Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Global Warming Art

The following page is a local copy of the Wikipedia page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday. (more info)

if page isn't updating.
< 8 November 10 November >
Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Treffpunkt.svg
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Contents

Cheyenne (Amtrak station)

Cheyenne (Amtrak station) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Cheyenne (Amtrak station)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete: if it was a physical structure, then there would be a case for inclusion. It appears that there isn't. --RFBailey (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: - Was this ever a genuine railroad station before it was an Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach bus stop? I tried to figure it out with the links you showed me, but my PC wasn't letting me find out. ----DanTD (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't appear to be. The listed address isn't along an existing right-of-way, but I can't find reliable information (yet) about where the Pioneer stopped. The old Union Pacific depot is now a museum [3], but the history pages suggest that Amtrak didn't use or stopped using it. Mackensen (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Google StreetView pictures show this building (called the Powder River Bus Depot) as nowhere near a railroad right-of-way (41°7′17.75″N 104°48′15.47″W / 41.1215972°N 104.8042972°W / 41.1215972; -104.8042972), and although I have no inkling when the vehicle passed by it to take the picture, a for sale sign was up in front of the building. Likely little notability, even in Cheyenne. Nate • (chatter) 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this as a Thruway bus stop does not have the kind of fixture as a railway station does. Cheyenne does have a former rail depot, now a museum and National Historic Landmark (Wyoming Transportation Museum), but I don't think Amtrak ever went there so I cannot support a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hall Effect

The Hall Effect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Hall Effect" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N and is an annoying ripoff of Hall Effect. Should have (Band) as part of article name. By the way: If an electric current were passed through this band in the presence of a perpendicular magnetic field (not that I am suggesting for a moment that should be done) would a voltage appear across the band in the transverse direction? I think not!) Edison (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: No opinion on deletion but if consensus it to delete I recommend redirecting to Hall effect. KuyaBriBriTalk 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Big data

Big data (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Big data" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Contested prod. "Big" is an adjective that can be combined with many words; there is nothing novel or notable about its use with "data" - indeed, data is more likely to be described as "large" (Google gives more than 10 times as many hits for "large data" over "big data"). Even "large data" is merely a dictionary term; for an article on the particular difficulties that large data presents, the article Computer data processing might be a good place to start. I42 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

delete - can't see any reliable sources here. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mehmet Haberal

Mehmet Haberal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Mehmet Haberal" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This non-encyclopedic article would need a complete rewrite even IF the subject is notable, which has not been established. Onthegogo (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not appear to be notable and is certainly unencyclopedic. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - has multiple, reliable sources. But most of the information is unsourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, and should be removed. Sebwite (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Just moved it to Talk:Mehmet Haberal/Biography. Let's see how notable this subject is with the remainder. Sebwite (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pain management

Pain management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Pain management" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Keep Numerous textbooks and journals devoted to the subject. Clearly notable. --Chris Johnson (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Sourcing problems are not a reason to delete. Notability, BLP issues, etc. are. Also as above, there appear to be sources. AfD is not for easy ways out. - BalthCat (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fear of God (religion)

Fear of God (religion) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Fear of God (religion)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Keep. Notable concept. Problems with this article can be solved by editing. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Paysage D'Hiver

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Paysage D'Hiver
Paysage D'Hiver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Paysage D'Hiver" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete- I can only see passing mentions to this band in any given articles, the French painting seems to get a lot more press than the band. They haven't charted any releases or any of the other criteria which is required for notability. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as PRODer. RayTalk 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- The fact that this is an Underground band that isnt part of any big label and prefers to call his albums Demos instead of Albums shouldnt be a reason to delete the article. Paysage D'Hiver is a well respected and popular band, especially in ambient black metal circles as Paysage D'Hiver create some of the best ambient black metal that there is. Also, the fact that the internet isnt full of interviews with wintherr in no way reduces the bands notability. The lack of interviews is a common trait with many black metal bands, but in this case i can find more interviews with Paysage D'Hiver than for Darkspace, which is a more "popular" band. As far as i can see, a Google search gives more results for the band than anything else so i agree with what EquilibriumAblaze posted on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paysage_D%27Hiver Pyro Stick Haud Yer Wheesht! 11:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This would be an example of an established band who will likely never meet the WP:BAND criteria as their genre eludes it. German-language ambient black metal just doesn't chart on Billboard.com or any other mainstream chart. Their discography is also available at Discogs.com [4]. If file sharing were a gauge of notability then it would be a more certain keep. delirious & lost ☯ TALK 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Often coming across this sort of thing in artists I listen to, I still think that it is appropriate to require some sort of notability evidence. If he's not on a label, we need reviews from appropriate publications or websites (well established ones), tours or collabs with other notable artists, etc. (I don't think E-Metallicum is sufficient.) If this stuff can't be dredged up, well... he's intentionally keeping himself obscure :P What a lovely label website though. - BalthCat (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Green building by country

Green building by country (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Green building by country" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7: Author and only editor explicitly requests deletion. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, I was not the author since it was split from green building. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Question What about the countries on this list which don't appear to have their own articles? Are you planning to make new articles for each of them and move the sections there before this AfD closes, or what? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as outlined above. I wanted to get some idea of the feeling out there before doing any more changes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Beach Girl5

Beach Girl5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Beach Girl5" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

2009 Honduran coup d'état

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/2009 Honduran coup d'état
2009 Honduran coup d'état (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "2009 Honduran coup d'état" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

It was, indeed, originally copied and pasted. However, the splitting (made clear in a navbox present on all relevant pages) has enabled the parent article, which was a giant mess at over 156K (around #350 in Special:LongPages), to shrink in just a couple of days to under 118K (not in the top 1000 LongPages), and the shrinking continues. I think the parent should come down under 64K over time; yet without the sub-article, that would be impossible, as all sides would defend the inclusion of "their" facts. I think that this is clear evidence that the split is useful.
Also, I am the initiator of the split, which was discussed on the talk page of the original article and got some informal support and no opposition (I was not the first one to raise it. Xavexgoem said "B) fork the article into its coup, constitutional, and aftermath parts (2009 Honduran coup d'etat, the current 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, whatever the name of the aftermath section would be, plus a general article that summarizes everything -- at least this is the only split I see gaining consensus). Option B would require a helluva lot of consensus-building, although I'm partial to the option (since, in addition, it gives us an article to start fresh with)... I'm partial to B)"). As the discussion there shows, the motivation for this split is a traditional sub-article rationale, and not, as SqueakBox claims, the naming dispute. I would absolutely support this split even if consensus decided that the sub-article should be named Honduran events on 28 June 2009 or some such non-"coup" name (although I'd currently oppose such a consensus, but not vehemently, and anyway that's a separate issue).
Finally, note that the sub-article and the parent article have now each attracted independent work, which (if this AfD goes through) would have to be merged back into the parent article. The same goes for the other two sub-articles created concurrently (Fourth ballot box and Micheletti regime) which were created by the same means (that is, copy, then edit independently to trim the parent and clean up the child). Homunq (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
SqueakBox has a pattern and a practice of insincere AfD attempts, claiming "POV fork".[5]
His claim that there was a "dispute of whether this is a coup or not," is disingenuous.
The constitutional article didn't not call the coup a "coup". It has always had a section called, "Coup d'état". It just got too long. -- Rico 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia should have an article about the 2009 Honduran coup d'état, because it has received wide coverage among reliable sources, and -- since it was the first Latin American military coup in such a long time -- the event is encyclopedic. Quite a few other Wikipedias have articles on the subject.[6][7][8][9]
The constitutional article has to do with subjects like:
1. President Zelaya's desire to get the Constitution changed, allegedly so that he could run for a second term.
2. Whether President Zelaya's alleged attempt to change the Constitution really was unconstitutional.
3. President Zelaya pushing ahead with a referendum after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court injunction that the referendum was was unconstitutional.
4. The lack of a clear cut constitutional procedure for impeaching a president, therefore making a coup more likely.
5. The removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military, which was is in direct violation of Article 102 of the Constitution of Honduras.
While these constitutional questions/issues may be notable enough to have their own article, the 2009 Honduran coup d'état definitely is.
The Italian Wikipedia has an article about both[10], like the English Wikipdia had, but the English article got too long and was quickly getting longer. -- Rico 04:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a fork, but it isn't a POV fork. This is primarily for article brevity and weight. The details of the coup, as such, had far too much weight for a much larger matter (i.e., the constitutional crisis). We also split the articles into the prior-to-the-event, the-event, and after-the-event, due to the depth this subject requires. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete it was never a coup d'etat, since it was a legal removal of the sitting president, the title is a POV stance 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you also vote "move" (to something without "coup" in the name) if that were an option? I ask becaus I think that the existence/value of this page should be decided separately from the question of whether its name is POV. Homunq (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If this is kept, it would need to be renamed. Otherwise, it should just be part of the constitutional crisis article. Whether there is already enough material in that article, or if some should be merged is my !vote of "merge/delete", since either is acceptable. Keeping is less desirable, since I don't see a clean cut to have an article on the non-coup as a separate topic from the constitutional crisis. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the cut is clean. This article covers the events of June 28th and their direct causes (primarily the arrest order - the causes of the arrest order are NOT directly in scope, meriting only a brief mention here) and effects (primarily, opinions and/or positions on those events which were expressed after that date). Homunq (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a fork, but it is nescessary for it has enabled the main article be reduced in size and clarified. Denying there was a coup d'etat is POV pushing. It's still work in progress Cathar11 (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Center for Humanitarian Assistance

