Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 9 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Amar (Arab Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no validation for the claim of notability or fame. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 23:51, 9 April 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The result was Withdrawn This one was kind of on the fence, but given how close they are to releasing their single I'll just give it the benefit of the doubt. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate & Kacey Coppola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just barely avoids a G4 now that they have an (apparently digital-only) EP out on a notable label. However, I still think that they're a little bit short of notability, as they haven't really been covered in any sources independently of Can You Duet, their single hasn't charted yet, etc. etc. Close but no guitar. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:44, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reids Pit Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined the speedy as it's not a music group. Appears to be a concert venue, though I can't find much evidence of notability. Since I'm not sure what would make a venue notable, I wanted to bring it here. StarM 23:41, 9 April 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 WP:SNOW delete in conjunction with WP:CSD#G11.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Conni Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining db-copyvio because I'm not comfortable "overruling" OTRS, but this article oozes self-promotionalism (and dishonesty) and I would ordinarily db-spam it. I take it bjweeks restored it because copyright permission was obtained; I'll alert him. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Question - How do you know there's a OTRS ticket? Is this something only admins can see? There's currently nothing on the talk page. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ajeeb (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability, lack of references, lack of substance. Does not meet criteria for a Tv show page. Oo7565 (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Keiko Aizawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem to have enough WP:Notability nor verifiable. No sources for claims since 2008 Oo7565 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 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 by nominator (non admin closure) Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Zetland Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable structure Computerjoe's talk 22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - A quick google easily suggests notability, while not a reliable source - shouldn't really be ignored, and I'm sure reliable sources can be found. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    Precisely. It isn't reliable. A Google search for '"Zetland Hotel" saltburn' only returns 463 hits. So we know it exists, but can any reliable third party sources confirm its notability? Computerjoe's talk 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to senior prank. –Juliancolton |  19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Senior Prank Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic content with no references to verify notability (though it could be stubbed to leave just the lead paragraph) Astronaut (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Merging both Senior Prank Day and Senior Prank into School prank is a much better idea than stubbing. Astronaut (talk) 09:54, 13 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgia–Thailand relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These are almost non-existent bilateral relations with no assertion of notability. Georgia doesn't even have representation in Thailand, and Thailand's relations with Georgia is through it's Russian embassy. Tavix |  Talk  22:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

News coverage generally trivial. Business Week article is about a letter the blogger sent, not the blog, and FOX News only writes one paragraph about the blog. Computerjoe's talk 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment A search of the Google News archives brings up 34 hits, but it doesn't look like the site itself is actually reported on or critiqued, it's just mentioned as part of a list, or simply as an example. Not ready to vote (yet), just mentioning. Matt Deres (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • keep It's active, up-to-date, provides a public service (as opposed to rating the Star Trek captains or something), and the blogger has also co-written a mainstream book on the same subject. It's still borderline I guess, but I'm okay with keeping. Matt Deres (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    Are you discussing the blog or the article? And its (the article's or the blog's) quality is not the issue, notability is. I don't believe any mentions of it are any more than trivial. Its Technorati rank is 16,000 meaning it's the 16000th most linked to blog. That, in my opinion, isn't notable and unless any significant media coverage is found I don't believe it is. Computerjoe's talk 20:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand why the Businees Week article about the blogger can not be used to establish notability of the blog. I also don't think that is trivial the mention in the "Best Blogs: 10 Health Web Sites Worth a Click" by Fox. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    Notability isn't inherited. Computerjoe's talk 20:18, 14 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Johannes Schlüter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think the release manager for a version of a notable product is themselves notable enough for inclusion Astronaut (talk) 21:59, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Angry Lamb Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy; taking to AfD because none of the ghits suggest notability to me, but I'm not good with music - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article you just mentioned qualifies for a speedy deletion. Just because page x isn't listed for deletion does not mean article y can be kept. People obviously just haven't noticed it yet. GraYoshi2x► 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are lots of articles on WP that shouldn't be - most of those make their way to the deletion process eventually. MuffledThud (talk) 08:46, 10 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pawistik Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is not notable, just a fishing cabin lodge, and other reasons are made on it's own page: advertisement, orphan