was unregistered and initially bungled the application. At the very least, complete the merge into synchronicity, which seems to be synonymous but actually has legitimate documentation. Angio (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of un-notable, unsourced neologisms. Dlabtot (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sorry that the article isn't properly sourced; this is NOT synchronicity, which are meaningfull collisions; Baader-Meinhof are noticed because of the lack of meaning. htom (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - According to whom? The problem is the complete lack of appropriate source material. Angio (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Problem The problem is that the St. Paul Pioneer Press hides its copyrighted columns behind a pay-wall, so it's difficult to cite their use of the term. I'll put up the two links that are currently free:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=12A047FC9855DBC0&p_docnum=1 http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=129F4C77823867B8&p_docnum=2 with the text from each (and claim that these small quotes are permissible under fair use):

... Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon Plus: Our community of strangers Harley Dust: "The other night, a contestant on 'Wheel of Fortune' won a trip to Turks & Caicos. Since I had not heard of this location before, I made a mental note to look it up. "Yesterday in the Pioneer Press, I read an article about the Haitian boat that crashed near the Turks & Caicos islands. I mentioned this to my wife, a faithful reader of BB, and she told I'd just had a B-M! She told her sister, and she announced to everyone that I just had a B-M. "Not being a reader of BB (sorry), I had no idea what they were talking about. "Today I started reading BB in order to understand this new language." ...

from the first, and here's the second:

... Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon Tuesday e-mail from Queen of the Hop: "I'm a staff member of the Minnesota Historical Society. Recently a longtime friend of the Society, Floyd Risvold, passed away, and some memorials were designated to MHS. Our curator of rare books, Patrick Coleman, used some of the memorials to acquire a copy of a book entitled 'History of Wiskonsan' (Buffalo, 1846), which we believe Mr. Risvold would have loved to see in our collections. The book includes an inscription alluding to the fact that the book was in the collection of Abraham Lincoln and was presented to his coachman, William P. Brown, but actually turned out to be a part of a somewhat successful scheme known as the 'Coachman Forgeries.' First time I'd ever heard of this scheme is when I read our blog on 8/3 about the acquisition. Log on to our Web site for more info: [tiny URL pointed at:] http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/604_lincolnforgery.pdf "Now comes the phenomenal part: Last night on an episode of 'History Detectives' (Channel 2) was the story of a woman in Oregon who ended up with a bound book of sheet music from an estate sale -- sheet music signed in a few places 'A. Lincoln' and 'Abraham Lincoln.' She was hoping that she was in possession of a priceless piece of American history. But, you guessed it -- after the detectives went around the country talking with Lincoln biographers and historians, as well as a handwriting forensic specialist, they determined her copy was part of the Coachman Forgeries, crimes perpetrated by Eugene Field and Harry Dayton Sickles. [Bulletin Board says: See [same tiny URL reference]] "Please tell me this is a B-M. In fact, less than nine hours passed between the two experiences. [Bulletin Board says: That's about as pure as a B-M can come!] "P.S. William P. Brown was Lincoln's coachman, and in the '30s he did sign these books (and many more) and his signature was notarized, but neither he nor the notary knew that the information pertaining to Abraham Lincoln, including the signatures, were added after theirs." Throw the cow over the fence some hay! Mamallama of Como Park: "The August 3 PP contained a story provided by the Associated Press, which began: 'Black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. made his first public appearance Sunday since sharing a beer with the police officer who arrested him and President Barack Obama.' "So now we know the identity of the person who was with Mr. Gates when he broke into his own home. But what was the president arrested for? And why was this not reported earlier? ... "What's that you say? What about cows, fences and hay? "Never mind!" ...

Actually, this article has been deleted before; http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon_%28deleted_24_Jul_2008_at_20:31%29

Here's a local blogger using the term: http://jennydagle.blogspot.com/2007/02/baader-meinhof-phenomenon.html

And here's a reference to a book using the term: http://www.harmlessfraud.com/?p=1210 htom (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete even though I love damninteresting; they are usually better with citing sources and further reading, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard it called this, and now that I have heard it called this, I will probably never again hear it called this. We've all experienced the phenomenon of reading a word like "vitreous" and then seeing it again on the very next item we were reading. The article is about a coined phrase that is not notable, and too bizarre to ever become so. Unless you logically associate a terror group with an everyday experience. Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with synchronicity. Not at all notable by itself; no easily accessible good sources are available. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is it OR, it uses an inaccurate assessment of the Serial position effect (Recency effect is redirected); Recency deals with stimulii that are the most recent in the tested string as opposed to primacy, the first in the string. Article: "its primary cause as being the recency effect, in which the human brain has a bias that lends increased prominence to new or recently acquired information." Recency effect itself has been shown to vary greatly depending on the pace of the presentation, indicating that it has more to do with presentation for which long-term and working memory abilities are efficient. I do not know of any studies that indicate that the effect exists outside of lists of information given in a short amount of time. The article speaks of recency as being about recent vs long-term memory, not most recent in a list of recent things. Synchronicity is completely irrelevant and should not be used to include this info. The article then wanders off to explore the truism that having a memory of something makes you capable of noticing it more. I am sure we are all aware that science is extremely good at proving truisms, but until it proves this one (hopefully I am wrong and it has and this article can be merged there), this article is superfluous to WP. And all to promote a web forum where people who spotted two citations! of something can amaze their friends. Anarchangel (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a mis-leading truncation of the article; several other explanations are offered. The claim advanced, however, is that it is explicitly and only the first and second encounters with the item, so lists don't come into it at all. And it's not a web forum, but a newspaper column published on actual paper (and pretty much not on the web, hence the difficulty in citing it.) htom (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Neologisms can, of course, be notable, but I don't see strong evidence of verifiability (blogs are usually discounted, although we'd probably accept a lexicographer's blog). Very interesting - if slightly weird and probably offensive to those who suffered at their hands - but without better referencing... delete. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On My Way (Billy Boy on Poison Song)

On My Way (Billy Boy on Poison Song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN single, does not inheret notability from band, no evidence of charting or widespread mainstream coverage. →ROUX ₪ 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd recommend deleting the song article, the album article, and the band article. There's a Grauniad article about them, but other than that, how do they qualify according to WP:BAND? Their record company is a redlink, and other than the single article, the only thing notable about them is their connection to Kiefer Sutherland. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Concur with the notability of the band too.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Price of Love

The Price of Love (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. As well as this, the track has never been released as a single, and the only information in the article simply describes the song's lyrics. ^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 05:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to To Lose My Life..., non-notable song with no coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. --JD554 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment this is probably the way I wanted to go with this. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 11:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

David Crawford (colonel)

David Crawford (colonel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating as I feel doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. The House of Burgesses did qualify at times as a first-level sub-national political office, but at the time of Crawford's election to it (1692), it's influence was severely limited (quoted below) (according it's own article)

"In 1624, the Virginia Company lost its charter, and Virginia became a royal colony. As a Royal Colony, the House of Burgesses consisted of two members from every county in Virginia and one member from each of the following: the City of Williamsburg, the City of Jamestown, the City of Norfolk, and the College of William and Mary. The House of Burgesses continued to meet, but its influence was severely restricted. Despite limitations on its actions..."

This situation appears to continue until it's dissolution in 1769.

I would argue that this means that Crawford was not elected to a first-level sub-national political office. Fol de rol troll (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep -- sourcing could be better, but I'm not sure why nominator feels that the House of Burgesses lost its status in 1624; it was still the foremost political office in Virginia, as far as I can tell from the description here, until its dissolution in the mid-1700s. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The fact the office was less power than it had been does not mean it ceased to be a first-level sub-national political office. Edward321 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Definitely passed WP:NOTABILITY and can't imagine why the status of the House of Burgesses after Crawford's death has anything to do with WP:POLITICIAN. Billbowery (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. He was elected to the House of Burgesses in 1692, which was after the diminishment in power of the House. That was my point. Fol de rol troll (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Quinn Sullivan

Quinn Sullivan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable, bad sources Jonathan Williams (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This kid definitely meets the notability criterion in addition to the links in the article there are also these [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] amongst many others. There are issues in the way this article is written, very choppy and unencyclopedic but this can be fixed easily. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really think that short blurbs in local papers establish notability. Wikipedia:Notability_(music) Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Article could do with improvement, but the kid is notable, judging from the amount of press coverage and TV appearances. Fences&Windows 23:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Addis

Stuart Addis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at fully-professional level of football. No citations or sources so fails WP:GNG. Plays in a semi-pro league with attendances of sometimes just a few hundred so fails WP:N.Kevinoleary12 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Kevinoleary12 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 08:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable footballer. Spiderone (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Deltum

Deltum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have listed this article for deletion because it is a neologism without source. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Would have prodded it first. Since it's here already, though, delete per nom. Tim Song (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO - no source for this usage, and I find none. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Project 6D

Project 6D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "upcoming" low-budget film, another in a series of articles from this author about non-notable, probably amateur, films by one John W Stevenson - see AfDs for Semisonic (film), Pine (film) and Cold Glass. No sources, nothing in Google or IMDb; fails WP:NF. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I didn't find any sources. Fails WP:NF or it is a WP:HOAX. Joe Chill (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Ertell

Kevin Ertell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biospam. Some senior management positions but nothing else. Prod declined. Main editor has also added references since the prod, but the references are to the Myspace page of the subject's non-notable band. Probably an autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As spam and not notable. The actions of the creator of the page indicates a conflict of interest. Furthermore, I can't find any evidence of this meeting WP:BIO. No significant coverage, etc Triplestop x3 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• delete self-promotion, wikipedia is not monster.com.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Lord Haw-Haw. Consensus here is that the current subject of the article is insufficiently notable, and that those searching for the term are far more likely to be looking for the radio announcer. ~ mazca ^talk 12:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

HawHaw

HawHaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

All that I can find is download sites. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability per nom. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lord Haw-Haw — if someone types this into the search box, that's probably the article they are looking for. *** Crotalus *** 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lord Haw-Haw, the likely intended target of 99.99% of searches for this term. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Soft Redirect to wiktionary. Black Kite 21:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bathophobia

Bathophobia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No valid sources besides various dictionaries and phobia lists that such phobia indeed exists. In other words, it is just a word, and its place is in wiktionary. Laudak (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability of the subject. Mukadderat (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I didn't find any sources that could expand the article beyond its current WP:DICDEF status. See wikt:bathophobia. — Rankiri (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Plausible search terms should not be redlinks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I see this article like any other description of a pathological disorder, of which there are many at Wikipedia. --Pink Bull (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SilkTork *^YES! 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Leon Smith - Karma around the world

Leon Smith - Karma around the world (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Leon Smith - Karma around the world" – news · books · scholar · images)

There was a prod nomination, but it had been previously deprodded in June: "No relevant google hits I can find, which suggest this was not an achievement of lasting fame. Many people have sailed alone around the world before this, so it's no record. With only a small-town newpaper as a reference, so lacks verifiability."