Center for Humanitarian Assistance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Center for Humanitarian Assistance" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Center of Hope

The Center of Hope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Center of Hope" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete - No assertion of charity's notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - (1) WP:CSD#A7 The article makes no assertion of the notability of its subject; (2) WP:RS No sources are provided attesting to the notability of the article's subject; (3) WP:N The subject of the article is, in fact, non notable, as reliable sources testifying to its notability have not been turned up through good faith searches, and (4) WP:CSD#A1 The article lacks sufficient information about its subject to enable future editors to find additional information ("The Center of Hope" appears to be a common name for not-for-profits throughout the Western world). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per expansion of article and additional sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of these references. When the subject of an article has the same name as others, it helps to include the organization's location in your Google search. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Untitled hadouken! 2nd album

Untitled hadouken! 2nd album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Untitled hadouken! 2nd album" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

List of banks in Zamboanga City

List of banks in Zamboanga City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of banks in Zamboanga City" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete! Stop the madness now! We must draw the line somewhere! Next are coming articles on each of the janitors who work in each of those banks! Qworty (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sunship - Capitol Records - 1972

Sunship - Capitol Records - 1972 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Sunship - Capitol Records - 1972" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Procedural nomination. I previously speedied it as an A9 (an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist) just under two years ago, but another user challenged that today. The challenging user, User:Dacoeur, provided me with a number of web links which attest to the album's existence, but still none which demonstrate actual notability — and he did so on my talk page, not in the article. The band still doesn't have an article to this day. This is technically still speediable as written, but since it was my speedy deletion that's being challenged I'm not going to pull the trigger again without a broader consensus. Abstain, but note that I am willing to withdraw this nomination if genuine notability can be demonstrated or if somebody actually writes a keepable article about the band by close. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

List of camera clubs in Ireland

List of camera clubs in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "List of camera clubs in Ireland" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

XiRCON

XiRCON (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "XiRCON" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

On June 8, I requested some third party, reliable sources to attest to this software's notability [[11]], and none has been added. I searched for some mentions, and everything I found was either trivial or not reliable. I don't think this software is notable by wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Canterbury cathedral facts

Canterbury cathedral facts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Canterbury cathedral facts" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
  • Delete. Unencyclopeadic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I can be brief too: delete. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Or, to expand a little, nothing in here isn't already in Canterbury Cathedral, and the title is an implausible redirect--besides, the information in here is random and unverified. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not familiar with the cathedral itself, but I can say we don't need fact-pages about places here in Wikipedia. Facts can be included in main article if necessary (if there is one - if not, then create one).  Ilyushka88  talk  20:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Drmies. --Barret (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Any useful facts can be put into the main article, we don't need a separate article for them. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Check Game

Check Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Check Game" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Check-Out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Clearance Sale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Cliff Hangers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Clock Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Coming or Going (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Cover Up (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Credit Card (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Danger Price (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Dice Game (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Double Prices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Eazy az 1 2 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Five Price Tags (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Flip Flop (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Freeze Frame (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Gas Money (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Golden Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Grand Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Grocery Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
½ Off (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hi Lo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hole in One (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
It's in the Bag (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Let 'em Roll (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Line em Up (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Lucky $even (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Magic Number (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Make Your Move (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Master Key (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Money Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
More or Less (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Most Expensive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Now....or Then (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
One Away (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
1 Right Price (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
1 Wrong Price (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Pass the Buck (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Pathfinder (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Pick-a-Number (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Pick-a-Pair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Plinko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Pocket ¢hange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Punch a Bunch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Push Over (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Race Game (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Range Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Safe Crackers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Secret "X" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Shell Game (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Shopping Spree (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Side by Side (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Spelling Bee (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Squeeze Play (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Stack the Deck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Step Up (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Swap Meet (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Switch? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Switcheroo (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Take Two (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Temptation (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Ten Chances (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
That's Too Much! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
3 Strikes (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Triple Play (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
2 for the Price of 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Add 'em Up (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Balance Game (1980s) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bullseye (retired pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bump (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Buy or Sell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Double Bullseye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Double Digits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Finish Line (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Fortune Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Gallery Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Give or Keep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hit Me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Hurdles (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
It's Optional (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Joker (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Make Your Mark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mystery Price (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
On the Nose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
On the Spot (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Penny Ante (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
The Phone Home Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Poker Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Professor Price (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Shower Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Split Decision (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Super Ball!! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
$uper $aver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Telephone Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Time Is Money (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Trader Bob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Walk of Fame (pricing game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Delete the entire lot please and quick. This is not encyclopedic, it contributes zilch to humanities base of knowledge, and I really vote delete rarely. Merge under the Price is Right article if you absolutely have to, but that is a waste of space as well. Turqoise127 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced indiscriminate trivia. Reyk YO! 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all as unsourced fancruft. There is absolutely no way that any of the information could be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The games are already listed in the List of The Price Is Right pricing games. This is one of the most famous game shows of all times and the games made up a significant and much discussed part of it. I can't see how deleting these articles improves the encyclopedia. On the contrary I think there is substantial interest in the show as it's been on for decades and readers are likely to benefit from coverage of the major components. If there were fewer games a merge would be appropriate, and some of the more minor ones can certainly be merged, but the bigger ones are fine as sub articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge all to single The Price Is Right pricing games article. Bongomatic 22:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all; it doesn't seem appropriate to have a Wikipedia article for every pricing game on The Price Is Right. I disagree with the characterizations of the material as "fancruft", but altogether they do comprise a somewhat less than discriminate collection of information, and individually, one one game has received significant enough coverage to qualify it as notable. Robert K S (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per UltraMagnus. Tavix |  Talk  23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Unbundle because not all of those need to be deleted. I'll run with delete all those with "(pricing game)", "(retired pricing game)", or "$" signs in the article name as fundamentally unfit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia—but that still leaves a substantial number to consider separately, because many are plausible search terms that ought to redirect somewhere. "Check Game", "Check-Out", "Clearance Sale" etc. are all things that someone looking for useful information might type in the search box.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all Fail notability. Lack independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of each game. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, and is not an indoscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment only — If we're going to delete the individual articles, then keep the List of The Price is Right pricing games (where in that afd debate, there are several keep votes as well as some arguing to delete) and give a brief description of each game (which at this point should suffice). Also, redirects are in order, so that someone typing in — say, Plinko — into the search box will not be confused. He'll still get what info he's looking for, just in a different place and in a different format. I also recommend transwiki-ing the articles, but that's a discussion for the list article. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)]]
  • Merge to list: There may be information within these articles which would be valuable in the list. For example I just dug up a Baltimore Sun article where the authors took the time to rework the games into actual finance practices in honour of Bob Barker's retirement or somesuch. here. - BalthCat (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul H. Park

Paul H. Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Paul H. Park" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails wp:bio: "1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.", most of the references either don't mention him or only in passing, and none indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-09t20:19z 20:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails general WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Stunners

The Stunners (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Stunners" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable band lacking GHits of substance and GHits. Appears for fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Moone

Charlie Moone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Charlie Moone" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article creator is Bmoone (talk · contribs) - there is probably a WP:COI here as well, although that is not a valid grounds for deletion. GiantSnowman 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion Articles for deletion/1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion (2nd nomination)
1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is an article about a non-event--a thing that never happened. On the first AfD a year and a half ago, the result was no consensus. The closest thing we have to a guideline for aircraft events is here [12]. There is a lot of verbiage on that page, but note that most of it is related to the notability of accidents--not the notability of non-accidents, non-events, or near-misses. I think most editors would agree that articles should be about things that have actually happened, not about things that didn't happen or "nearly" happened. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Just to be clear: the incursion happened, and that's what the article is about. It may well be non-notable, as you argue, but we don't have a policy that things have to go ka-boom for them to be notable. Just sayin'. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If something had to go kaboom to be notable, Wikipedia would only have a couple thousand articles. Tavix |  Talk  22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. Merge per above. --Triadian (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New album

New album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "New album" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Now located at New album - Rotting Chist; also per the PROD comments on the page. Airplaneman talk 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: Why is this at AfD if there is still an unexpired, uncontested prod on the page? KuyaBriBriTalk 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I figured this out. I redirected New album - Rotting Chist to New album so as to allow this deletion discussion to continue without two identical, copied-and-pasted articles creating confusion. I've also removed the prod tag from New album so that only one deletion template is present on the article. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TNXMan 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Notable band but the info on this album is too crystaly at this time. Would have liked to see a few sources and definitive tracklisting per paragraphs 4 & 5 of WP:NALBUMS. delirious & lost ☯ TALK 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm beginning to think this sort of thing should be a speedy criteria... "Sequels, followups and other projected works which don't even have a title yet." etc. - BalthCat (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet Security Alliance

Internet Security Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Internet Security Alliance" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Appears to be largely promotional but maybe not speedy. Very little news coverage. possibly fails notability criteria. Polargeo (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ATBLA

ATBLA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "ATBLA" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:CORP and WP:COI. Original author has same name as article title, and has been blocked. Unable to locate third-party sources for this group. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that conflict of interest is not a valid reason for deletion generally, however I agree with you in this case. Thanks for finding those references, my search turned up nothing, and notability was my primary cause for concern. See the discussion on the original PROD. Given that this event has received coverage in notable media, I support keeping it. The article still reads like a promo and needs a rewrite though. Ivanvector (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero 6

Guitar Hero 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Guitar Hero 6" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

GraphLogic

GraphLogic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "GraphLogic" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable tech business or web content. Contested proposed deletion.