Airmain (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. No particular claim to notability - not in itself or even accrued notability from other sources. Reads like an advertisement to me. It would appear from the discussion page that there is a distinct conflict of interest involved, lending weight to my distinct feeling of spam being not very far away. The article has been around since June 2008, but still only is linked to a Knowledge (XXG) article about an airport that only has one sentence in it - and doesn't mention the lodge at all. Probably there as a way of telling people how to get there. The other reference linked is the company website. Possibly this is because there are no references to be found other than directories and adverts - which merely establish probable existence. Do I need to say more? Peridon (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of some clear demonstration of notability. DGG (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There doesn't seem to have been any improvement or demonstration of notability since the last deletion nomination. Timmeh! 23:19, 9 April 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 Speedy G6, non-controversial cleanup deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Charismatic Christianity/version 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There already is a page Charismatic Christianity which provides much more information and substance than does this minimal page. Creator of the page is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as it is redundant and contains nothing but links to other pages. As for Grandmartins comment, if the creator wishes to shed insight onto why this article was created it would be welcomed, but as it stands now the page should be deleted, if the creator desires for it to be userfied I have no objections. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Two versions of an article? Is there a competition for best version or something? If so, this version's definitely not winning. Timmeh! 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree this is an odd duck of an article; looks like it was recently moved to this spot. Seems like a good candidate for G6 or G7 once things get straightened out. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless there are significant changes to the article's content, I don't see a strong reason in defending V2.0 -- especially when the original article is more than adequate in covering the subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a duplicate version, or an "odd duck". This is, quite simply, Anthony Appleyard fulfilling a request at Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves. This is the page that used to be at the title that was the target of the move. The "version 2" is Anthony Appleyard's, and you'll notice that this is simply xyr standard practice for requested moves. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

*Close this nomination per Uncle G's explanation, and let Anthony Appleyard complete the merge process. Rklear (talk) 04:29, 10 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hot Hail Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining speedy per article talk page; taking to AfD and notifying WT:COMICS. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete largely for no citation. I guess some small amount of notability exists since they apparently published one (although only one) issue of Captain Canuck, but per WP:COMPANY an organization or business is only really notable if it has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independant secondary sources". A quick google search and I find the exact phrase "Hot Hail Comics" only appearing on website that sell comics, in association with the one Captain Canuck issue. This article needs to demonstrate that the company has been covered by the media, not just that it exists. -Markeer 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
that is not a reason for speedy deletion; at worst, the company is merely non-notable. Speedy delete only applies for the reasons given in WP:CSD . DGG (talk) 02:25, 10 April 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. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A Garagem da Vizinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It was proded earlier today, but I removed it as it has been nominated for AFD before (result was no consensus.) As it stands now the article doesn't establish notability through outside sources, and for the majority of its existence the article has contained copyvios of the songs lyrics (they are removed and then placed back in.) I do not feel that there is much from this article that can be merged with the artists article, and thus it should be deleted out right. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus to delete.. –Juliancolton |  19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren Tanke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a museum technician most likely written by the subject of the article. Cites no sources that are 'about' this person. Although this person is certainly accomplished, I don't believe what's in the article establishes true notability. ike9898 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) ike9898 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Long list of publications, but a Google Scholar search showed no evidence of publications being significantly cited. Lots of unencyclopedic detail in article doesn't help. Some Google News results but not enough to be convincing for demonstrating notability. If the article's author would like to suggest a notability guideline that may be met, I would, however, be happy to reconsider.--Michig (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I'm swayed a little by the arguments below but this Google Scholar search looks a little marginal for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC) His work being cited in Knowledge (XXG) articles is not a convincing argument for notability, though, in my view.--Michig (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You can't use quotes around his name, as he's cited in many articles as Tanke, D., D.H. Tanke, D. Tanke, etc. If you click the link I provided below, you can clearly see that every link on the first nine pages (the first 90 Google Scholar articles, and some after that) are all paleontological works citing Darren Tanke. You'll get an artificially low Google Scholar result if you do searches within quotes on any paleontologist: "Robert Bakker", for example, returns only about 100 valid Google Scholar hits. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is linked from Allosaurus, Dinosaur, Tyrannosaurus, Tyrannosauridae, Daspletosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, and Majungasaurus, nearly all of which are Featured Articles. And in each case, Mr. Tanke's works are cited as sources on these rather important fossil genera. In other words, numerous FAs already point to Tanke's accomplishments in the field of paleontology. It would be a little strange to delete Tanke's article based on lack of notability while noting his scientific opinions in multiple (eight) Featured Articles! Subject has appeared in a televised documentary (someone found him worthy of notice), as noted by IMDB ; this is already stated in the article. Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics) clearly applies: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline, etc. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll also mention I found 4,260 ghits on Google Scholar for Darren Tanke, meaning his work is cited in many academic papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not using the right search term - can you provide some examples from Google Scholar where, for example, Darren Tanke is the primary author and a paper has more than, say, 20 cites? I can come up with 13 cites of my own work, and I certainly don't merit an article. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, and given that Knowledge (XXG) is not a valid reliable source, evidence of his work being substantially cited in other recognized academic works would be the most convincing argument for notability.--Michig (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, Michig: in your first message, you ask for "evidence of publications being significantly cited." I provided a link to Google Scholar. Immediately above, however, you ask for papers from Google Scholar where "Darren Tanke is the primary author and a paper has more than, say, 20 cites". You compare yourself to Mr. Tanke, but you've provided no evidence that you've appeared in documentaries where you were interviewed about your scientific opinions, so the analogy seems a little inapt. No offense is intended. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't comparing myself to Mr. Tanke, merely pointing out that virtually anyone who has ever worked in a research role will result in Google Scholar hits. The measure of whether their work is notable is how widely it is cited by other academics. I would expect a notable academic to have published at least one piece of work that is cited by more than 20 others, as Robert Bakker does with ease even when enclosed in quote marks. The requirement for evidence of notability does not fall on me - my point above was solely about the notability of Tanke being demonstrated as an academic, which you would be well advised to address with regard to the appropriate guideline rather than questioning whether I have "appeared in documentaries".--Michig (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Bizarre. You asked for Google Scholar hits, and I provided a link to many. Your search didn't work because few Google Scholar citations are going to appear in the form "Darren Tanke"; do you normally conduct Google Scholar searches that way? You then changed tack and requested Google Scholar hits on a Tanke paper with more than 20 cites by other papers. You did compare yourself to Tanke by listing the number of citations you've got vs the number he would need to satisfy you, ignoring the fact that Mr. Tanke has already appeared in several documentaries as already noted in the article. I did not "question whether you've appeared in documentaries"; I said your analogy is inapt. And it is; since you haven't appeared in any documentaries, it would be hard to say that such comparison can be made. Simply tallying Google Scholar citations using an ineffective search term won't help us here. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The Google Scholar search with quotes returns the same most-cited results as a search without quotes. You said to me "you've provided no evidence that you've appeared in documentaries" but now claim "I did not question whether you've appeared in documentaries" - your arguments are ridiculous, and a waste of both your time and mine. I must assume you having nothing to add to the article (which contains no evidence of notability - only 2 sources, one of which only lists his name and the other which doesn't mention him at all) or to this discussion, in order to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I find your arguments as ridiculous as you find mine, Michig, and I also find it ridiculous that you've changed your !vote to delete in a fit of pique. Clearly, your Google Scholar search methods are sub-par, and I question your methods of determining notability using Google Scholar. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop trolling and come up with some better evidence of notability. The onus is on you to prove notability not others to disprove it.--Michig (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly notable as an authority in his field. DGG (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG's comment. Although, the article is in major need of clean-up, IMO. --Spotty11222 (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Original nominator comment Let's say the result of this process is 'keep'. Are the any reliable sources 'about' this person? If not, then little of the article is supportable. I certainly would cut all sorts of stuff about his childhood love of dinosaurs and his maintenance of museum facebook pages. ike9898 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, trim material as needed; the article didn't have that stuff when I edited it in '07. But it makes no sense to me to delete an article on someone who has clearly had a major influence on current paleontological thinking. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate it when users zealously trim away everything that is not supported by a reference, even though that is allowable, so I certainly won't go overboard. BUT, if hypothetically someone were to do that, what would you be left with? You can't even really say that he's had a major impact on the field, because that would be a POV interpretation of his publication record. ike9898 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You can say:

Darren H. Tanke is a Canadian technician of the Dinosaur Research Program at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller, Alberta. Born in Calgary, Tanke became interested in natural history at an early age. In 1979, Tanke began working for Philip J. Currie in the paleontology department of the Provincial Museum of Alberta, originally as a volunteer. From 1979 until 2005 (when Dr. Currie left the Tyrrell to become a professor at the University of Alberta in Edmonton) Tanke worked as a lab and field technician.