I can verify that he made the trip with this snippet:[7], but this man and his journey aren't notable. Fences&Windows 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't doubt the accuracy of the article, or that it was a heroic feat, but he wasn't the first to sail single-handedly around the world, but only the first New Zealander to do so. I consider his notability marginal at best. I might reconsider if there was some more significant coverage of his voyage, such as a biography, or articles about it in major newspapers, which might indicate that it was at least considered a major achievement at the time.-gadfium 23:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - awful name for article for a start. Reading it through he took 34 months to complete the whole thing vs 272 for say Naomi James. Article itself says 20 people do this every year. Doesn't really feel notable enough. Possible Conflict of interest by creator - SimonLyall (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as new evidence shows he passes WP:ATHLETE Black Kite 11:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Panushanth Kulenthiran

Panushanth Kulenthiran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This player fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" - no evidence to show he has played for either Palermo or the Sri Lankan national team) and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Recreate if & when he meets either of these guidelines in the future. This article is a contested PROD; no rationale was given for the removal of the PROD. GiantSnowman 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete- Even though I've heard of him he doesn't seem to pass WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Keep because of new evidence. Spiderone (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I might have spoken too soon although the source isn't great it appears to be genuine. [8] Spiderone (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not a fantastic source to be honest. Even if he did play, I don't think it would count as an official international match, as according to this source the nation of Brunei was actually being represented by a club team, QAF FC. Also, even though the article claims it was a qualification match for a tournament, FIFA confirms it was only a friendly. GiantSnowman 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Changed to "weak delete" Spiderone (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't seem to have played professional football. – PeeJay 12:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This page and match reports show he has played 22 games for Vibonese in the C2, which is listed as a fully professional league, thus passing WP:ATHLETE. Camw (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• OK, following this new evidence I am happy that he meets WP:ATHLETE, and am withdrawing my nomination. Can an admin close this please? GiantSnowman 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry GS, unfortunately you can't withdraw while there are unstruck delete !votes....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • So this could still be deleted? Spiderone (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Theoretically yes, at the closing admin's discretion, although of course it is unlikely given that it has been proven that he satisfies WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per professional appearances. matt91486 (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Panphonics

Panphonics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company with no evidence of notability, prod removed WuhWuzDat 13:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The one independent reference given does not appear from the article text to have this business as its primary subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Kalervo (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Huge in the horror community is not the same as meeting our inclusion standards through multiple reliable sources and IMDB isn't a reliable source Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Hunters: City of the Dead

Zombie Hunters: City of the Dead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. An article about an "independent television series" with next to no reliable sources, pretty much entirely written by one user. I couldn't find any good sources on this, either, so I'm assuming this article exists to promote the show. --Conti|✉ 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete In the unlikely event this is a notable subject for an article, there is no indication of that notability. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hello all,

Yes, I'm that "one user", and no, the show isn't as big as a "Seinfeld" or something else. But it's huge in the horror community. As for it being an ad, I've never even met these people. I have, however, read countless toy and videogame articles on Wikipedia which are nothing but an advertisement for those games and to promote their sequels, yet somehow they stay. I've added this because I feel it's important, as do the viewers, film judges, magazine reviewers, and convention goers that have been cited in my article, all of us supporting their efforts.

And if the only problem now is notability, please consider this: this show stands as the ONLY broadcast ongoing series of the genre. Ever. Therefore, by definition, it's notable because it's truly unique. Not even George Romero has ever attempted a genre TV show.

The article had no citations, and I provided them. It wasn't formatted "correctly", so I got help to fix that. And now I'm still fighting for a mention. If a unique, never before attempted, addition to a genre loved by millions isn't "notable" enough for an online encyclopedia with 3 million entries, do what you will. It's just a shame that a fan of Wikipedia has to keep arguing the point. Rich abromowitz (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't already, please see and read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Maybe the show is unique and has a lot of fans (for an independent production), but neither are criteria to gauge notability. It's only the cold, hard facts that matter, which in this case usually means news items or reviews by reliable sources. The sources currently used in the article are blogs, fanzines and the like, which usually should not be used by Wikipedia articles. --Conti|✉ 10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Completely lacking in multiple, independent reliable soures that come anywhere close to demonstrating notability in general let alone enough to have its own article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just looked around the Wiki again and found several examples of low-budget zombie-genre films where the only reference was the film's own website, and an IMDB link which just about anyone can get if they pay for itRich abromowitz (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC). No notability issues there. Is an IMDB listing all it takes?

It is quite possible that those films do not meet our notability guideline, either. I could check if you'd give me the links to those articles. As far as I know, IMDB can be used as a source, but in itself it is not enough to establish notability. --Conti|✉ 12:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Stones of the Lost Tomb

Stones of the Lost Tomb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Zero Google hits for the name, zero Google hits for "SLT productions" + "comics," the alleged creator, zero Google hits for Zaurask Productions, the alleged previous creator. No reliable sources, so far, proffered. Fails WP:V, probable WP:COI with User:Zaurask, the SPA creator. Wikipedia is not for a comic whipped up in art class last week.  RGTraynor  10:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing any degree of notability here. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:HOAX. Joe Chill (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @024  ·  23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Its a hoax. A new user posting here and nowhere else. I Googled "Stones of the Lost Tomb" and found nothing at all. Unless the guy got the name wrong, its a hoax. Dream Focus 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. I couldn't find any references using Google. Netalarmtalk 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

George Shenker

George Shenker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to meet the guideline for inclusion. Searches reveal no sources to back up article's claims decltype (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This would appear to be no more than thinly veiled spam for this outfit. His name doesn't appear to have troubled the indexers (or is the word "indicators"?) at Google News and Google Scholar. A Google Books search finds that he self-published a book in 1967 which is unknown to Worldcat and that he gets a passing mention here. A plain old google web search just picks up a couple of directory listings of the eponymous language schools. I would also point out that 45 rpm records reached the mass market in the mid-1950s and cassette tapes in the late 1960s, so it is stretching the usual meaning of "after" a little (although it is literally true - as would be "after the Peloponnesian War") to say that the subject used these formats after the Second World War. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Voiding this AFD. The whole thing is tainted by the copyvio thing. if anyone things this should still be deleted I suggest they renominate it in a couple of weeks Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Alliance

Apollo Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Copyright violations: http://apolloalliance.org/about/ and unambiguous advertisement Sophitessa (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Go CSD G11 and G12!!! The Junk Police (reports|works) 09:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Close (defaults to keep) - copyvio resolved. The Junk Police (reports|works) 11:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, so nominated. copyvio of [9] --Pgallert (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Change to keep, copyvio has been addressed by Woody. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't see the one genuine paragraph that is now the lead phrase. Should have looked deeper into the page history, sorry. --Pgallert (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have reverted the article back to a clean version, someone with the username ApolloAlliance (talk · contribs) added the copyvio stuff. The article needs to be debated on its merits and notability. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of notability. Seems like an advert. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep ChildofMidnight, Re:"notability", you have officially reached zero credibility, in one shot, as either an incurable rock-underside dweller who does not know what blue links signify or is unable to follow them, a legally blind person, or a partisan hack. What part of:

“

The founding board members of the Apollo Alliance are: Senator Maria Cantwell, US Congress (D-WA). Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers. Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jr., US Congress (D-IL). Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

”

did you find were most unlike any indication of notability, exactly?
Quite apart from what is in the article itself, which I urge all editors to view, in the hopes that I won't have to quote it all here, for a change, I present the following search results:

• 160 for the exact phrase 'Apollo Alliance' on Google books
• 832,000 for the exact phrase 'Apollo Alliance' on Yahoo

Anarchangel (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Please keep this discussion civil. Personal attacks actually hurt instead of help your argument. Although Yahoo is not Google, WP:GHITS equally applies here. And since notability is not inherited, that the board's founding members contain a lot of notable people is just marginally, if at all, relevant. I express no view on the question of whether the article should be deleted, as the Gbooks and Gnews hits look fairly promising. Tim Song (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pleas keep this article. It may need to be corrected, but the apollo project is a key player in the Obama Administration. To delete this would be censorship of the most dangerous kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sferral2003 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Let us remember that the Apollo Project is the thing that put men into space, and the Apollo Alliance is not. Some keep referring to the Apollo Alliance as the "Apollo Project," and that might introduce confusion. I heard from a talking head that the Apollo Alliance was the group that actually penned recent legislative bills, so IF that's true, it would lend notability to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.201.247.20 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  I highly doubt that that is verifiable, but good luck trying to find reliable sources for it. Tim Song (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article can do a better job at demonstrating this organization's notability, but internet research indicates that they are notable. --Pink Bull (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. As clearly shown, this topic does not meet our notability criteria. There was no acceptable reason put forward to keep the article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Myers (writer)