  • Obvious advertising making grand but vague claims, to the point of patent nonsense: The platform is a graphical realization of a Turing-complete programming language coupled with a patented run-time environment that together deliver a fully-realized Software as a Service Web 2.0 application development platform designed for cloud computing.
  • All of these "... as a service" businesses are really only web sites, and need to meet the web content notability guidelines as well as the organizational guidelines.
  • Google News Archive yields only local newspaper stories and a few court cases they were involved in.

Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert B. Jones (linguist)

Robert B. Jones (linguist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Robert B. Jones (linguist)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
  • Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to meet the notability guideline for academics; the article makes a reasonably strong case that his research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline of Tibeto-Burman comparative linguistics. Not sure why anyone would imagine this was a speedy candidate. And that episode where he found that artifact in the temple and was chased by Nazis got some attention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - His memorial makes a better case for his notability than the article does, but even without that the volume of cited publications in the article would almost certainly carry him over WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Corporate scandal

Corporate scandal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Corporate scandal" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete unreferenced, and so tagged for about a year and meaningless. Our article scandal says "[a] scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages the reputation of an institution, individual or creed. A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both." So any false accusation that is widely publicized is a scandal according to WP - and the allegations need not be of illegal behavior, just "allegations". There is no end of what then becomes a scandal: are Wall Streeters overpaid? did banks take on too much risk? do health care companies discriminate against overweight people? do luxury hotels discriminate against poor people? is WP itself a scandal with various allegations hurled against it - even being written up in Time magazine recently? is capitalism by its very nature a scandal, as Michael Moore's latest movie seems to demonstrate? So here we have an unencyclopedic article that is little more than a selective biased list of what someone may think is scandalous. - We have categories that are more complete and less biased in the choosing, time to remove this no-value-add page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Chris Parnell (Australian)

Chris Parnell (Australian) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Chris Parnell (Australian)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete Unsourced BLPs such as this shouldn't be kept. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • [ec] Delete. My view on this has changed since I wrote this, per WP:BLP1E. –Moondyne 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vandalism remained unreverted in the article for about five months (pieces of this edit were corrected soon after the edit was made, most (and the worst) was not corrected until I fixed it a few minutes ago). BLP1E case for someone who has otherwise remained out of the public eye. Lara 17:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that it's unsourced doesn't make it unsourceable. At AfD, what we normally do with unsourced articles is look for sources. And with all due respect for Jennavecia's good faith concerns about BLPs, are we to delete every BLP that's been vandalised? I think we need a better answer than that, and one that deals with vandalism that targets people outside BLP articles too.

    BLP1E is a fair criticism, though. It's a stretch—eleven years is pretty long for "one event"—but I recognise that prevailing opinion on Wikipedia at the moment stretches the BLP1E criterion about as far as it'll logically go. I'll run with redirect back to List of Australians imprisoned or executed abroad.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable prisoner arrested in Indonesia in 11 years. The reason another Australian prisoner Schapelle Corby imprisoned in Bali after smuggling cocaine. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Walser German

Walser German (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Walser German" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

Abattoir (comics)

Abattoir (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Abattoir (comics)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unsourced article about a minor character who appeared in a handful of comics. Fails the general notability guideline and also fails to meet the verifiability policy that articles "should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In fact, there are no third-party sources at all provided here. *** Crotalus *** 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Inka Games

Inka Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Inka Games" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Clayton Newman

Clayton Newman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Clayton Newman" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Entirely non-notble poker player. Having a single final table appearance at one WSOP event does not make one notable, nor does a single main event cash. Nothing to set him apart than the, literally, thousands of people who have made a cash in the main event and a single FT appearance. –– Lid(Talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Completely unnotable, vanity entry. 2005 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait Your Turn (Rihanna Song)

Wait Your Turn (Rihanna Song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Wait Your Turn (Rihanna Song)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

The result was speedy delete - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Masta-

Masta- (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Masta-" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete This is the current list from BIPM website. There's no masta, so "por favor, no mas". Created by an SPA, no surprise there, probably the "lasta" article that will ever be posted under that username. Nice try. Mandsford (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps speedily, since this is a blatant hoax. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WITHDRAWN -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How the Earth Was Made

How the Earth Was Made (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "How the Earth Was Made" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

That is, of course, not a legitimate notability guideline, but a personal essay. The essay also notes that airing alone is not a notability criteria, without sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Sources for possible inclusion. Amazon demonstrates V, and shows some reviews. Geology.com--possibly an RS? This UK site asserts that the series won an Emmy. At least one episode was featured as a TV pick by The Seattle Times. HD Report highlighted the Blu-Ray release. Multichannel reports a new season in the works. The Oakland Press has a more detailed piece about the creation of an episode for the series. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Amazon is not needed for V - the History channels on website does that. Geology.com, if RS, is a short review. HD-Report is not significant coverage, and Blu-Ray was announced by History itself. Multichannel isn't clear about a new season. Of those, the best are The Oakland Press (which is a little production data), and BroadcastNow. Checked and the Emmy it won was for editing achievement. With that morsel, found a Variety article stating it "averag[ed] 1.4 million total viewers" in the first season. Will withdraw.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
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.

Globo Thermo Tour 2009

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Globo Thermo Tour 2009 (2nd nomination)
Globo Thermo Tour 2009 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Globo Thermo Tour 2009" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

Julius Weinberg

Julius Weinberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Julius Weinberg" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

Neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia
Neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Well, my point of view is it depends on where you live. Neighborhoods of Atlanta aren't notable to me because I don't live there and haven't heard of many of them... I live in Columbus and I've heard of all of these places. Of course, that's just my view on it... Shark96z (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment Actually, I'd say that this AfD nomination is still incomplete. This is simply the tip of the iceberg for an entire project devoted to writing an article about all the neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia. I doubt that any of them are notable enough for an article of their own, but there's no point in nominating or discussing the only useful part of that project. Since this is only about the list, I don't see any reason to delete the list. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Many neighborhoods of cities were once independent towns or villages, and hence historically notable. A map of the Columbus area from 100 or 150 years ago would show many such towns or villages which were not then considered part of Columbus. Once notable, always notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, as Columbus/Muscogee County form a consolidated city-county, many of these communities were once municipalities, and thus clearly notable. Even if post-consolidation neighborhoods are a problem, this list could easily be converted into a list of former municipalities in Muscogee County. Consider the list of this type at Act of Consolidation, 1854, section "Districts, townships and boroughs consolidated into Philadelphia". Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with a list of neighborhoods, regardless of whether they would be notable or not. The notability of the individual blue-links on the template are another matter, but that's not been brought up for debate. Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought of Thomas Aquinas

Thought of Thomas Aquinas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article has sufficiently been incorporated into the page on Thomism, and thus is now superfluous. The original author of the Thought of Thomas Aquinas article has agreed with me on this point, and now I'm just awaiting commentary. -- LightSpectra (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Slow down a bit. I've just searched Thomism for the section headings currently in Thought of Thomas Aquinas, namely "Social justice", "Death penalty", "Heretics", "Usury", "Forced baptism" and "Existentialism". None of them is mentioned. This seems to me to undermine the claim that "This article has sufficiently been incorporated", don't you think? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thought of Thought of Thomas Aquinas, thought better of it. I agree with Sam the Ghost that there needs to be some time to make sure that relevant parts of this essay are, indeed, sufficiently incorporated elsewhere. Generally, these debates go on for a week. Thus, with some time, merge to Thomism with the redirect that follows. Mandsford (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

White Oaks Mall (Springfield, Illinois)

White Oaks Mall (Springfield, Illinois) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "White Oaks Mall (Springfield, Illinois)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article describes mall as a super-regional shopping mall. While some small enclosed malls may not deserved separate articles, generally all regional malls are considered notable.--Milowent (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral because this editor orginally created the article and thus would have a conflict of interest if he took a position on this question; but keep in mind that this shopping mall has 912,000 square feet of shopping space. It might be useful if Wikipedia were to develop a consensus on which retail developments should be covered/not covered, using objective criteria such as square footage, etc.Bigturtle (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Prout patet per recordum