Editor of Mesozoic Vertebrate Life: New Research Inspired by the Paleontology of Philip J. Currie, Tanke appeared in the 1998 documentary film Dinosaur Park, and the 1993 educational film Messages in Stone.

Tanke has authored several papers on dinosaurs; his recent work includes preparation of Pachyrhinosaurus fossils.

You can include some of the lab and field work stuff. You can mention his naming of the new Pachyrhinosaurus species (there are press releases, if an independent citation is needed). Then you can add:

Tanke has also authored papers on Allosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Styracosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, Majungasaurus, Chasmosaurus, Stegoceras, Centrosaurus, Eoceratops, and various other hadrosaurids, ceratopsians, and tyrannosaurids. (This is not an exhaustive listing). Source each of these either to his own papers, or use the Paleobiology Database or DinoData.org This avoids a POV statement that he's had an impact on paleontology, while demonstrating his impact on current paleontological science. Include his bio here

You can mention his preparation of parts of The Dinosauria (2004), one of the most important works in modern paleontology (easily sourced). You can keep his list of publications, cite some of it, or trim as needed. Include a link to the Dinosaurs of the Deep site, and the Royal Tyrrell Museum.
I say you in a generalist term only, just responding to the hypothetical question you posed above. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 18:26, 11 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Michael Schmitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A blatant autobiography. The references are the subjects own site, and what appears to be examples of his work, not reliable sources. My own search for reliable sources did not return any better results. Fails notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 9 April 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. –Juliancolton |  19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dyanne Iandoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This BLP is about a child actor only known for her performance in a made-for-tv movie. I can't find any discussion of her in a nontrivial manner through reliable, third-party sources. She isn't very newsworthy and notability can't be established through a regular google search. ThemFromSpace 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Egypt-Japan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is yet another stub in a long line of stugs (all unsourced) being created about non-notable international "relationships." There are no sources that discuss the Egypt-Japan relationship in depth, and anything of note that happens between the two countries (i can find nothing but cordial exchanges at conferences and some bog-standard trade stuff) can be mentioned in articles about those counties, i.e. Foreign relations of Egypt and Foreign relations of Japan. I would also like some support from other editors for stopping the serial creation of unsourced stubs; the encyclopedia has enough unsourced articles as it is. Adding more with little hope of expansion is damaging. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, $1 billion in trade is less than 1% of Egypt's GDP, and less than .01% of Japan's GDP. That's a pretty set of links to press releases and news briefs you've got there, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Not as pretty as using arithmetic to argue that one billion dollars is pocket change. Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, percentages and arithmetic that show the comparitive worth of things are cool. I mean, someone who is poorly informed might think "$1 billion DOLLARS!" means something in international trade. But the cool thing about fancy dancy percentage calculations is they give us a sense of scale and notability -- and in this case help us find out that not only is Egypt an insignificant trading partner of Japan (not so surprising, given the size of the Japanese economy) but that even relative to Egypt's teeny, tiny economy (yes -- $130 billion may sound like a lot to you, but for GDP it's chickenfeed -- per capita Egypt wouldn't be in the top 100 nations) the trading relationship is microscopic. So if there is some reason to have a stand alone article on "Egypt-Japan relations" that reason is not to be found in their tiny trade relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And when I compare 13 people to the population of Binghamton, 0.0003 percent isn't that significant. Cool! Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Err, yes, but the Economy of Japan is not exactly scrapping the bottom of the notability barrel. "Less notable than the economy of Japan" is not exactly a convincing deletion rationale. WilyD 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete From this article, you find out that Japan recognized Egypt's independence (and so did every other country), the fact that they make trade with each other (not that notable of a fact, more trivial than anything). And various government officials making visits to the countries. In case someone doesn't know that: government officials make visits to other countries all the time. There is not something that is magically notable in this case. Tavix |  Talk  21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Of the sources cited by Wily, the most significant is :EGYPTIAN-JAPANESE TRADE EXCHANGE HITS $1B (5 June 2002 "Japans ambassador in Cairo Takaya Suto said the Japanese-Egyptian relations have witnessed large leaps especially in the trade exchange which currently hits $1 billion including Japanese exports worth $730 million and Egyptian exports $150 million")... a billion dollars! If stuff like that had been in the article to begin with, it wouldn't have been nominated. Relevant also are
JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF EGYPT'S ROLE
EGYPT ENHANCING ECONOMIC COOPERATION WITH JAPAN
Egyptian ministers comment on trade with Japan ahead of Koizumi visit ("Cairo, 19 May : Official and private-sector economic circles in Egypt welcomed an expected visit by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi slated for Saturday and Sunday , expecting a strong qualitative leap in bilateral cooperation in the political, economic, investment, technological, tourist and cultural domains."). Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you thank you Mandsford! A strong qualitative leap -- ooh, my inner copywriter thrilled to read this! I clicked to read more. I was then only given a sentence or so, and asked to click to read more. That I did, and was offered the chance to Meet Japanese Ladies Beautiful Japanese Women Seeking Love & Marriage. Join Free Now! Damn, I can hardly wait. I can picture her now, my little Cio Cio san; our bilateral cooperation will have strong qualitative leaps. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Considerable possibility for expansion, as shown by Mandsford. One would expect that of two countries as important as these two. The indiscriminate manufacture of articles about really borderline topics is not a good way to improve Knowledge (XXG). The indiscriminate nomination for deletion of all those so created without looking at individual notability is also not a good way to do things. DGG (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems like a notable relationship to me, I have seen numerous articles like this on the chopping block today. Two larger countries both notable for their extensive amount of trade who seem to have established relatio0nships makes a keep in my book. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Goodness vote keep. But please, it's painful to see someone refer to $1 billion dollar as "extensive" for a bilateral trade relationship. It's peanuts (there may or may not be good reasons for this notability -- but the bilateral trade is empirically non-notable at that level).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's peanuts, then do be a good chap and fax it to me fast. I need it to keep my Cio Cio san (see above) in kimonos and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil–Vietnam relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is yet another stub in a long line of stugs (all unsourced) being created about non-notable international "relationships." There are no sources that discuss the Brazil-Vietnamese relationship in depth, and anything of note that happens between the two countries (i can find nothing but cordial exchanges at conferences and some bog-standard trade stuff) can be mentioned in articles about those counties, i.e. Foreign relations of Brazil and Foreign relations of Vietnam). I would also like some support from other editors for stopping the serial creation of unsources stubs; the encyclopedia has enough unsourced articles as it is. Adding more with little hope of expansion is damaging. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - notabile in the usual way. I see no argument for this being a highly exception article that needs a highly unusual treatment. and so forth. Highly notable and encyclopaedic, as we would expect. WilyD 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Scope of the article is broader than can be represented by a handful of news articles spanning a mere five years (barely a quarter of the time relations have been established, according to the article), some of which are no more than political backscratching at the UN or routine state visits and several of which cover the same event. Simply not notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep If there arethis many news articles for just 5 years, then certainly there will be enough material for an article. DGG (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Fucking edit conflict! Anyway, in trying to expand on WilyD's citations, most of the articles cited show cooperation on several levels between the two nations. To me, it does not matter whether the extent of the cooperation is smaller in comparison to someone else's cooperation (not that the President of Vietnam has visited the White House). The gist of the articles is that trade between Brazil and Vietnam has increased over the last several years, and that there have been multiple state visits between the presidents of Brazil and Vietnam in the last several years. The issue is whether this is notable enough for its own article. I believe that the fact that the two nations have been cooperating on many levels demonstrates that the relations between the two are notable; some will disagree, but we're all entitled to an opinion. Mandsford (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Of these, I think the most significant is "Vietnam, Brazil agree to boost multi-faceted ties", a 2008 article, shows that the combined trade rose from $43 million in 2002 to $323 million in 2007 and is projected to reach $1 billion in 2010. Other articles reflect meetings between leaders in 2004, 2006 and 2007. Ideally, an "X-nation/Y-nation" article should only be created if the two countries are actually conferring with each other. When it is established that there is something to write home about, then, ideally, an article serves its purpose if it can keep the reader accurately informed. Mandsford (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, A pickup in Xinhua, the Chinese government's official state news agency (propaganda), of an article in the Vietnam News, the english language outlet of the Vietnamese government's official press service (propaganda). Is this really the most significant of those?