Rupert Myers (writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable person. Zero or almost zero GNews hits (most or all hits refer to different people). Claimed basis for notability includes writing for two major newspapers, participating in 3 debates against notable people, and a trivial mention in the NYT Blog. Tim Song (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - there's plenty here of interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.145.133 (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC) — 83.104.145.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - as much if not more than Rupert Myers or pretty much any of the following

Nima Abu-Wardeh , Michael Adams (journalist) , Matt Arnold , Tilly Bagshawe , Alicia Drake , Will Buckley , Sue Douglas , Jo Farrow , Richard Clements (UK journalist) or Sue Ellicott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.145.133 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) — 83.104.145.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. above duplicate !vote struck.Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - The subject does not pass any of the points for Wikipedia:Notability (people) nor has received any coverage, much less significant, per Wikipedia:Notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• keep - more notable than many other British Journalist Stubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.194.89 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC) — 80.177.194.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• keep - Same as above, looked at some of those others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.26.101 (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC) — 83.104.26.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep - the debate films are very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.165 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment All unsigned IP keep "votes" are from UK. I believe it is the same person. Algébrico (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

keep - the debate films are certainly good, this article is stronger than other journalist stubs out there; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.139.76 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) — 82.233.139.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment with additional data to my previous Delete: Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). I'll comment on some of the current article contents in terms of WP:N.
  • a contributor to The Guardian - It looks like this is part of a program called Comment is Free which is a blog that anyone can participate in provided they register with the web site and agree to terms and conditions.^[10]. Being a contributor is not notable. Each of his recent posts has attracted between 31 to 90 feedback comments^[11] indicating some interest in what Rupert Myers writes about. A quick skim of the feedback comments shows they are about the blog comments and not their author (Rupert Myers). The closest he comes to notability is that he has worked for two weeks in a field that is "taking money to defend evil-doers."^[12] As he actively participates in the feedback comments (inflating their counts) he does get addressed in person to either answer questions or a request to debate a point but himself is never the subject.
  • also contributed to the The Times - Unable to verify. Contribution to is not the same as coverage of the subject (Rupert Myers).
  • been mentioned in the New York Times - That mention is in a blog and not a NY Times article and is a mention that Myers wrote an opinion piece. Myers is never the subject.^[13]
  • Whilst at Cambridge he co-presented the groundbreaking radio show 'Rock and Roll Politics' - Excluding WP itself there are two mentions of this on the Internet both of which are message board posts by Rupert Myers announcing an upcoming show.^[14][15] This radio show never attracted attention - much less to the level that could have conferred some notability on one of its co-presenters.
  • co-organising the now infamous 'Martini Monday' in aid of charity - Excluding WP itself there is one mention of this on the Internet^[16] which is a college newspaper article that covers the event. Rupert Myers is quoted but is not covered here.
  • As a debater at the Cambridge Union - There is no coverage of this other than announcements for the debates and Rupert Myers mentioning them on his blog.^[17]. Myers is never the subject. --Marc Kupper|talk 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - You can't just write on Commment is free : http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/2008/jun/02/1 , The Times writing is in the list of external links, the debate films are interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.39.92 (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC) — 81.170.39.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest

Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book lacking independent GHits and lacking substantial GNEWS reviews or discussion. Appears to fail WP:NB ttonyb1 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails every element of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Bearian (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The only sources I could find referring to it were websites within the LDS community, I didn't find any mention in secondary reliable sources. Fences&Windows 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete failing book notability Skier Dude (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand Rocketry Association

New Zealand Rocketry Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

created by a pure single purpose editor, fails WP:ORG, hardly anything on gnews [18], google search reveals mainly directory listings. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, enough news coverage - 10 results at the NZ Herald, 2 at stuff[19][20], TV3, TVNZ, The Shed magazine has an article, lots of hits at the CAA including involvement in amending regulations. Also too soon to call SPA, may just be first article. XLerate (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, XLerate has proven news coverage.-gadfium 20:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I created the article and have not had any time to improve it, I have asked other members of the NZRA to improve it. This appears to be a "single purpose edit" because I do not know my old account details so have just done it without an account(created/edited Wikipedia articles a few years back)- Chris 12:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.161.138 (talk)

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 delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tico Zamora

Tico Zamora (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable backup musician, fails WP:BAND. Already speedied once, quickly recreated. —Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:BIO. No evidence this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. — Satori Son 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. according to WP Criteria for Musicians:

WP: Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians.

-- Tico Zamora has been a member of the Maureen Tucker band, H.R., Jingo de Lunch (article and video here: [21] and played with Jasmin Tabatabai . He is noted under Band Members.

WP: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)

-- [22]/ Film Music Tico Zamora

-- Themes for German Television : Arabella Kiesbauer,Liebe Sünde, Nicole, Taff, and Bizz (as mentioned in article)

Criteria for Composers & Songwriters:

WP: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

-- Tico Zamora composing credits: Jan Josef Liefers Jasmin Tabatabai [http://www.discogs.com/Jasmin-Tabatabai-I-Ran/release/1136719

-- H.R.'s "Keep Out of Reach" Album under pseudonym Tiko [23]468

-- Other notable works can be found here: [24]

image used with permission of photographer.(Koreatown (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC))Koreatown

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Applebatch

Applebatch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

delete nn website Amocool (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable. Does not meet the requirements of the General notability guideline. Does not meet any of the three criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. — Satori Son 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Living computers theory

Living computers theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Living computers theory" – news · books · scholar · images)

This article is almost two years old and lacks any sources to establish notability of the concept. The only meaningful ref is a link to the author's personal web site -- clicking on it offers to download an attachment, which I am not going to do. Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Can't find any sources on it. Shubinator (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Apart from the lacking notability issue, the article does not explain the subject (mostly talks about what it is not). I am sure this concept is either already covered in Bioinformatics or Biological Computation, or, if not, can a should be covered there. Materialscientist (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to The Concert for New York City . Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds from a Town I Love

Sounds from a Town I Love (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sounds from a Town I Love" – news · books · scholar · images)

No reliable non-trivial sources, and searches don't turn up anything promising. Delete or merge to Woody AllenThe Concert for New York City. Shubinator (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed merge !vote to The Concert for New York City, more background. Shubinator (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shubinator (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to The Concert for New York City where the film has proper context. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Woody Allen but merging to The Concert for New York City would be acceptable if the article identified all the concert's short films. Currently, the article only says that there were short films by Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, and Spike Lee without the titles being mentioned. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Refined !vote since list of short films now exist at the concert article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Woody Allen. I agree with Erik that if it's merged with The Concert for New York City the other films will have to get equal coverage, but there probably isn't much information available about them. MovieMadness (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• It does not necessarily have to be true coverage, just a list. If the article happens to redirect there, the title of Woody Allen's short film should be mentioned somewhere. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I had suggested it be included in The_Concert_for_New_York_City#Lineup_and_songs because that was the occasion and event that gave the film notability and for where it might best be remembered in context. Yes, Woody Allen has a tremendous notability as a filmmaker and it might be included in his filmography, but conecting it to the venue for which it was made makes more sense to me... adding it to the lineup and including any other short films that might also have been shown at that music event. Anyone know off hand haw many short films were shown there? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• There were four films, one each by Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Spike Lee, and Kevin Smith. MovieMadness (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ah... found it.. there were more...

1. Woody Allen Sounds from the Town I Love
2. Edward Burns Lovely Day
3. Ric Burns New York: A Documentary Film
4. Christian Charles The Greatest City on Earth
5. Spike Lee Come Rain or Come Shine
6. Martin Scorsese The Neighborhood
7. Jerry Seinfeld The Greatest City on Earth
8. Kevin Smith Why I Love New #*$%!&@ York

MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I copied the list to the concert article. Thanks for finding the full list! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(Grin) You beat me to it. Now a mention of each person's specific short film contribution to The Concert for New York City makes perfect sense in the filmmakres own articles, tieing all the pieces together in a decent set of crosslinks. Nice. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge into The Concert for New York City Admrboltz (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment What is the source that confirms the titles of these films and their appearance in the program? I don't see a reference. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry. Here are sources for the list: All Movie Guide, MTV, VH1, and DVD Movie Guide... with All Movie Guide being the most comprehensive. I added AMG as source for the article's listing. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to The Concert for New York City per nominator. A three minute film wont have much on its own, and would fit in as one part of the more notable subject. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyung Jin Moon

Hyung Jin Moon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

His notability has been questioned. I personally feel that he is an important person, however others have said that he is only notable because of his relationship to his father Sun Myung Moon. I am not unbiased since I am a member of their church so I am bringing the question here. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge (to True Family) or delete: fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Virtually no reliably-sourced coverage. Sun Myung Moon routinely appoints people, particularly his children, to nominally senior positions within the Unification Church, that bestow no observable power or influence (one, Hyo Jin Moon, still doesn't appear to have been replaced in his position over a year after his death). "Despite last week's apparent transfer of power few expect Moon Sr, who was convicted in the US of tax evasion in 1982, to loosen his grip on power. 'He may have appointed his son, but Moon is constantly giving orders, and people do as they tell him,' a former member told the Guardian. 'He is unlikely to transfer any actual power to his sons.'"[25] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone ever said that Hyung Jin is important because he has "power", or that "power" would or should be transfered from his father to him. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