Prout patet per recordum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Prout patet per recordum" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Comment. The nomination rationale is incorrectly stated. Perhaps what was intended was
Wikipedia is intended—per policy / guideline—to be neither a Latin dictionary, nor a glossary of legal terms.
In fact, Wikipedia is those things. See Category:Latin words and phrases, Category:Latin legal phrases, and Category:Legal terms, which include many hundreds if not thousands of entries. Bongomatic 14:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I was borrowing the simple declarative form of WP:NOT. Powers T 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to a listified version of List of legal Latin terms, and merge the other stubs listed there likewise. That would make them part of a technical glossary, which is an acceptable form of list per WP:DICDEF#Wikipedia is not a usage guide, which states in its last paragraph that "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries (i.e., more than simply lists of dictionary definitions) on the jargon of various industries and fields; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook." Keeping this article as a permastub is not helpful, since it does not appear that much more than this one sentence can be said about this phrase.  Sandstein  14:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge - agree with Sandstein's reasoning. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and then Merge to List of legal Latin terms to form a glossary, I suppose. Glossaries are really weird in the Wikipedia though; really they should all be in Wiktionary.- Wolfkeeper 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral (as article creator). I agree that a standalone article isn't the ideal way of including this sort of information in the encyclopaedia - on the other hand, changing List of legal Latin terms from the simple list it is now to a proper glossary will involve quite a bit of work, and this AfD is not the right forum to discuss a change of such magnitude. I think the term should be in the encyclopaedia somewhere - I'm not particularly bothered whether it has its own article, but it seems like the least-bad solution at the moment. Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • delete The "Prout patet per recordum" article functionally duplicates the entry in "The Free Dictionary" for that phrase but Wikipedia will not functionally duplicate the Legal dictionary section of The Free Dictionary any time soon. Keeping phrases like this with "requiescat in pace" and "Lebellus de Medicinalibus Indorum Herbis" and a random assortment of odd Latin phrases serves no reasonable purpose. It is not and will not be comprehensive in any reasonable category. We should not add one more member to this mismatched menagerie. We lack the authority to deal with this mess as it ought to be handled but we can avoid making it worse by deleting "Prout patet per recordum."--Fartherred (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Loose Cannon (novel)

Loose Cannon (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Loose Cannon (novel)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete - I found one or two reader reviews, but I have been unable to find any professional reviews. Search results yield only seller websites. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet any of the five notability criteria set forth in WP:BK. Tan | 39 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex Vann

Alex Vann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Alex Vann" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. I looked around and also found no evidence of existence of either the author or the books. Kinoq (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone who doubts that this is a hoax can search the Cambridge University Press catalogue (and someone should have a word with the CUP about their spelling). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jazz Mellor

Jazz Mellor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Jazz Mellor" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete, no evidence that she's really done enough and been covered enough to be notable. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, Mellor is the founding member and President of an organization that's come to national attention. The Daily Telegraph does not report trivial events. Mellor is also a trustee of the Strummerville charity which is notable in its own right. Unknown Unknowns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Woo-woo

Woo-woo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Woo-woo" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

Poser porn

Poser porn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Poser porn" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Darren Ross

Darren Ross (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Darren Ross" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Delete — Does not seem to have the coverage by reliable sources required by WP:MUSICBIO. Article does not list references. Web/news searches don't yield anything interesting after all the other persons of that name have been removed. The author of the article claims that sources exist, but in spite of WP:BURDEN seems to think that we should find them ourselves. Favonian (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Though he doesn't seem to be particularly famous it appears he does meet criterion #5 of WP:MUSICBIO:

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

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

  • Delete as far as I can tell this is some kind of bizarre hoax. Claims to have sold hundreds of thousands of records yet has an average of about 15 views for each of the videos in his YouTube channel. I did indeed do a google search for coverage at Popjustice (as suggested above) but could only find forum posts which detail an apparent campaign to get false information about this "artist" on to Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep He is just an new artist to sony music label, you think sony would give all the details of world now, he always likes to stay quiet and surprise people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find no WP:RS which supports the claim that he's released two albums on Sony. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow Talk 22:37, 9 November

2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Go on Amazon MP3 or iTunes and put Darren Ross and it will have the record label "Sony Music". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.235.74 (talk • contribs) 22:41, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
    Note: From the edit histories this IP would seem to be Croniclataus (talk · contribs) in a logged out state. Favonian (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • To be fair the IP (whoever it is) is correct that some of the the artist;s iTunes listings (or at least this one) do list Sony BMG as being the copyright holder. I do not know how that information is entered into iTunes and frankly I'm yet to be convinced. Guest9999 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 06:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that the page has been repeatedly recreated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete per above. Copyright info on iTunes is not particularly reliable, nor convincing. It's is worth noting that the speedying of it in July was a little faulty - G4 doesn't apply since it had previously been speedied and prodded, but not deleted via a deletion discussion. Intriguingly, BTW, the person who created the page for the third time, in early July this year, was none other than User:Croniclataus. The creator of the previous version to that, in September 2008, was User:Michelangelo24, who was blocked for repeated (re)creation of inappropriate articles despite numerous final warnings - in early July this year. Croniclataus has also, from time to time, created articles at Darren ross, Darren Ross (singer), and Darren Ronald Ross, as well as the articles Michelangelo (producer) and Cronic lataus. In this latter deleted article, it says that Cronic lataus is a band whose members include (wait for it) "Michelangelo, mark ross, sally morgan. darren ross, nick james" (sic). Now, I like to assume good faith, and I'm certainly not happy to point fingers here, but the similarity of style and editing subject matter of Croniclataus and Michelangelo24, as indicated by their User talk histories, is intriguingly indicative, to say the least, as is the fact that Croniclataus started to create new articles with the earlier deleted Darren Ross article) at almost the same time Michelangelo24 was blocked (withing 48 hours, to be precise)... it's all circumstantial, but... Grutness...wha? 09:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete No evidence of notability. Creator of the article has received multiple notifications for AfD and appears unwilling to follow accepted wiki practice. Anon user who has made multiple edits to this article looks like sockpuppet for preceding. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

F.R.E.E

F.R.E.E (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "F.R.E.E" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

Disco Man

Disco Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Disco Man" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

The Darren Collection

The Darren Collection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "The Darren Collection" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

Go U Good Thing

Go U Good Thing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Go U Good Thing" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

I Strongly Think This Article should not be removed because this music artist is getting more popular over the world and is growing very strongly on the internet. (talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete — The relevant passage from WikiScripture is WP:NSONG, which means that the notability of this single hinges on that of Darren Ross whose article lacks sources to back the claim and has been tagged as such since September. This article is part of a whole series by Croniclataus (talk • contribs), who according to the Darren Ross template seems to have a conflict of interest. Favonian (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I Think that it should not be deleted because people think he is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    That's not a valid reason for keeping the article around though. Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion, and so far you have not provided any proof that the albums (or the artist) passes any of these guidelines. ArcAngel (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bloodsplattered Joe

Bloodsplattered Joe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Bloodsplattered Joe" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This bears all the marks of a hoax. There is nothing in IMDb about this film or its star Warren McAddams, the blue-links for director and writers go to unconnected people, Google finds nothing, nor is there any trace of the studio. The only source cited is a website littered with spelling mistakes which claims that three films have been released and two more are coming. Contested PROD: the author Buffyfan882 (talk · contribs) maintains on the article talk page that it is not a hoax. His user page says that he is Warren McAddams and lists 11 films already out and 14 more coming with dates out to 2014. I have checked a few without finding any reference except this user page and McAddams' website, e.g. [13], [14], [15]. Even if this is real, it completely fails WP:V and WP:NF. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems to be BS to me. I cannot find a single reliable source. In fact, the only sources I can find seem to all come from one individual, adding to the feeling that this is a hoax. Either way, there is not a chance of it meeting WP:N. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't find any hits on this. B-Movie, C-Movie or Z-Movie, someone needs to have written about it for us to verify bare notability.--Milowent (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

James Danieley

James Danieley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "James Danieley" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Speedy declined saying "he was a university president". However his contribution to academic research appears to be zero. No results on google scholar or google. His professorship then seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. This leaves his presidency of the college, but again we don't have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Made the New York Times twice [16] -- once for becoming Elon president, but also for becoming Chairman for Lay Life and Work of the United Church of Christ - a major denomination. (which someone ought to enter into the article, to be sure). Mentioned numerous times elsewhere [17] (notable photographer with multiple event photos of Danieley), [18] book stating his work at Elon ("Transforming" is the term used) oncluding integration of Elon etc. Notability established clearly. By the way, college presidents do not generally contribute to journals -- his notability comes from deeds and not from research. Collect (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems very helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.33.66.65 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep, passes criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jason Adonis