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to support the proposal for preventing the creation of unsourced stubs, or unsourced articles of any kind.Hilary T (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Xinhua article and others show that we have reliable third party sources available. Also I don't see how it is Propaganda, it is from a news outlet outside of Vietnam and whether or not it is state run has nothing to do with its facts. So per WP:RS I go keep. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the arguments for keeping this stub, Xinhua, an official press organ of the Chinese State (which is not known for accuracy and fact checking) is unreliable for almost everything on wikipedia. It has been called the "worlds biggest propaganda agency" (reporters without borders), its directors are appointed by the Communist Party of China's Propaganda Department and it is empowered to censor international news reports distributed in China. It is in a classic, anachronistic sense, a propaganda organ. As is the Vietnam News. They do not have any reputation for fact checking and accuracy; in fact, they have reputations for deception, censorship and fabrication. Whatever the course of this AFD, to hold up these propaganda organs as reliable sources is to fully misunderstand why some news outlets are trusted, and others are not. To marcusmax -- to write whether a newspaper is controlled by a government or not "has nothing to do with the facts" is an unfortunate misunderstanding of how to evaluate accuracy and reliability in reporting. Here's a pro-tip: State Press agencies are typically far less reliable than independent news outlets with their own editorial controls.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of other reliable sources than just the one from Xinhua as Willy D shows with his links. Those in a way can help verify relationships between the two countries. Might I add that if you are quoting me on your userpage I will even sign for you. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
sorry, that was a bit uncivil of me. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems to meet WP:N, though it would be good if the material in the above references was incorporated into the article (and not just as a list of links). Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The many news articles serve as reliable 3rd party sources which satisfy WP:N. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep External sources provided clearly cover WP:RS and WP:N. This one seems pretty clear cut. I know its frustrating with all the international relations stubs created, but look at which one you nominate next time- because this one isn't even close to being a delete. -M 05:31, 13 April 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 redirect to Characters of the Order of the Stick. Redirecting as the consensus is to merge and redirect Fritzpoll (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Roy Greenhilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article and all related articles consist entirely of plot summaries, with no indication of notability. The first 50 hits on a google search failed to turn up anything besides forum posts and links to various wikis, indicating a lack of notability. McJeff (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all character articles with the same issues as the initially nominated one:

Durkon Thundershield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haley Starshine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vaarsuvius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belkar Bitterleaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xykon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Redcloak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miko Miyazaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hinjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McJeff (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, for those interested, I would suggest first adding a section on influence on common culture, whether it be mentions in magazines/book/etc or slogans adopted by many. Cheers. I' 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge All to Order of the Stick article (in extremely reduced form). The telling point for me is that all of the 'citations' are to individual pages/strips of the webcomic, so no specific notability has been established about these characters beyond their source. The Artful Dodger has a cultural identity beyond the book Oliver Twist. Roy Greenhilt, based on this article, has nothing of the kind. If, as ImperatorExercitus suggests, a cited section can be added justifying this character beyond TOtS, great. Until then, delete the unnecessary plot summary and (probably OR) analysis of personality traits, and merge what's left back to the main article. -Markeer 21:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I will need to think about this one. These articles are all terrible targets for cruft. I somehow got Vaarsuvius onto my watchlist, and pretty much all I ever do there is revert fanboy junk. But being a target for cruft (or spam, or vandalism, or anything else) is not in of itself a rationale for deletion, so I'll sleep on it and weigh the various stuff. rʨanaɢ /contribs 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've slept on it, and the answer is Merge together (as opposed to merging upwards into the main OOTS article). The OOTS article already