His sole claim to notability would appear to be his position within the UC. If that position carries no real authority, then the claim carries no real notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Sun Myung Moon himself is only important because some people (a million or so but still a distinct minority in a world of 6 billion) believe him to be the Second coming of Christ. He has no "power" to tell people what to do. (So the Guardian's focus on "power", used 3 times in that short quote, is kind of a red herring.) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And that 'belief' gives him "power" over them. They appear to have no belief of similar magnitude about Hyung Jin, which means he lacks any similar power. Earthly "power" may not have theological significance, but it is what the media writes about, so it is one of the things that makes a topic notable. It is not a "red herring" but simply a difference between what the media, and thus wikipedia, focuses upon, versus what church insiders consider to be significant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad The Guardian is not in charge of telling Wikipedia what is and is not notable. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is however our most substantive reliable source on the subject -- and its assessment meshes with the lack of observable impact that Sun Myung Moon's other senior appointees have had in their roles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep He was the subject of two newspaper stories in different countries, so he passes WP's standards of notability. The article itself could be better but maybe more sources will be found. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Goodness this is not even CLOSE to being notable and I am completely stumped how anyone could ever possibly believe he has achieved anything remotely resembling notability. JBsupreme (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually a person doesn't need to achieve anything to be notable. I do admit that he is of more interest to church members than to the general public. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The less an individual achieves, the less scope there is for "significant coverage" on them. This is the case in the two newspaper articles -- which concentrate more on Hyung Jin Moon as a window into the church than as the central topic. Hence the lack of biographical material from which to form an article. I would suggest that, even within the church, he is more of interest for who his parents are, than for the narrative of his life story. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/26/religion.korea) Guardian profile is indicative of his notability.--Pink Bull (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Post peak employment theory

Post peak employment theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is pure original research. It does not cite any (secondary ) sources. Though it looks like quackery, I have no definitive opinion on the content, but Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and the article should be deleted for this reason. Wefa (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails WP:FRINGE, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V (see [26]), WP:N, and WP:OR. It may become notable, who knows?. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Roland Teichmann

Roland Teichmann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete one-line unsourced BLP about someone who is the head of an organization we don't have an article on. NN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete no sources, no notability argumentWefa (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pablo the Drug Mule Dog

Pablo the Drug Mule Dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable advertising campaign, failing WP:NOTE due to a lack of WP:RS. One mention in the Guardian does not warrant an article. DJ 07:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Merge The Guardian story was not just a mention. The campaign itself seems to be fairly important. The article was at least interesting, which is more than can be said for lots of others. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to FRANK (drugs) or delete. There's really not enough coverage here for two articles (in fact there's barely enough between them even for one). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that there was another article. I agree with your suggestion to merge the two. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment There are top-notch sources out the wazoo for this.[27] [28] [29] [30] and more. It also won the top prizes at the IPA Best of Health Awards 2009 [31] 86.44.29.180 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There are lots more sources out there and I added a citation. Please see our editing and deletion policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As indicated above, by the IP, the sources are plentiful.--Pink Bull (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Mess EP

Sweet Mess EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN album, no charting, band doesn't particularly appear to be notable so the album does not derive notability from the band. →ROUX ₪ 20:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 05:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Gossip Girl. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Keith Van Der Woodsen

Keith Van Der Woodsen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not warrant its own article. Arguments to the contrary are not presented. The article has no references. I propose merging with parent article Gossip Girl Wefa (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, I was going to suggest redirecting to the Gossip Girl article, but if he isn't even listed as a minor character there, he doesn't deserve an article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge I would recommend merging into the Gossip Girl article. Byronwrites (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• After additional research, it seems the character may have a major role on a new television show Valley_Girls Byronwrites (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment That project was abandoned in May when the CW declined to pick up the project revolving around a young Lily Van der Woodsen, so even in that case we won't learn about the character's younger years at all except in leaked dead script form. Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Very minor character on this series. The very definition of "unseen father" that nobody talks about on the series or cares about. If he gets sprung onto the show in a later season, no prejudice to recreation, but for now there's no need for an article which basically reads "Keith is Serena's reclusive billionaire father". Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Jose Monteiro Lima

Jose Monteiro Lima (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not present any sources. Furthermore, even if we take all article's claims at face value, subject does not meet notability per WP:BIO - Monteiro Lima is of local relevance only Wefa (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• No sources, no cites: hard to avoid Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Shaun B'Laurent

Shaun B'Laurent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor, this article has been here since February and is still an orphan, the actor appears not to have had any significant roles. My speedy delete tag was removed by an IP editor who has made several edits to the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete lack of notability Wefa (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Younge Pakistan Flag Movement

Younge Pakistan Flag Movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable Pakistani political organization. Has not been noticed in any news articles, the only media exposure comes through youtube, and what appear to be Pakistani nationalist forums. Pstanton (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete. This article is new and needs expansion. The organization has been featured on news channels and have gained alot of google searches. Solution: improve article, not delete.

At some point somebody else would have created this article.

Taeyebaar (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

proposal okay if people dont want to see this article for now then i suggest storing it away and re-publishing after people see the organization and an article is required on wiki, this article can then be restored. Taeyebaar (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I did some Googling and apparently this organization has received media coverage.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ptu&q=%22young+pakistan+flag+movement%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=. Although not relevant to the deletion issue, there seems to be a typo in the name of the article, and it should be "Young" without the "e." I would create a new article with the correct name but I'm unsure if that's allowed while a vote is taking place on the merits of the article.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I am sure this is a real group hence the small group of ghits. However, this is a fairly new organization (May 2009) and does not seem to have generated sufficient coverage from major third party sources (i.e., not counting postings on youtube) to establish notability per WP:ORG. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Theisen

Alan Theisen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be entirely self-promotional and regarding an unremarkable subject which is not in the public interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triterubbish (talk • contribs) 19:51, May 13, 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete, subject fails notability test at WP:COMPOSER, but looks promising to pass in the future. He did start a new-music festival, but it's not yet notable either. No significant 3rd party coverage found in Google. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, tedder (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going on a limb and say weak keep due to his contributions as a composer as well as an academic in his field (has a Ph.D). While I could not find anything in a Google search, for stuff like this, one may have to look past Google to find something. MuZemike 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Villeins

The Villeins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think these guys meet WP:MUSIC just yet. Media coverage seems decidedly thin. Ray^Talk 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Willing to change vote if anything of substance comes to light.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 02:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I cited an article in the Evening Chronicle (newspaper in their hometown), but it discusses them only briefly. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

StockPhotoFinder

StockPhotoFinder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable photo search finder, fails WP:WEB. Thus, it has over thousand of photos have been searched in that site. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Q  : Specialized search engines may make a good list if it can be shown to be encyclopedic and non-reudundant with google or rest of web. Is there such a page for a merge? Unless this is not even boarder-line notable I would think a merge into a list may be possible. Note also that image search is a bit of a research area. If these is some novel feature that is published, cite that work and see if you can show this to be notable and interesting. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as it fails WP:WEB. I couldn't find any citations to assert its notability as the "first stock photo search engine", either. talkingbirds 22:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolf Mail

Wolf Mail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. No charted hits. No significant news coverage. External links only to blog sites or his own website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, there seems to be some coverage in Australian newspapers, such as the Central Coast Express [32] [33] and the Canberra Times [34]. According to The Spokesman-Review, he is "nationally revered". [35] I would lean towards keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The "nationally revered" remark appeared in an appearance announcement, and was doubtless written by a PR rep. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair point. Downgrade my recommendation to weak keep. As an aside, how successful would a musician have to be to hire a PR rep? Wouldn't they usually have had some press coverage already? ;) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Things I Want

Things I Want (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. It was not released as a single and is not covered in reliable sources. Also, the album it's on was deleted per this deletion discussion. It is by both Tenacious D and Sum 41, so a redirect isn't possible. Timmeh 22:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 04:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:NSONGS. The album on which it appears on does not even have its own article, nor is it notable enough to warrant one. talkingbirds 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Possibility of merge to a single article. Black Kite 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Style (DVD)

Style (DVD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Girls Aloud: Greatest Hits Live From Wembley Arena (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tangled Up Tour (DVD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Girls on Film (DVD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

What Will the Neighbours Say? Live (DVD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Non-notable DVDs, with no reliable sources to prove notability. DJ 07:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The situation is somewhat analogous to criteria in WP:NALBUMS in that they are releases by a notable group. Some have hit high positions in the appropriate charts, and so arguably merit inclusion here on that basis. A quick look tells me that none of these could not benefit from any improvement, but that is not a reason not to have articles on each. The alternative is to merge to Girls Aloud videography, but that is already a subsection of the discography, and doesn't have the detail provided by these individual articles. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Commercial release by notable band = notability. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunrise Software

Sunrise Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Queried AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 15:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. ... company specialising in IT Service Management Software, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: according to reference three (a book), the company has won 2 awards. The second reference does not mention about being a finalist the award that it is cited for. Other than that bit, it fails WP:COMPANY for lack of third-party coverage/secondary sources. talkingbirds 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Central Broadcast News

Central Broadcast News (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Central Broadcast News" – news · books · scholar · images)

This was originally tagged {{db-corp}} but I thought I would bring it here because the article has been around for a few months. In my opinion the article does not show that the station is notable outside of the school, so it should be deleted. ... discospinster _talk 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete High school CCTV channels are rarely notable, and this isn't an exception. Only independent reliable source I could find was a passing mention here. Shubinator (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable student club. Hairhorn (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• I am the author of this article and I take great exception, albeit in a respectful manner, to the points made that the organization being discussed is insignificant. While this might appear this way to the individuals who nominated the page for speedy deletion, the organization is currently in talks with Apple and several various other tech/media companies to enter a partnership beginning this coming year. I assure you this organization is significant, and within a few months, it will become evident as to why as more notoriety is established within the broadcast media community. Please hold off on the deletion of this article as it does contribute positively to the Wikipedia community. Kw2957 (talk)

• Are there reliable sources describing these talks? If CBN has not been covered by independent, reliable sources, it does not meet our notability guideline. When it does get significant coverage, the article can be created. Shubinator (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, but pending. Author appears genuine in his appeal and it is advisable to keep the article up for a few months to see if such talks allow for greater notability. Deleting the article now would make no sense seeing as the future of this group appears bright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.153.76 (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. Any speculation on future notability fails WP:CRYSTAL. An admin can restore the article when and if the club becomes notable; alternatively, userfication may be appropriate here. Tim Song (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pywin32