Jason Adonis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Jason Adonis" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
  • Queried AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. What's your reason for declining the speedy and nominating for AfD? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: He's a fairly common name, and I noticed it was deleted so I wanted to see the contents to see if it asserted notability. AA appears to have put it to AfD so that question can be hammered out again. I took a look to see if I could find references, and I did find 2(?) publications via Google, and I imagined I can find others. I'll be busy over the next day or so, so I'd appreciate not closing it in favour of delete due to lack of sources until I've had a chance to search for some myself. Thanks! - BalthCat (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Thanks for reopening this for consideration. Unfortunately I did not find what I thought I'd find. Apparently he's prominent but still not notable. No AVN/GayVNs (though at least one nom.) There are two Google book results, but I can't access them to see whether reference to him within is notable, and that's really all that's left of my keep, so I realise it's not v. strong a case :) - BalthCat (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Folded Wing

Folded Wing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: "Folded Wing" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

  • Keep - It's a horribly written article, but they have indeed won a very significant award - the Sony Radio Academy Award for Best Internet Programme (source here). I'd also accept a rename/redirect to Book Slam Podcast but that might require that page being created first. Note also that it appears it's the production company that accepts the award on behalf of the programme, so it's appropriate for the notability to accrue to Folded Wing (formerly Karen P Productions) rather than the program itself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DustFormsWords. A Sony is a "notable award" per WP:ANYBIO. Tevildo (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per DustFormsWords. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This Allure

AfDs for this article:
    This Allure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "This Allure" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • Delete With one independent label EP released some four years ago, 120 listeners on last.fm[19], and some youtube videos This Allure does not satisfy WP:BAND. delirious & lost ☯ TALK 14:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Keep Apologies for the removal of the original prod. I don't have experience with deletion policies on Wikipedia and had erroneously thought it was to be removed once edits were made. Anyway, while I understand the concern that this band is not widely known, I believe they are notable due to a few reasons. ---Firstly, the high-profile status of one of their previous members. The former member's current band had the highest-selling single of the decade ("Apologize") and since he is musically linked to this band/artist, it seems relevant and notable, in my opinion. ---Second, if we are to use Last.fm plays and/or listeners as an indication of a band/artist's popularity or notability, cannot other social media website numbers be used similarly? This band has significant current YouTube video plays (15,000+), Myspace plays (25,000+) and Myspace friends (2500+). While not gargantuan numbers, they are of note. In reference to Billboard.com, while that is most certainly a valid source, chart activity does not always reflect notability. Ravi Shankar has never charted a song on Billboard either, and while he's achieved much on his own, he was initially notable because of his connection with The Beatles. ---Thirdly, included in the article are cited references from outside sources and I did my best to remove the potentially biased/conflicted sources. ---Furthermore, while not eligible for inclusion at this point, I know that this band/artist is speaking with two Grammy-nominated/winning producers, but since there are currently no citable sources, I've refrained from including that in the article, per inclusion guidelines. I will readily admit that I am a fan of this band's music, which is one reason I'd taken the time to create the article to begin with, however, the article was NOT created to be, nor is it, a "sales pitch" for them. It was created to be informative and factual; no more, no less. I believe they are notable at present and while Wikipedia is certainly not a speculation site, believe they will become increasingly notable in the near future. JYumikawa (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    JYumikawa, just a note - you were perfectly within your rights to remove the initial prod. That particular one can be removed. And you are doing right by not removing this one. So far so good! I'm a musician as well, and despite my AfD, I wish your band the best of luck in breaking through - I know it's a rough road. --Manway (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Manway, thank you for understanding and the encouragement. Want to go about all this the right way! What do you play? I'm not musical myself, but really enjoy finding new music and hearing the different songs that people make. JYumikawa (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    Given that a member was a current member of the unquestionably notable band OneRepublic, I'm going to have to vote keep. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    Note: Brent Kutzle was a member of This Allure - THEN joined One Republic - not the other way around, according to the article. Kutzle is not a current member of This Allure. The MySpace page shows him as a "guest artist." --Manway (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Going to have to agree with delirious and lost here, just not notable enough and fails WP:BAND. AtheWeatherman 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, despite some edits to U2 related articles i am also a big fan of many indie bands and musicians. If there is a band that has established themselves over many years with at least a few releases and widespread touring of venues where tickets are sold through services such as Ticketmaster then i am more inclined to not vote for delete per this archived discussion of notability regarding indie artists. One such example is Carbon Leaf who did not have any charting on Billboard until their sixth studio album but won an AMA for a song on their fourth album. At this time This Allure's first full length album is WP:CRYSTAL. If notability is to be ascribed to them entirely because of a former member then all of Brent Kutzle's former associations would be due their respective notability too. To do that would be a mis-application of notability guidelines as Brent Kutzle, according to the chronology presented in the article and his BLP, did not contribute to This Allure's first EP. I do see an honest attempt at an article for This Allure. I never intended to imply the article was created as a sales pitch and would not be opposed to moving it to userspace for ongoing development if someone feels they can satisfy WP:BAND in some way before too long. As i am a big fan of cello rock i am going to at least do some minor copy editing on the article. delirious & lost ☯ TALK 19:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Close English Translation of Gloomy Sunday's Lyrics

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Close English Translation of Gloomy Sunday's Lyrics
    Close English Translation of Gloomy Sunday's Lyrics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Close English Translation of Gloomy Sunday's Lyrics" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

    Mortimer's disease

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Mortimer's disease
    Mortimer's disease (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Mortimer's disease" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • Keep Note [21] yerm in usage in 1899. [22] found in a medical dictionary of 2004 (making it hard to see how it could not be found, to be sure). See also [23] [24] and many more. Notable, findable, and not "only self-published" but found in actual medical literature. Collect (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • How interesting! I did not see it in the last two references, but I surely see that it is in the older medical book. When PubMed had nothing on it and google revealed little more than a self-published reference I had just assumed it was a non-notable eponym. Now I see that I have been proven otherwise, which I thank you for. Thus, I would like to withdraw this AfD. Basket of Puppies 19:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep: Per Collect. Joe Chill (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Civilization One (band)

    Civilization One (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Civilization One (band)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    No third party sources, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Durova360 06:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Splash player

    Splash player (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Splash player" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    Dechronication

    Dechronication (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Dechronication" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

    Ian Swann

    Ian Swann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Ian Swann" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

    Clarence Carroll Hall

    Clarence Carroll Hall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Clarence Carroll Hall" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

    Duck Island, garden feature

    Duck Island, garden feature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Duck Island, garden feature" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    This article is a thinly disguised reference to one particular UK Member of Parliament's claim for expenses on the upkeep of a duck house, not about "duck islands". Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Please wait until the end of this deletion discussion before renaming. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - Example of Wikipedia being used to make a political statement. Any useful material can be added to articles like water feature, or a proper version (under a better title) can be created after this abomination has been deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - I see that this has been taken from the article on Duck Ponds. Rosser Gruffydd 21:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs)

    Jay Cunning

    Jay Cunning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Jay Cunning" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    I'm having difficulty judging notability, but I can't see any independent reliable sources in the first few pages of Google, and we appear to have an unreferenced autobiography. dramatic (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Kikuchi Fuma

    Kikuchi Fuma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Kikuchi Fuma" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • Delete- After a lot of head scratching and puzzling over this cryptic article I think I can tentatively hypothesize that it is about a member of a Japanese boy band. A google search throws up a lot of hits, but these seem to be various fansites and many are in Japanese and I cannot judge their reliability. But judging from the fact that Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar yield nothing at all, I have to say this person is likely to be rather non-notable. Reyk YO! 05:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirected to Telephone card per WP:BB. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Rechargeable Calling Card

    Rechargeable Calling Card (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Rechargeable Calling Card" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

    The result was delete. There's one criteria to delete this, SNOW. In this case, a reasonable move. Tone 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Dechronication/Hypotheticals

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Dechronication/Hypotheticals
    Related AfD:
    Articles for deletion/Dechronication Articles for deletion/Dechronication/Hypotheticals
    Dechronication/Hypotheticals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Dechronication/Hypotheticals" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    Per WP:NOTGUIDE Airplaneman talk 03:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete as Wikipedia really isn't the place to list the potential ramifications of non-existent technology. (As the article doesn't make clear, this page is devoted to listing the potential benefits/drawbacks of a technology that could magically make everyone whatever age they desired to be). Aside from the arguments that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball or a place to host an unsourced essay, nothing here is remotely verifiable. -- Bfigura (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    that link does not work for me. They're a respectable organization, and I can not imagine them hosting nonsense like this. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete- What the...? This is why we need a speedy deletion criterion such as "WP:CSD#41- You've got to be kidding!" to cover articles like this one. Reyk YO! 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete we do have a close speedy criterion, and it's G1, nonsense. But it is better that this be seen by the community, for it could conceivably be about some notable fiction, though I personally doubt it. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete as nonsense. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete per above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete as fundamentally unverifiable original research and speculation. Also, I wasn't aware that articles forked off other articles like this (ie Article/Subarticle) were allowable - am I wrong? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • you're absolutely right. we're dealing with a single IP contesting both speedy and prod *sigh* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Userfy I am perfectly willing to let someone have such stuff in userspace. Collect (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete Interesting essay, looks like a good outline on which to base a science fiction novel, but not a Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    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.

    Nakunta River

    Nakunta River (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Nakunta River" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

    Withdrawn, as there not a snowball's chance in hell of this being deleted, despite the lack of sources. Fences&Windows 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete- I agree with you. Articles ought to have content. I doubt this AfD will get very far though, because there is a substantial number of people who believe every real place on Earth automatically needs an article, and these people almost invariably get their way. Empty, unexpandable microstub wastes of time and space are unfortunately what happens when "must have an article cos it exists" meets "can't have an article because there's nothing to say". Reyk YO! 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • keep Right you are, there is indeed a consensus that every major geographic feature is notable, and if this is called a river in some good source, it counts. But this does not apply to every geographic feature. We have deleted a number of creeks and streams and such, when there's no additional factors for notability. Reyk, we're not as over-inclusive as you seem to think, and the deprodder was abbvreviating things a little. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying, I don't understand the point of having a single-line article that merely states the existence of the thing in question and cannot conceivably be expanded, ever, because there's simply nothing to say about it. Reyk YO! 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment: A potential solution is to collapse those stubs into articles such as Rivers in New Brunswick as a compromise; otherwise, stubs they stay! - BalthCat (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. It is, as a geographical feature, notable, per consensus and per common sense, IMO. That it "cannot be conceivably be expanded" sounds like crystal ballery to me. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep A few seconds on google comes up with this map among other sources, with a precise location Latitude: 15° 11' 56" N Longitude: 83° 46' 40" W. As it appears to be a "major geographic feature", in all likelihood, more work would yield more. John Z (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: It is hard to find information about it. Not entirely sure which river Google Maps means. I'm not sure if this source is saying it feeds the Caratasca Lagoon or just the system of lagoons that includes that one. There seem to have been Nicaraguan refugee camps in the area during the civil war ([27], [28], [29]). Some of the other books might have something vaguely interesting to say, if the snippets were a little larger. --Chris Johnson (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep On Wikipedia, defined geographic features have always been inherently notable, and because of that, it's one of the few instances where stubs are tolerated. Thus, there is room for rivers, lakes, islands, peninsulas, etc; and inhabited towns, whether incorporated or not. The theory is that, even if such an article currently lacks content, someone in the world will write more about it (and geographic features will be there tomorrow and the next day). In this case, it's 71 miles long [30], not exactly a babbling brook. I've added that fact and source to the article, and encourage others to throw in what they have learned. Mandsford (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep, no good reason to consider this river nonnotable when major geographical features such as rivers are always so treated. Not sure why you say that it's unexpandable: there's surely plenty of information locally about it, and a local photographer could easily get good images. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep per Mandsford's rationale. I added a few more details, using this map showing its location.--Milowent (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. "Not sure why you say that it's unexpandable". Because in good faith I looked for information about it and could find nothing other than it existing. At least we know where it is now. This article is a prime example of why we shouldn't have bot-created stubs, as they contain little or no information and aren't properly verified. Editors are resorting to primary sources, i.e. maps. and iguide; the airy expectation that secondary sources can be found to expand it doesn't match with Chrajohn's experience. BalthCat's suggestion to merge this kind of stub is a good one. Fences&Windows 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I added the link to a book that references the river's outlet location. Serious question, is a map really a source different that a book that describes in words what a map shows, e.g, the location and outlet of the river?--Milowent (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

    Epitaphs for the Living

    Epitaphs for the Living (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Epitaphs for the Living" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    Non-notable book. The references provided cannot be verified (no links), and the links at the bottom have nothing directly to do with the subject. Frankly, the article appears to be somewhat promotional. No indication that this book has met the criteria of notability standards for books. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Keep. Several references can be found using this Google News archive search, although only the Google preview shows what the articles have to say about the book. The links are to preview pages that generally do not include the text that refers to the book. The book won the Stanley Marcus Award for Best Book Design for George Lenox from the Texas Institute of Letters in 1990, according to this page. I think the reviews and other references to the book shown by the Google News archive search are enough to demonstrate notability. The references in the article seem intended to define some of the terms used, such as "medical narrative". An absence of a link does not mean that a reference cannot be verified. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    List of Seinfeld fictional films

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/List of Seinfeld fictional films (2nd nomination)
    List of Seinfeld fictional films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "List of Seinfeld fictional films" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • Delete- I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator. It's mostly original research, and excessive detail on fictional trivia- and there's hardly a source to be seen. There are enough fan sites out there; let's not turn this serious encyclopedia into yet another one. Reyk YO! 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Neutral I agree that it is not properly sourced, on the other hand the article is of considerable length and a lot of effort has been put into it. So the article lemma itself is not the problem, only that it's not properly sourced. If sources can be brought, forward I would agree to keep it. --hroest 08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment This one would work better as an addition to the Seinfeld wiki. Back in 2006, before entertainment wikis, there was a place for such items on Wikipedia, but these are moving across town to a new neighborhood. Mandsford (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is obviously a reasonable topic for WP -- such articles are commonly found here, and therefore there is no strong reason for deletion. Questions regarding RS belong on the article talk page, since RS can easily be found for this; therefore, there is no reason to debate RS on AfD. These movies are extremely well-known--better-known, in fact, than many movies that actually exist. This list does not need to make historical claims about real movies, only that these movies are related to Seinfeld and are known to millions of people. Qworty (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete I would need to see some independent sources to establish notability ... I reserve the right to change my mind, but my brief look turned up nothing that seemed to establish the notability of this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

    Pokémon Movie 13

    Pokémon Movie 13 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Pokémon Movie 13" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • Neutral - Where exactly would you get sources for anime movies? Games have IGN and such. There is no doubt that this will be notable. and there is no doubt this doesnt exist because there is an official website. I guess you could merge it to Pokémon (anime)#Feature films. Look at the other films though. Many of them probably have no reliable third party sources. They source the official site, bulbanews, and pokeani. That doesn't mean they aren't notable though. Its just nobody talks about them much, so it is hard to find sources. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    Reviews of the movie, news updates, etc. I can't find any reliable source online that states this movie even exists. The only thing I can find are fansites, wikis, and the official site (WP:PRIMARY). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Like I said though, many of the other movies are of the same status. They dont have any reliable third party sources. That doesnt mean they should be deleted. Half of Wikipedia doesnt have reliable sources. They stay because they are not trivial subjects that dont need to be covered. Ignore all rules? Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    There are plenty of reliable sources for anime works. The anime/manga project has a list of online ones and a library of magazines and book sources owned by project members available. There are dozens of anime/manga books available. Notable series are covered by reliable sources, as can easily be seen by featured level anime articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    Well, as stated below, the Pokemon Project isnt very experienced with finding anime/movie sources. We mainly focus on the games. So if that project would help us, them maybe we could actually have better movie articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - Though we know a film is being made from a teaser trailer at the end of the last movie, that's pretty much all we know. And having a page which says "This movie is being made" just doesn't cut it. It can be recreated when we have some concrete information on it (title, release date, and even a plot summary or pre-production notes would be nice). There's no point in having an article when there is almost no information on the topic at hand. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. The article can be re-created once independent reliable sources are available. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete pure WP:crystal article without any independent sources and thus to delete. --hroest 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep and reduce to verified information This isn't a speculated future film or sequal, it's a confirmed 2010 film currently in production. Stubify, and expand when more information is released. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    Can you provide sources that show that the movie is confirmed? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    The official site would be a good start. and I am sure that it is confirmed by reliables sources, but as I said in my original statement where would you find such sources?... Please find a source on any of the other Pokemon movie articles and tell me where it is. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    Pokémon_4Ever#Reviews, for example. Please remember that notability is not inherited. Theleftorium 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    Rottentomatoes, IMBD (for some things, as I know some is user-submitted, wiki style), [31] for the first movie, newspapers (as shown in the first movie as well). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    The problem with the majority of the Pokémon films is that little work is put into them beyond plot and cast. Most of the Pokémon WikiProject's efforts go into the species and games articles, and the Films WikiProject doesn't do much more than assess. Sources can and will be found if more people, myself included, put the effort into them. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    [32] BAM! There it is! A reliable third party source talking about the movie on the Anime News Network, which you just verified a reliable source above. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    Of course, alone that one source does not meet notability for a future film. It would be usable for noting in the appropriate Film list section in the main article that another film is in production, but it isn't enough for a whole article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

    Gathera

    Gathera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Gathera" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

    Engine (boogie-rock band)