Pywin32 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A prod was removed by the creator in January because of the trivial mentions in Google Books. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Joe Chill (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to ActivePython, which itself is pretty sparse, or to Python (programming language) ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. And I'm a Python programmer. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Have your robot pythons ever bit you? Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I've been careful not to import antigravity or import skynet --Cybercobra (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Liliana Gil

Liliana Gil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Liliana Gil" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable. There are some Google News results but they appear to be promotional press release or mentions of Gil which do not demonstrate sufficiently against Wikipedia:Notability (people). In particular the awards mentioned are corporate promotional and not recognized by the general public apart from a National Latino Award 2008 (on my count there were 18 recipients of these awards) but I do not believe that that award alone can demonstrate notability here. The article itself is a CV and requires major rewrite but as there is no reason to think independent sources (i.e. not based on J&J press releases) will demonstrate notability, deletion is the better action. The article has been marked for notability and clean-up for over 18 months with no sign of improvement. Ash (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete  : Did anyone find sources? It looks like creators are some kind of promotors ( guessing from alias and article style) and no one has bothered to find sources of substance. But, if she helps get Tysabri away from Biogen I will recuse myself again :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sylvia Villagran

Sylvia Villagran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable voiceover artist. Lacks GHits of substance and nothing in GNEWS to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb1 (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete mostly per nom. The sources in the article aren't about her, and I can't find anything to evidence "significant coverage". ThemFromSpace 03:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gianmichael Salvato

Gianmichael Salvato (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested proposed deletion. Questionable assertions of notability at best. No references whatsoever. I am nominating it as proxy for Kjnelan. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 03:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nihiltres! This article was originally PRODed on 19:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC) by User:ukexpat after my bringing the page to: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive67#Gianmichael_Salvato since the page carried only Weasel and Peacock and since all attempts at providing appropriate third party cites were fruitless. It was decided by others that the page should be PRODed.

According to the history of the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gianmichael_Salvato&action=history) the prod was removed literally moments before deletion by someone, who in the history comment only, claimed I was the one contesting the PROD. For the record, I am not contesting the PROD and am in fact for removing the page.

My own personal feeling is that the person who removed the PROD does so on their own randomly (Special:Contributions/Mardaloop) and does so without explanation (as evidenced from their talk page at: User_talk:Mardaloop. This almost appears as if Mardaloop is a... well... I'll assume good faith for the moment.

The page was available for deletion for seven full days and literally moments before the deletion it was de-proded.

I am pro-deletion for Gianmichael Salvato. Thank you for the opportunity to present my case. Kjnelan (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Addendum: I am pro-deletion for the following reason(s) (which were also provided for the first discussion, though no discussion resulted): 1.) Non-notable subject, no references and nothing reliable thrown up by Google. 2.) Talk:Gianmichael_Salvato/Comments.)

I'd also like to nom the article for "Speedy Deletion" since the user (Mardaloop) who de-PRODed the article has been accused as a Sockpuppet, but I am not sure the criteria has been met or if that is inappropriate at this time. Kjnelan (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @037  ·  23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A comment was left at Talk:Gianmichael Salvato regarding this issue. Kjnelan (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

and more comments were left here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjnelan (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comments were removed by User:Nja247 due to legal threats by User_talk:98.235.25.88. Kjnelan (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Wholly unreferenced BLP with a borderline assertion of notability. Lara 03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeshiva World News

Yeshiva World News (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert page for a site with no notability. Triplestop x3 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Some review at Google suggests that it's a serious and fairly well-known news source for the Orthodox/Hasidic community. A Google News search, as well as the website's own "In the News" section, turns up at least several dozen examples of mainstream reliable news sources relying on and/or referencing news reports originating in Yeshiva World News. The multiple mentions in mainstream reliable sources would satisfy the notability issue for me.
  However, I agree that in its current state the article is almost entirely fluff, beyond its initial identifying sentence. I'd note that the same problem seems to exist for the article about YWN's competitor, Vosizneias, which was duly stripped to a single sentence in March.[36] However, a Google search of the string <"Vos iz neias" "yeshiva world news"> turns up more than 3,500 hits that mention both sites. Most of this is just blogger stuff but news reports do pop up here and there discussing and/or comparing the sites. One of the oldest (when this was still a blogspot blog) is this from the May 22, 2006 Times Herald-Record:

Talk feels compelled to give a tip of the, um, black hat to the Yeshiva World blog, which can be found at www.yeshivaworld.blogspot.com. This nameless blogger has got a lot of chutzpah, opening a warts-and-all window onto the world of the orthodox Hasidim who live in the Orange County community of Kiryas Joel, as well as Brooklyn, Rockland County and Israel.

There is also this article[37] in the Five Towns Jewish Times that discussed both Yeshiva World News and Vosizneias. More investigation would be justified.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit more: The article in the Five Towns Jewish Times cited above describes YWN and Vosizneias as "the dominant news sources on the Internet for religious Jews." An article in Jewcy, highly critical of YWN in comparison to Vosizneias, nevertheless describes it as "one of the main places where the right-wing Orthodox community gets their news".[38] And this piece from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website decries both of the sites, along with some others, as "a group of Jewish news aggregation Web sites, predominantly serving the ultra-Orthodox community, which copy and republish in-full, without permission or payment, content from more prominent Jewish news sources, robbing them of both desperately needed licensing fees and revenue-generating Web site traffic."[39] The latter 2 articles don't reflect positively on YWN but all of them do seem to tend to establish its notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It is just a blog that seeks to advertise itself. Most of his contents is wither unattributed Vosizneias or local news feeds. Even if he sometimes covers events in his neighborhood, that is no different than many town and local interest blogs. He is an aggregate of Orthodox news not a source. Most blogs have been noted in newspaper human interest stories, that does not make them notable. --Jayrav (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep because in the age of the Internet, whereby people obtain news and track local and international current events from the web, this has become THE premier site for American English speaking Haredi Jews to gain their news as well as to post and read many announcements of direct interest to that community. While independently run it generally reflects the views of the Agudath Israel of America in a broad sense which itself has no websites and indirectly relies on YWN to get its "news" out. The article needs improvement but it most definitely is WP:N with many WP:R easily available. It certainly qualifies to be in Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism or Category:Jewish websites all part of Category:Jewish media. Note, this is also clearly a case of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Its a anonymous blog thus not responsible for its content. I would like to have a responsible encyclopedia that only links to respected blogs, as a Haredi Wikipedian, I can attest that this is not notable enough for an encyclopedia.--Chaim Shel (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Gets a significant amount of traffic according to Compete and Alexa. Barely passes notability requirements. Byronwrites (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The YWN website is well known among the ultra-orthodox jews as the leading news in their interests. Unlike VIN, The Yesiva World is more tamed and doesn't have the bloggers taking over the site.I totally disagree with Jayrav; While VIN will usually just copy news from other sources, YWN usually will obtain original news as a source. The NYPD as well as many other Goverment agencies and Elected officials will generally use YWNover VIN to convey their message to the public . Search YWN and VIN match them and you'll see it. Many ultra-orthodox jews get their news from YWN because of their restraint to frequent "immoral"news websites. Its services also benefit the jewish community enormously. But I do agree with Arxiloxos that the article needs more but as IZAK said "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.167.131 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Craig Calver

Craig Calver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Craig Calver" – news · books · scholar · images)

Youth team player who has never played at a fully-professional level yet, thus failing WP:ATH. Also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable youth Spiderone (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 09:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the inclusion criteria of either WP:Athlete or WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bratunac massacre

Bratunac massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bratunac massacre" – news · books · scholar · images)

WP is not a soapbox. There are no sources available on google.books, the few websites I could google were either Serb nationalist sites or just referred to the article at B92, a Serb web page. The article (only reference provided) just repeats a Serb politician's statement. In sum: totally falls short of WP:V and there's no likelihood that verifiability will be achieved. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Republika Srpska government officials have marked the massacre anniversary, it happened, and B92 is a reliable source. There is not only one source, look closer at the article. --Cinéma C 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The other source you provided is a historian's book that is as relaible a source as David Irving. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - B92 is not the only source. If you search Masakr u Bratuncu you will surely find more sources. The death of 69 people, 70 wounded and 19 missing... Worth keeping here. --Bolonium (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: I think all ethnic based mass murders during wars are notable. I am also aware this is a stub and improvement would be beneficial. Ijanderson (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much notability, but verifiability. We even don't know if the said event did occur (ABiH + Muslim militants committing a massacre), or it is just a Serb Nationalist method to discount the Srebrenica genocide. Sorry, but a Serb newspaper article with reference to a SDS politician's statement is no way WP:V. The corresponding Serbian wiki article http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masakr_u_Bratuncu is also unreferenced. The book (Milivoje Ivanišević: Hronika našeg groblja- author is a well-known Srebrenica genocide denier) offered there is clearly WP:FRINGE. So, unless reliable sources are provided, this stub should be deleted. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

B92 is Serbia's answer to the UK's BBC. Obviously it's not as big or international as the BBC, however it is a national provider for Serbia with media via TV, Radio, Internet and by Phone. B92 is a reliable professional source. However in the last few months or so I have noticed that it has stepped up it's allegiance to Belgrade. Ijanderson (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, Read this: Research And Documentation Center: THE MYTH OF BRATUNAC: A BLATANT NUMBERS GAME. Serbian Radical Party, Serbian pro-fascist movement, every year organises commemoration for alleged Bratunac casualties. On the link, you can read more detailes about number game. Those radicals do this every year after Srebrenica genocide commemoration as provocation. The problem is, there were no Bratunac massacre, except the one in 1992, when Serbs expelled all Bosniaks from the town. Give one, just one, WP:RS to verify "Bratunac massacre" title. There is also one more trick to this. Serbs commemorate all Serbian military and civilian casualties from the 1992-1995 Bosnian War, as the casualties of the massacre?! 80% of the Serbian casualties in Bosnian War according to the official data were soldiers died in the battles. They even commemorate those "victims" on the Military Graveyard (in Serbian: Vojničko groblje [40] u Bratuncu). Some of them died in 1992, some of them in 1993, some of them in 1994. So, when you are talking about massacre, you have to provide verified facts for mass execution that happened in a specific time. This is not the case here. ICTYoda (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The link you have provided is an extremely pro-Bosniak source. "The Myth of Bratunac" is no different that titling a text "The Myth of Srebrenica", as some biased Serbian sources do. Both massacres happened, unfortunately.
2. The Serbian Radical Party is not a Serbian pro-fascist movement, it is a right-wing political party in Serbia.