    Engine (boogie-rock band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Engine (boogie-rock band)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    Contested prod, concern was: "no evidence of notability". Looking through the article's references I don't see any citations that meet WP:BAND's criteria of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. If citations can be found for the features in Kerrang! or coverage in reliable sources of the band's national tours, that might be enough to establish notability. Otherwise I suggest deletion per WP:BAND. --Muchness (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete for now, no reliable sources that I can find at the moment, but this might warrant revising. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • As the author of this page, I think it would be pretty mean-spirited of you to delete it- particularly when I've gone to so much effort to gather information from as many sources as possible! I have also written to two of the bandmembers to request additional information from them, in order to upgrade the quality of the material I've included. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about collating and distributing information in this manner? Delete it if you must, but I think it would be a great shame; the reason I chose to describe this particular subject is because of the scarcity of information about this great little band elsewhere. Yehia Tawfik, 27/10/09, 15:36 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehia.tawfik (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Certainly was not my intention to be mean-spirited in nominating the article for deletion, but all articles in Wikipedia have to meet a minimum threshold of notability and this band looks like a borderline case. Hopefully this AFD discussion can uncover some sources to more firmly establish notability. --Muchness (talk)
    • In that case can I please request a delay before deletion? I will attempt to uncover additional sources ASAP. Many thanks. -Yehia Tawfik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.79 (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Magazine reference and specific gig dates & details have now been added. Is this sufficient to merit non-deletion? Please advise! - Yehia Tawfik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehia.tawfik (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Official band press release (c.1989) reproduced here:

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1111686&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=33090417824&id=727887322
    Group modulator lists this item (and all other images at this site) as being in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehia.tawfik (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete. No significant discussion of this band in any reliable source has come to light; notability cannot be verified. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Compared to the majority of articles on other bands in Wikipedia, far more sources, links and references have been listed and cross-referenced in this case. Mentions in national magazines are evidence of notability, aren't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.79 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Mentions rarely establish notability--WP:N requires significant, in-depth discussion in reliable sources. And what mention are you talking about--"a favourable write-up in Kerrang!"? I can't verify how favorable that write-up was, or how many paragraphs it contained, but if that is the only substantial reference in a reliable source, then that would not be enough to satisfy WP:N, no. What other articles have is not the topic of discussion here; if you find any that you think are less notable, feel free to propose deletion. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. I would suggest that those seeing to reflect notabity take a deep breath, read WP:BAND carefully, and either add sources reflecting that it meets one or more of those criteria or point to existing sources that indicated that it meets one or more of those criteria (and which one or more criteria the article meets).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The guidelines have been read and please let everyone be assured that this article is still being worked on. Further resources do exist, but time is needed to collate them. Hence the request for a delay in deletion. Thankyou for re-listing. On a seperate note, feedback for this article has been warm and positive from many different sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.79 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

    Tyfm

    Tyfm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Tyfm" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    Rebecca de Ravenel

    Rebecca de Ravenel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Rebecca de Ravenel" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • Delete Not even remotely notable Vartanza (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Taras Hrubyj-Piper

    Taras Hrubyj-Piper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Taras Hrubyj-Piper" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    fails WP:ACTOR and WP:BIO. no third party coverage [33]. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete: IMDB lists only two shows, one four episodes and the other a single episode. Even the article's claimed notability is lacklustre. - BalthCat (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Cherryl Pelayo

    Cherryl Pelayo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Cherryl Pelayo" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    I have removed the {{db-bio}} tag from the article because notability is asserted by Pelayo's hosting of the GMA 7 Morning Show, as well as her being a runner-up in Ms. Cebu 2002 and "clinch[ing] the 1st runner up title in the famous Ms. Earth Philippines Beauty Pangeant, Regional Search".

    However, I have been unable to find any sources about her. A Google News Archive search returns a passing mention. And a Google search returns only 184 results, none of which are reliable sources; most of the links are from unreliable sites such as Facebook or Yahoo Groups. Cherryl Pelayo fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Armorize Technologies

    Armorize Technologies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Armorize Technologies" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    Non-notable tech business. References provided are inclusions on unreachable product category surveys, or trivial press releases announcing financing or co-ventures. This has been speedily deleted four times as blatant advertising or as a business with no minimal showing of importance.[34] Google News hits seem to be press releases announcing financing, security alerts, and mentions in stories about trade show appearances. Taking this to AfD to establish a precedent for protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
    • Keep. Financing announcements dealing with millions of dollars should not be dismissed as trivial. The InfoWorld article is not a listing of all the exhibitors at DemoWorld, but rather (in its words) "the startup companies that could change your work life", which sounds like notability to me. Reports by companies such as Forrester Research, Inc. are reliable sources, although Forrester's report only mentions the company as one of several vendors with certain capabilities -- Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment - From our perspective, press releases about financing deals don't show enough importance to make a business notable, even if "trivial" was a poor choice of words. Every business that gets that kind of capital does not become an encyclopedia subject automatically. The InfoWorld article is indeed telling: it's about a "startup company" that "could change" an aspect of online security; this suggests only that they might be notable in the future, but may not be yet. Investment reports may be reliable sources, but the businesses and researchers that write them are driven by customer demand, rather than an editorial judgment of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - getting funded by Venture capitalists is a good thing for a startup, but it doesn't establish notability, especially when that coverage is self-generated through press releases. There is no significant coverage about the cmpany to establish notability. The Infoworld article is one of those show roundups and isn't that significant. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    File Access Manager

    File Access Manager (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "File Access Manager" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Keep - per WP:BEFORE, WP:N. A simple Google search reveals one third of a million (not a typo) Ghits: [35], and dozens on Google scholar: [36] as well as Google Books: [37]. Alternately, merge into File locking or Microsoft software. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Don't point me to WP:BEFORE when I searched for sources before the nomination. Google hits do not show notability. I would never have expected to see a !vote from an admin based on Google hits. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • WP:Before is a much abused slight. Don't devalue it for when it's actually needed. I have no doubt that Joe did due diligence before nominating. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Google search: Download sites. Google News and Google Books: Doesn't even mention this software. So why do you want this kept? Joe Chill (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - Not notable as a proper noun. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Matt Bixel

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Matt Bixel Articles for deletion/Matt Bixel (2nd nomination)
    Matt Bixel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Matt Bixel" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    Prod was removed due to previous AFD in 2006, rationale was: Unreferenced BLP on an unnotable actor; fails WP:PORNBIO Hekerui (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Weak keep - He has won a Grabby award which is a criteria for notability but there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him outside of this. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect to Danny Rhymes, his gay porn persona. He was a well known model and performer and as he's retired from porn altogether that seems to be where the notability lies. If he becomes notable for something else the issue can be revisited. -- Banjeboi 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Merge: It might be more appropriate to merge here. While he is perhaps most notable under the pseudonym, he performed (and continues to perform) under his actual name (and others for that matter), and so it may be less problematic. (And maybe more respectful.) For example, unless the article will be devoid of all mention of his other work, it would be awkward to describe "Rhymes's" work in straight porn, etc. when that pseudonym would not be responsible. Perhaps "Danny Rhymes" should be the notable 'character', and "Matt Bixel" would be the individual. - BalthCat (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Butler Golden Tornado Marching Band

    Butler Golden Tornado Marching Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Butler Golden Tornado Marching Band" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

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

    Tsuki no Misaki

    Tsuki no Misaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Tsuki no Misaki" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • comment I believe you can find the place-name Yatsuyama (八つ山) in the painting drawn by Hiroshige. I know another painting also showing Yatsuyama (八つ山), which I can't find on the web yet. --Excavator (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It would certainly seem so, and the Brooklyn Museum of Art also accepts the 100 Famous Views print as being of a brothel at Yatsuyama. So are there two different locations called Tsuki no Misaki? Or is Hiroshige just using it as a (generic?) title for pictures of moons viewed from headlands? (I've also come across an award-winning play, apparently set in Nagasaki, with the title Tsuki no Misaki, so if we have three distinct notable items that take the same name, perhaps we need to disambiguate?) --Paularblaster (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Based on the article, not my personal reading of the Japanese sources, it's notable in a range of Japanese literature and art. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep in concordance with DGG. I can't read these sources, but I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and assume on good faith that the references bear out the information in the article--which makes the subject notable. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep per three above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • comment on Paularblaster's issues: Hiroshige's Tsuki no Misaki or Yatsuyama was not associated with any other documents in Edo period as far as I know. Concerning the award-winning play Tsuki no Misaki, some information on the web shows it is a play in an isolated island --- the island name doesn't appear. So, I guess it is a symbolic name or something. I also checked whether Tsuki no Misaki is in Nagasaki by using the service of Geographical Survey Institute, one of governmental institutes in Japan, but the result was negative. --Excavator (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Tyrell Jackson

    Tyrell Jackson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Tyrell Jackson" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    No notability other than relationship shown. Unsourced and full of rumors and other dubious material. BLP issue. Reywas92Talk 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

    WorkXpress

    WorkXpress (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "WorkXpress" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    Advertising article about a non-notable business. The "references" supplied look impressive; what they show is that some would-be advertisers have become more adept at gaming the system, and that hardly any of them have this business as a major subject. Google News coverage shows one local paper interview with the CEO; other mentions are trivial, non-substantial, and in passing. The attempt to claim minimal importance is rather amusing, but this local award fails the business notability guideline:

    • earned the Fab 5 award in 2006, which was presented by the Harrisburg Regional Chamber and CREDC.[5] The Fab 5 was a competition to find the "Top 5" companies in the region who had been in business two to five years and were headquartered in Cumberland, Dauphin or Perry counties Pennsylvania.