You have to stop spreading your anti-Serb propaganda, trying to hide a massacre against Serbs will do no good to this free encyclopedia. Before I took action, ALL the massacres listed in the Bosnian war infobox were against Bosnian Muslims, NONE against Serbs or Croats. This is highly biased, as you yourself admit that a percentage (smaller than the accurate amount) of Serb civilians were also killed. So, instead of finding biased sources against this, try contributing by creating a more balanced outlook on the Bosnian war - no innocent victims are "worth less" because you believe their side is the "aggressor". --Cinéma C 19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Back in May 1992, Serbs massacred 80 Bosniaks in Glogova. If we are going to talk about "Bratunac Massacre" then we may as well talk about real massacres, those deliberately perpetrated by Serb forces against Bosniaks in Bratunac. More than 1000 Bosniaks were killed in Bratunac in 1992. Bratunac was a Muslim town which was ethnically cleansed froom Bosniaks by Serb Army. Serbs committed horrendous crimes against Bosniaks in Bratunac and surrounding Bosnian Muslim villages. You quoted source for your claim to be "Milivoje Ivanisevic" - Serbian proapgandist and Srebrenica genocide denier. He has no credibility, authority, or respect to be taken seriously for anything. He is one-sided pro-Serbian extremist who repeatedly denied Serb crimes against Bosniaks in Podrinje. Serbs used to re-write history with lies about 700,000 dead Serbs in Jasenovac (when in fact only 50,000 died as per the US Holocaust Museum data). Now you want to re-write the history of Bratunac, former Muslim town from which you expelled Muslims? It's not going to work. The International Tribunal at the Hague has already spoken. The facts: Serbs are overhelmingly responsible for war crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Court has spoken. Do whatever you want to do, but you will never be able to change these facts. Bosniak (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Comment

• You are not telling the truth. The link is not pro-Bosniak source at all. It is multi-ethnic Research and Documentation Center. It's sponsored by Norway, Britain, Germany, Switzerland etc. RDC cooperate with: The University of Georgia, The Inter-Parliamentary Union British Group, The Royal Norwegian Embassy, The Glocal Forum, Swiss Peace Foundation, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights etc. Read it here [41]. The curiosity is, that Serbian side used data from RDC in the Bosnian v. Serbia Case for Genocide as an example of neutrality. So please, try not to spread propaganda, rather check it first. ICTYoda (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding massacres, if you want to write about it, you have to provide verfied facts. I will be the first to support you. But, let's take one example. Few years ago, Serbian media started a campaign about 3,500 Serbs killed by Naser Orić, Bosnian commander of Srebrenica. They sent thousands of "documents" to ICTY. After that, ICTY started a process against Naser Oric, and what happened? He was found not guilty. Furthermore ICTY concluded that there were no 3,500 Serbian casualties, but 5 soldiers killed as POWs. So I am very aware of what propaganda is. ICTYoda (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I can financially support the Serbian Radical Party here from Canada, but that doesn't mean the party is neutral, now does it? That site doesn't even have a single Serb working there, which can be seen from the names of the people working there. So much for your claims of a multi-ethnic Research and Documentation Center. Furthermore, the website is in English and Bosnian, and doesn't have Croatian and Serbian, the other two official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

If the Serbian government claims the death 3,500 dead civilians (this is your information, not mine), I'd like to see some sources, please. Maybe Naser Oric didn't kill 3,500 Serb civilians. Because there is no evidence showing that he did it, we can't know, but does that mean that the Serbs weren't killed by someone? But I'd like to see a source for your claim, preferably a list of the 3,500 Serbs that were killed, this is new information to me. --Cinéma C 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per cogent arguments from ICTYoda and Miacek. The UN reported that the Serbs counted those of their paramilitaries who were killed attacking Bosniak villages in the Srebrenica region as civilian casualties. The article exploits Wikipedia as a vehicle for Serbian historical revisionism. Writegeist (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as per Cinema, Bolonium and Ijanderson. --A.Molnar (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: A.Molnar's vote seems to be WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ILIKEIT Ijanderson (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source by AFP: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwY6CmRCt-iyUFVkY5tSO0voidUg

The Bratunac massacre happened, despite the efforts of some groups to keep that from the world --A.Molnar (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Editorially, the AFP report does not corroborate or verify the Serbs' Bratunac massacre fiction; neither does it cite any verification from any independent source. It merely reports a wreath-laying ceremony, and in that context it quotes a Serbian official's reiteration of the Serbian claims. The report does not meet WP:BOP. It is irrelevant to this deletion debate. Writegeist (talk)

• Delete and/or redirect Where's the beef? For an alleged massacre we have two lines on info on the matter and one citation. Now I'm all for the addition of info but this would be better in a much more firmly established article I think. Alternatively, if you can add some info the on the massacre then I may reconsider my position here. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was just created. Do we have to build a featured article in a matter of days here? There are already reliable references and this is just an attempt to remove all mention of Serb deaths during the Bosnian war. --Cinéma C 06:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment re. Cinema's comment above: there are no grounds for the assertion that this is "just an attempt to remove all mention of Serb deaths during the Bosnian war." Rather, it is an attempt to remove an article that violates WP:V. To keep the article, the purported massacre would have to be verifed in reliable sources. Cinema, can you achieve that? If so, I would of course oppose deletion. Writegeist (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Per ICTYoda, I want to see some "real" proof that this so called "massacre" took place. Ijanderson (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I will apologize in advance for the long comment I'm about to leave, but I think it's necessary to sufficiently explain what's going on here to users who are perhaps not as familiar with the peculiarities of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

So let's look at some facts to introduce the topic. 1.) According to the most comprehensive survey of war deaths in Bosnia-Herzegovina, some 83.3% of the country's 39,685 civilian victims were Bosnian Muslims. 2.) As should be well known by now, this number / percentage is likely to be higher, considering that many of the several thousand civilian victims of the Srebrenica massacre reported their loved ones as soldiers to receive state benefits. 3.) According to the president of Sarajevo's Serb Citizens Council, Mirko Pejanovic, about one fourth of the 12,000 victims of Republika Srpska shelling during the siege of Sarajevo were Bosnian Serbs.

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to realize that the civilian casualties of the Bosnian war were overwhelmingly Bosnian Muslim. Why do I point this out? To counter claims by users such as Cinéma that there's obviously something biased with Wikipedia's coverage of the Bosnian war because the massacres covered are disproportionally those of Bosnian Muslims. I'm sorry, but I have another explanation for this phenomenon - perhaps it's because the overwhelming majority of significant war crimes against civilians were indeed directed against Bosnian Muslims. This is a fact backed up again and again through such credible sources as the Research and Documentation Center and the findings of the ICTY. It also just plain makes historical sense. Through most of the war, the Sarajevo-based government waged a defensive struggle, holding on to only the most overwhelmingly Bosnian Muslim portions of the country.

Now please don't get me wrong. I am in no way implying that Serb civilian casualties were nonexistent or insignificant. In fact, I'm a heavy critic of the Izetbegovic government and I even wrote an extensive article about one of the most infamous war criminals in the Bosnian army, Jusuf Prazina. Certainly, Serb civilians in Bosnian government territory had a very rough time; there were a number of detention camps, it was not uncommon for POWs to be killed, fighting-age men to disappear, etc. I agree that it's important that these events receive attention on wikipedia (as with, for instance, the article on Mušan Topalović). What I am saying, however, is that we let go of this ridiculous idea that a balanced account of the Bosnian war requires some sort of 1:1:1 proportion of war crimes among the three major sides - that flies against all historical reality.

In regards to the article here itself, let's look at what it contains. The only major source is B92. Yes, certainly, B92 is a very credible site (I'm a fan myself), but that doesn't mean that every single piece of historical information they list is accurate. After all; B92 is a media outlet, not an academic journal focused on the events in question. Oslobodenje, Sarajevo's most respected newspaper, is equally credible, but I'm sure you'll find numerous stories by them in the 90s with quotes from Bosnian government officials about an alleged 200,000 war victims. That figure was frequently cited in numerous credible media outlets, but we now know that this information is false. What we basically have here is Republika Srpska officials claiming that people were massacred, even though the numbers they list make no sense given what we know from the RDC and ICTY. I suggest everyone here read [[42]] section of the Srebrenica massacre article for a more thorough explanation of how reports of Serb victims in the Srebrenica region (including Bratunac) was frequently exaggerated for political purposes.

To give but the most famous example, the near by village of Kravica was often the standard reference point for examples of henious Bosnian Muslim crimes against Serbs in the region. Numerous radical Serb sources, including the "Hronika naseg groblja" listed under "see also" in the Bratunac massacre article, typically claimed that some 350 Serb civilians were murdered in cold blood on Orthodox Christmas Eve. The reality? The ICTY determined, based on the army of Republika Srpska's own internal records, that 43 people were killed in an armed skirmish, 13 of whom were civilians. It's also important to note that even the B92 article admits that the number of victims includes both civilians and military deaths (again, the Srebrenica massacre article's sections goes into more detail about this). How much sense is there to label the death of VRS soldiers in armed battle a "massacre." In short, before starting an article of this nature we'd have to have detailed evidence, preferably from an international tribunal, about what really happened here. Surely the Serbian government reported such atrocities to the ICTY in the Oric case; isn't it a little suspicious that nothing ever came of it?

Essentially, we need credible sources for something like this. A B92 article quoting Republika Srpska officials and a discredited nationalist tract wont do. Live Forever (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Revise. I went to the article expecting to find more information about the Bratunac massacre described in Hasan Nuhanovic's "Under the UN Flag", his narrative of events leading up to and including the Srebrenica genocide. Setting the scene and indicating why the Dutchbat III's training should have prepared them for the possibility of a genocidal onslaught against Srebrenica is a description of events preceding July 1992, at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5:

"At the very beginning of the conflict (aggression), precisely in May 1992, the Bosnian Serb forces rounded up the entire Muslim population of Bratunac town and the surrounding villages and brought them to a soccer field. Women and young children were then deported towards Tuzla and men and boys were separated and taken to an improvised detention facility. In the nearby primary school the Bosnian Serb forces tortured and executed hundreds of Bosniak males. Their bodies were buried in mass graves.

At the same time the the Bosnian Serb forces burned villages in the area and committed atrocities. The first village in which atrocities were committed was Glogova, several kilometers away from Bratunac.

All men and boys around two hundred, were rounded up, killed and buried in a mass grave.

Many other villages in the same area had the same or similar fate during the spring of 1992."

The article as it stands appears to lack any account of its subject. Opbeith (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Opbeith, see my response above. In Bratunac and around Srebrenica area, more than 4,000 Bosniaks were killed in 1992. Bosniak (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Alright, those are some fairly convincing arguments. I'm not an unreasonable man. Delete it. --Cinéma C 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinema C, you have identified a basic problem. I'm not aware of the existence of an honest account of the specific sufferings of innocent civilian Serbs in the Bosnian war on Wikipedia. Serbian campaigners for truth and justice appear to have too much on their hands simply trying to get their compatriots to acknowledge what happened, so the propagandists tend to dominate the Wikipedia history of Serbia's and the Serbs' involvement in the Bosnian war.

That seems to be part of the reason for the apparently imbalanced listing of massacres in the Bosnian war that you remarked on. The other is of course that the imbalance is rooted in the grim reality. It's not a question of just the deaths of Serbs and Croats going unmarked. There are scores of notable massacres of Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims that have no article at Wikipedia recording them, like the massacre at Zaklopaca (near Vlasenica) on 16 May 1992, to take one example of many. Opbeith (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete; doesn't seem to be verifiable with multiple, independent, non-biased sources at present. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - it seems the debate should be closed, as the author of the article did admit the arguments for deleting the page were convincing and has changed the vote. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I would like to remind everyone of the basic policy of verifiability. Any personal opinions we might have of whether the accounts of this massacre are credible are irrelevant, if there are authoritative, verifiable references that report it. This policy is intended to short-circuit endless, circular arguments over "truth". Did Turks massacre a million Armenians in 1916? In some circles reports of this massacre are extremely controversial. We don't let those who claim it didn't happen suppress coverage because they challenge the credibility of those reports. I suggest the commemoration described in the B-92 report is worth covering, even if only one ethnic group found the account credible. Some contributors here have complained that there were other massacres alleged to have occurred in the Yugoslav wars that are better documented. So what? Shouldn't we cover every massacre for which there are verifiable sources? That massacres exist with better references is not an argument for deleting this article -- it is an argument for covering the other massacres as well. Geo Swan (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Geo Swan, you address us with apparent authority on the subject of verifiability and then you seem to misunderstand the basic principle. Publication of a report provides a basis for verification, it doesn't confer authority in itself. Even reliable sources are not necessarily infallible, but in this case the reliability of the source is irrelevant. The report itself simply does not provide the information that it's alleged to.

When you say "I suggest the commemoration described in the B-92 report is worth covering, even if only one ethnic group found the account credible." you move the discussion of the article's subject from the "Bratunac massacre" to the "Bratunac massacre commemoration".

You seem to have noticed the fact that the reference does not provide any facts about the massacre itself, it simply reports the comment of the president of the "Republic of Srpska Government Committee for Upholding Traditions of the Wars of Liberation" baldly asserting that "It’s well known that on July 12, 1992 69 civilians were killed, 70 wounded, while a further 19 are still listed as missing in three villages—Sase, Zalazje and Biljača".

I am not aware of any grounds for believing that either the Committee or its president Branka Šljivar should be considered a reliable source. Before suggesting that the credibility of the report is being questioned in order to "suppress coverage" of the "massacre", perhaps you could first check the verifiability of the article's content. Opbeith (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragan Glavasic

Dragan Glavasic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Dragan Glavasic" – news · books · scholar · images)

Doesn't show notability. Google search shows nothing. If this article turns out to be a keep, it needs major improvement. ^TheWeak_Willed 20:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. With "similar results omitted" a Google search for '"Dragan Glavasic" -torrent' gives 58 hits, mostly subject's own sites, forums, download links for the e-books or web stats. Zero gnews hits. --TheSmuel (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject, who is claimed to be "the most significant contemporary philosopher and one of the greatest thinkers ever", does not make it in the notability stakes. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. The article shows no evidence of passing WP:PROF or any other form of notability, does not seem to be very neutrally written, has only one source cited (and it's impossible to tell whether that's really a third-party source or whether it supports anything in the article), and is a quote farm and coat rack for crankish ravings. We're better off without, and in all likelihood Glavasic himself will subsequently write that this deletion is "the very best thing that could happen". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Camden College of English

Camden College of English (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Camden College of English" – news · books · scholar · images)

This looks like fairly blatant spamvertorial to me, and I can't see any way this college differs from any of the thousands of other TEFL colleges in every major English-speaking city. Given that it's been live for four years now and edited by multiple editors - none of whom appear to have seen any problem with it - I'll give it benefit of the doubt and bring it over for discussion, but I'm really not seeing it in this case.  – iridescent 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Their one remote claim to fame, that on 02 March 2006, the British Council announced that Language in London (previously called Camden College of English) had won the ELTON for Innovation in English Language Teaching was actually series of awards in which five other organisations also 'won' [43]. ninety:one 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Almost a G11 speedy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- colleges merely providing course to foreign students in the English language are harly notable. If it has been renamed, the article should be moved to its new name, but deletion would be better still. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I am not an expert on Wikipedia, so please forgive if I have not entered the details correctly. As the Principal of the school, I may be able to answer some questions. Firstly, the British Council ELTONS are the most important awards in the English teaching world and Camden College of English / Language in London is still the only school in the world to have won. The winners last year were the BBC and in previous years it is mainly the major publishers who get the awards. There are three winners each year - so to say our prize was meaningless because others also won is a bit silly. In fact, it's like saying let's not mention Jack Nicholson got an Oscar because there were other winners that night. The reason we are the only school to ever win is that we developed a course and with it a method of teaching that is different to other schools and that has to be worth a mention. Wikipedia is not a source of advertising for us and I'd be very happy if your removed anything that made it look like a "spamevertorial". Would it be better for me to write an article on the course itself and why it is different / won the prize etc.? I'll check back and answer any questions you might have. Stuart Rubenstein LondonEnglish (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC), Principal, Language in London.
  • Writing articles about your own organisation is generally discouraged. If you really really want an article, you can follow the procedure here and hope for the best. Bear in mind, however:

1) Most articles on Wikipedia stay or go depending on the General Notability Guideline, which is that the subject of the article must have non-trivial coverage in independent third-party sources. Awards are a weaker claim, especially if the awards themselves aren't that notable.

2) Once an article has been accepted on Wikipedia, you have no control over what goes in it. If there is anything written about your College which you'd rather was kept quiet, chances are it will find its way in eventually. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stuart, please read WP:ORG, which is our guideline just for companies. The article would have to meet this guideline, which I think is unlikely. ninety:one 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. I've followed the links and certainly know much more about the world of wikipedia than I did before. Don't want to have an argument with anyone and will bow to your judgement and accept any advice. Stuart Rubenstein LondonEnglish (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Virus Nine

Virus Nine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Virus Nine" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable band. ninety:one 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• .Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep per new sources. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Routine nn-band. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I found few sources, see [44], [45], [46], and [47].--Cannibaloki 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A self-published MySpace blog doesn't count, so that's a grand total of three reviews. ninety:one 16:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:MUSIC says a band is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." I've added the three non-blog reviews above, and a newspaper article easily found in a gnews search (and cleaned up the article). While I'd like to see the two exclaim.ca pieces be a bit longer, this adds up to multiple works for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• keep passes WP:BAND #5. Could use improvement however. ^TheWeak_Willed 01:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable. Fair Deal (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Joshua burlin

Joshua burlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Joshua burlin" – news · books · scholar · images)

• I found a move in my local video store with this guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.122.216 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actor who does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Possibly a hoax. IMDB link is to a page for "Josh Bowlin", who only has 1 credit listed. Can't find anything relevant on google, searching for both names with the TV show titles mentioned. BelovedFreak 19:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy G3, hoax. ninety:one 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• I produced a movie and Josh Burlin was the lead, definitely real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.214.229.120 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with haste Two articles found in Google News... neither is about an actor. Even a regular Google search finds no references to an actor with this name. There was no character named Eddie Maloy in the Dallas series [48] for 7 seasons, nor does the name Josh Burlin come up in relationship to any of the notable projects that were asserted. [49]. Hoax? Yup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Levis Almighty

Levis Almighty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Levis Almighty" – news · books · scholar · images)