    This has already been deleted three times as making an insufficient claim of importance, or as obvious advertising[38]; taking this to AfD to establish a precedent for protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Abstain - I took exception to this article, tagging and/or prodding it a while back, and chastised them for abusing Wikipedia. They seemed genuine (if not necessarily verifiably notable) so I spent some time helping them to improve the quality of the article. I'm sitting on the fence for this one but just wanted to give you the background - they're not your average wikispammer. -- samj inout 10:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Hello, I am a founder of WorkXpress, and I appreciate your goals and efforts in regard to keeping Wikipedia free of blatant advertising. Please allow me to make a couple of comments. First, it is true we have been deleted on several occasions, however, each time we have made an effort to understand the cause, and to rectify the cause with facts and evidence. The truth of the matter is that WorkXpress meets the requirements for listing on Wikipedia as we have grown in our understanding of them. For example, WorkXpress is notable; it is at the forefront of a significant shift in technology known as Cloud Computing, and has been recognized by analyst firms like Gartner, Forrester and the 451 Group as such. Second, this notability is verifiable; there have been numerous secondary source articles on WorkXpress, multiple awards and wide range of other validations. Our vision is to make all aspects of business software deployment ranging from development to systems administration even to marketing accessible to the ordinary IT worker, and to empower them to do incredible things. Please, give us the opportunity to provide the supporting documentation that you need prior to deleting this article...we are happy to do so. In conclusion, I believe that what WorkXpress is doing belongs on Wikipedia, not as an advertisement, but as an important part of the emerging historical story of Cloud Computing. This history is still young, and I hope that you can consider the fact that its still being written; albeit with the help of smaller, innovative firms like WorkXpress. Firms like WorkXpress have a part in this story just as important as the Microsofts, Google's and Salesforces of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment - thank you for your response. I am probably the wrong person to address the claim that your business "is at the forefront of a significant shift in technology known as Cloud Computing" to. At any rate, I would expect that claim to be verified in sources; I looked, and I'm afraid I found very little there. The deletion template more or less automates the process of looking; you will find what I found.

      Investment analyst firms like Gartner and Forrester generally do not confer notability unless their reports are made available to the general public. Their clients are their "editors", and while I hope their facts are reliable, most of their work is circulated only to paying customers, which makes them of "limited interest and circulation", and as such unhelpful to establish notability. The same is true of local and trade publication coverage, which I mentioned I did find when I looked.

      Ultimately, what you need to show is that your firm has the kind of historical importance that makes it, out of all its rivals, a subject that belongs in a general coverage encyclopedia. I nominated your firm at the same time I did a number of similar articles about small tech firms, in part because I want to see the inclusion policies applied even-handedly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - According to its founder, Wikipedia's goal is to contain "the sum of all human knowledge", not a "general coverage encyclopedia". Regardless, there have been numerous articles meeting the requirements of a regional secondary source, numerous national/international reviews, etc, and they are listed. The guideline clearly states that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability", and certainly WorkXpress has received plenty of evidenced regional media attention. Further, the guideline states that Notability in general "means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." ", which again, is well evidenced. I think if you give an article like this the benefit of the doubt, in 6-12 months time the answer will present itself...either the company will grow, or it will fail. Is it such a difficult thing to include this article into "the sum of all human knowledge" during the formative years of an entirely new industry (cloud computing), especially given the fact that a reasonable argument can be made for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.62.205 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Steel Guiliana

    Steel Guiliana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Steel Guiliana" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    I am also nominating the following related pages because it is identical and an unnecesary disambig:

    Steel Guiliana (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    Non-Notable. Article only mentions one race in a low category of motorsport, Formula BMW, and several other "also rans" in karting. Highly POV article. IIIVIX (Talk) 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Keep - This person was mentioned in Motorsport, they've also been mentioned in the Daily Telegraph (Australia), Northern Territory News (Australia), Africa News and The Herald (Harare), seems notable. The article does need a lot of clean-up though. (I will post the full articles from the newspapers on request). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • If you could cite this coverage, it will certainly help. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete - There are race result reports where he is mentioned such as this one. But the coverage is not significant. Nor is it numerous. I am not familiar with Formula BMW racing but according to our own article on it, it is an entry level series with a restriction to lower classes FIA racing licenses. If the series is a fully professional one, one could argue that he meets WP:ATHLETE, but the low level of the series and the lack of coverage doesn't establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Eric D. Snider

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Eric D. Snider Articles for deletion/Eric D. Snider (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Eric D. Snider (second nomination)
    Eric D. Snider (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Eric D. Snider" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    A vanity page for a non-notable writer and singer/songwriter. It appears the bulk of his work is either self-published or written for obscure web sites. His music CDs also appear to be self-produced. His one claim to notoriety, a 2006 scuffle with Paramount over attending movie screenings, seems like WP:NOTNEWS. Warrah (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment This is actually the third nomination of this article, not the second; perhaps this nom should be renamed. Anyway, at the time of the previous AfD I rewrote the article to remove vanity elements, then successfully argued to keep this article based primarily on the variety of mentions in mainstream and notable sources like NPR and USA Today. Now, for this nom, I am undecided. On one hand, the sources are still verifiable and notable themselves, and I think this article could merit inclusion in an encyclopedia: for instance, serving as a data point for someone researching the relationship between film studios and film critics. On the other hand, in principle I support deletion of borderline-notable BLPs, and I freely admit that this article's subject has borderline notability: his appearance in the mainstream sources have been rather minor and incidental. So I stand neutral for this AfD. alanyst /talk/ 15:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Shed Skin

    Shed Skin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Shed Skin" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment. This software is the creation of one programmer, who is also the creator of the article (which suggests WP:COI, especially since the same time frame saw him adding detailed discussion of Shed Skin to the main Python article) There do not seem to have been large improvements to the software since its initial creation and alpha/beta release, and it remains an "interesting toy" as of today, as far as I can tell. That said, I have also spoken with prominent members of the Python community who mentioned an interest in the software without prompting by me (i.e. I have made the main improvements to the article following its creation by Shed Skin's creator). It might well just be that this awareness by Pythonistas hasn't reached published sources, and hence not notability for WP purposes. LotLE×talk 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete If that's the case, then it also may fail WP:NPOV. Agreed, not enough coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetchcomms (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Ergastolo

    Ergastolo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Ergastolo" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • Weak keep It seems to be covered in several Italian sources, like this. There's probably more available offline. For a non-English film from the 1950s, I'd err on the side of keep. Zagalejo^^^ 01:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Lagarith

    Lagarith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Lagarith" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    I can't find significant coverage for this codec. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    There mostly isn't any, not just for Lagarith though, but for lossless video codecs in general. I've tried myself to find good sources, but have only found 1 to 3 that meet wikipedia's source requirements. I've gone ahead and added the 2 related ones to the article, but it seems a bit off to have the same source on every other article related to lossless video. -- Brandished (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    45 Special

    45 Special (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "45 Special" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

    fails WP:CORP. lacks third party coverage [39]. nothing particularly special about this night club (and we don't create articles for every night club in the world). LibStar (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you have inherent notability for every licensed radio station, why not for every licensed liquor sales location? OK, I'm not really serious about this point but I am seriously pushing for a low bar to licensed radio amateur to have notability if you accept commercial stations on that basis. Broadcasts below about 30Mhz have potential international notice. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delete I couldn't find significant coverage of the nightclub. Jujutacular T · C 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    J. M. Humphrey

    J. M. Humphrey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "J. M. Humphrey" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • Delete Lack of independent/significant coverage. --Jmundo (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    BuildFast

    BuildFast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "BuildFast" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

    Mallavoodoo

    Mallavoodoo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: "Mallavoodoo" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

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

    • I've also added a bylined news cite from Universo Online on the release of their 2001 album, O Inverno e a Garça. I acknowledge that their absence from the Portuguese Wikipedia raises doubts. Maybe some Brazilian editors here can shed some light. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep With these added WP:RS I believe the article now meets the first criteria for WP:BAND. The article creator has also added two refs (one of which appears to be more of a mention in passing). But I think we do have the multiple significant coverage needed, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Keep Now that there have been several articles added, I would agree that it meets the criteria under WP:BAND. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    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.

     W The content appearing above is a local copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text).

    The version shown above has Revision ID: 307172931 and was last updated August 10, 2009, 2:47 pm.

    Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.
    Retrieved from "http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:GWArtMirrorPage"
    Sea Level Explorer
    Random image
    Toolbox