Comic book series - fails to meet notability guidelines. Is unverifiable as far as I can tell from google, google news & google books. Certainly appears to be no non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. BelovedFreak 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. I Googled "Levis Almighty" and found nothing other than the Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and DreamFocus. Note the lack of indication in the article as to (a) who created this character and (b) who publishes the comic. (My guesses would be (a) the writer of this Wikipedia article and (b) nobody.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Someone's bored and creating hoaxes. No sources at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete As the article says, "for now the series is still in the making." Blackbirdz (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NXg

NXg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "NXg" – news · books · scholar · images)

A merger to The Hindu was proposed but I decided not to do it when I was merging other supplements. Reasons: 1 - No substantive content worth merging (main article includes one line on what this is), 2 - Content is out dated, the Hindu changed this from a supplement to an online mag, 3 - This will result in a 'Redirect - other uses' hat note on the article, unwanted in The Hindu. I've also discussed this with User:Thryduulf who proposed the merger. Xe agrees that AfD is a better option. Delete -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per SpacemanSpiff's nomination rationale. I debated marking it for deletion when I proposed the merger. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete-besides the above rationale, I do not find anything on this page worth keeping.keystoneridin! (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Title is not a likely search word, and a redirect is not reuired to comply with GFDL/CC-NY either. Abecedare (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Phantom Pain

Phantom Pain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Phantom Pain" – news · books · scholar · images)

What makes this band notable? Cannibaloki 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. As far as I can see, it's not. A speedy candidate - {{db-band}}. I42 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable band, but does make good faith efforts to establish notability. ninety:one 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We should also include The Hypocrite. ninety:one 20:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WP:NAC. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator, which is essentially WP:WHOCARES. Tim Song (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ihm guwahati

Ihm guwahati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ihm guwahati" – news · books · scholar · images)

NOt a subject of much interest to general public BwB (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have moved the article to Institute of Hotel Management, Guwahati, which is its proper name. It is a genuine educational institute founded in 1984 and run by the Government of India [50], and thus an obvious keep. The article needs an overhaul, but that is not a reason for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Abecedare as a verifiable tertiary educational institution. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - government college with courses that lead to professional qualifications. The deletion nomination is fundamentally flawed; if it was a requirement for the page to be kept that it was "a subject of much interest to general public" then that would exclude many scholarly articles and this place would be even fuller with popular culture than it is now! TerriersFan (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles' wives

The Beatles' wives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Beatles' wives" – news · books · scholar · images)

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 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete. A pointless page that is part-disamgib/part-list/part article. All of these women, bar one, have their own article and this article does not add anything extra that other articles do not - it's just lumping the infomation together in one place, making WP:FANCRUFT the likely suspect. Without breaking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, keeping this article creates a dangerous precedent. Suddenly we'll have The Spice Girls' husbands or Michael Jackson's children, maybe even The Beatles' pets - where do we draw the line? I can see an influx of angry fans on the horizon, so I'd like to remind the closing admin that this is a discussion, not a majority vote. DJ 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not a meaningful group. So they each married a Beatle. Are they more significantly related somehow? No. Triplestop x3 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ^TheWeak_Willed 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Even if none of these women had articles, this article would still be nothing but cruft. TJ Spyke 22:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article works as a list. With the death of George Harrison and John Lennon, the widows have become part of the Beatles legacy, as they represent the interests of the estates of their husbands, so the wives have become more significant as a group. Cjc13 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Burnt Ash (band)

Burnt Ash (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Burnt Ash (band)" – news · books · scholar · images)

Nothing to indicate notability. Allmusic search shows no results. ^TheWeak_Willed 17:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete have produced a demo, as yet nothing more. Their album has not been released (as yet). Boleyn2 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, not exactly the easiest name to search for, but I still can't find significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Fails notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Esradekan (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if just someone took the time to Wikify it, i dont see a reason for deletion atleast.--Judo112 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of schools in Leicestershire#Primary Schools. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School, Loughborough

St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School, Loughborough (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School, Loughborough" – news · books · scholar · images)

Non-notable Primary school. Importance has not been asserted within the article. Hitro talk 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability and a google search reveals nothing except trivial mentions -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question: For US schools, consensus is that we merge/redirect to the town, school district or diocese if such an article exists. Is this commonly done for UK schools? And if so, is there an appropriate diocese, or should it be merged to Loughborough?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect and/or Merge to List of schools in Leicestershire#Primary Schools per Fabrictramp. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Loughborough. A list article is not an appropriate target, sicne this will usually have no more than names. Our education authorities are County Councils, with dozens of schools, so that they are not appropriate merge tagets. The school will also be run by the relevant Catholic diocese, but it will also have a lot of schools. There is accordingly no satisfactory "board" merge target. My suggested target has an "education" section, currently dealing with the university and college. This could have a further subsection on other secondary schools (if there are any) and Primary Schools. This kind of merge is usually the best solution for institutions that only have local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and most certainly not delete. I agree with Peterkingiron that a merge into Loughborough is the best way forward. The number of schools in Leicestershire makes covering all the schools in the 'List of' article rather impractical. Also, it is normal to cover schools in the UK at the lowest level locality article. A good approach would be to add a brief summary of De Lisle Catholic Science College and mention what is sensible about each of the feeder primaries. TerriersFan (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm the person who wrote this article. This is a notable school in loughborough and should not be deleted i'm okay with it being put under another heading with other primary schools in leicstershire though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-xoxo (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Garry Lewis

Garry Lewis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Garry Lewis" – news · books · scholar · images)

Marginal assertion of notability: apparently a working artist, but no major exhibitions, etc. How many 3D animators are there in the industry, anyhow? Certainly they are not all encyclopedic, and nothing about Mr. Lewis' career seems exceptionally noteworthy. Lithoderm 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Lithoderm 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Agree with points made above - nothing to prove notability and no references. Google brought up an NFL player, an aviation photographer and a real estate company, but it was about three pages in before it mentioned the artist, and that just confirmed that he had co-written a book published by a niche publisher. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• DeleteAgree with Lithoderm. Clubmarx (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reinaldo Quintero

Reinaldo Quintero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Reinaldo Quintero" – news · books · scholar · images)

No assertion of notability; all references are from blogs and deviant art journals. No noteworthy exhibits or works mentioned. Lithoderm 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Lithoderm 16:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Revamped the whole article. I highly suggest reconsideration of the AfD before deletion. Victor "waran4" N. Bakke (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You added photos, yes, but the lack of reliable sources continues to bother me. Furthermore, how do you have the authorization to publish these pictures under creative commons? You wouldn't happen to be Reinaldo Quintero himself, would you? Lithoderm 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not Reinaldo Qintero. And I'm just wondering; Is it only the lack of 3rd party references that is the flaw?Victor "waran4" N. Bakke (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll give your identity the benefit of the doubt. It happens very often, more often than you'd think. The article must not only include third party references, but those references must establish the notability of the subject. Right now the article doesn't prove that he meets the specific guidelines for artist's notability. Lithoderm 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTE. Would probably qualify as a speedy candidate under G11 as a promotional article, especially with unsourced statements such as, "His style is widely used by artists all over the world, but it is the detail and grade og realism that has made him to one of the greatest artists of his kind." --Farix (Talk) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Qualifies as speedy delete-promotional. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hawk & Fisher

Hawk & Fisher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Hawk & Fisher" – news · books · scholar · images)

I am actually the creator of this page from over 2 years ago. Looking at it now, I'm fairly certain it fails WP:N. There are reliable sources on the books but not the characters themselves. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per author/nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 20:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to South Park. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

South Park title sequence

South Park title sequence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "South Park title sequence" – news · books · scholar · images)

Lacks third-party citations (debatable as this may not be possible)

Does not meet standards for Notability on its own as an article for a 30 second title sequence.

This AfD serves to initiate debate for the deletion of an article as opposed to a Proposed Deletion which does not give ample time to come to consensus on a deletion or keep of an article nor does it give time to come up with alternatives to the deletion of an article which may include merging it into a different article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the most blatant example of why this article should be kept is The Simpsons opening sequence. They basically have the same degree of reception, and, to top it off, there is a separate article for all the separate couch gags. If nothing else, the Simpsons variation should be up for discussion...for merge, though, instead of deletion. And yes, there are a few sources, though it is just about impossible to get third party citations (as you said above). Cheers, I'^mperator 18:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Changing vote to Merge TO South Park per Alastairward and User:Evilgohan2. Unlike different opening sequences, South Park's opening sequence isn't very influential on modern pop culture. Cheers, I'^mperator 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep For same reasoning as aboveMark E (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I'm no fan of South Park, but it's a very famous and successful TV show; famous enough that even its 30-second opening sequence deserves a Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. To Samboy, notability is not inherited and should be cited. To ImperatorExercitus and Mark E, the reason The Simpsons opening sequence warrants its own article is because of the existence of notability outside of the show itself, it has been used as a noted live action advertisement campaign and in reference to the controversy caused by an episode. Nor is there evidence of an impact on popular culture such as with Star Trek and Star Wars for example. Alastairward (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...But then, doesn't this warrant at least some notability? "The theme music is performed by Primus, sung by Les Claypool." The fact that a notable band performs their theme song makes it notable, right? If not, then I guess you're right, and I'll change my vote. Cheers, I'^mperator 23:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it doesn't, but the difference, as noted by Alastairward, is the notability and following they attract. When The Simpsons went HD and received a new title sequence, it even was published and followed by multiple media outlets. No such thing has ever happened for any of the 4+ changes of the South Park title sequence. Additionally, although Green Day did perform a cover of the theme to The Simpsons - and it was featured in the feature film, that alone did not make it notable. The Simpsons has been followed to the point that people en masse follow the differences of each different couch sequence as well as what Bart might write on the chalkboard. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge My personal perspective is that the article be condensed and merged into the main South Park article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete isn't notable by the nutshell definition. Oh, and the distinction between this sequence and the Simpsons opening sequence? The latter is notable. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into South Park, assuming one can find reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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