has a long and, frankly, somewhat messy characters section, and merging all this content there would be a disaster; to shorten these enough to make a merge appropriate, we'd be essentially shortening them down to what's already there, which would be no different than deleting. On the other hand, merging into Characters of Order of the Stick or something like that would be workable. We could do it something like the Megatokyo characters articles (which are also atrocious, but whatevs). rʨanaɢ /contribs 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into a much shorter single article. I don't believe that this information belongs in the main article, as that is about the correct length, so a seperate plot summary article makes sense. I am absolutely against deletion, that's a very heavy handed approach to articles that obviously have a tremendous amount of editor support (look at the logs) and have a tremendous amount of peer review. I will grant that every one of them is far too long, and could use some radical editing, but deletion - no. Timmccloud (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge all into either the main article or an article on the characters--in reduced form. Quite sufficient coverage for the subjects. Anyone wants to know more, they know where they can find the material. DGG (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge all to a list of characters Heck of a comic, but I don't think sourcing or actual notability requires that much coverage at this time. I'd rather keep than merge to the base article however. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect all to Characters of the Order of the Stick, where interested editors may merge relevant information from the page history. It would be too much to ask from the closing admin to trim the character articles to WP:DUE length and merge. – sgeureka 11:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect all to Characters of the Order of the Stick. I like the series, but wikipedia articles are not the place to painfully go over every detail of the plot. Once you remove that and trim the rest, you are left with 2-3 paragraphs top. (for doing the merge you can copy/paste the lead and "Personality, traits and abilities". The "The Order of the Stick Adventure Game" section should be merged to The_Order_of_the_Stick. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:01, 13 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Not notable as per policy. No content edit since creation mid-2007, so stayed as stub. One album, no links. No references. Likely the article's focus is on the article creator himself. Dancraggs (talk) 19:23, 9 April 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 Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Diagnostics Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article currently exists only as self-promotional WP:SPAM. I have found no independent reliable sources to allow the substantial rewrite needed. The only coverage on search are press releases and self-published information. Even with a rewrite, it doesn't appear this could pass WP:CORP. — CactusWriter | 19:26, 9 April 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 per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tehya Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student. All sources are limited in coverage and local. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 9 April 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 : Speedily deleted. It looks like a hoax, it sounds like a hoax, it feels like a hoax, it smells like a hoax, it tastes like a hoax. What is it? ... A hoax, perhaps? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Fascinating Tales of Lauren's Lunches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Likely hoax (or utterly non-notable at best). No Google hits for the book's name. (I wasn't able to find any mention of it at the linked website, either.) If there are plans at Warner Bros to pick up the book for a TV series, I suppose there'd be a mention of it somewhere - wouldn't it? Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:24, 9 April 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sister Sin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable band fail WP:BAND no reliable sources can be found only trivial coverage. BigDunc 18:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The following sources may prove sufficient for establishing notability: German album review, Swedish article. There's also this which suggests the band have had a minor hit of sorts in the US. The band have released two albums, and ther's a fair amount of coverage out there from sources of varying reliability, e.g.: , .--Michig (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
So one album bestows notability according to WP:BAND it is 2 and a chart position of 107 on Top Heatseekers which according to the wiki article only goes to 50 is not notable. BigDunc 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The band have released 2 albums, as I stated above (Dance of the Wicked (2003) and Switchblade Serenades (2008, Victory Records)). The Heatseekers hit is of course too minor to indicate notability on its own - the articles on the band may be enough, although I don't know the sources well enough to be certain that they would be considered reliable - a German or Swedish editor could help out here.--Michig (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. BigDunc 19:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The Swedish article is actually from Göteborgs-Posten, which is a major Swedish newspaper, so should be fine as a source.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There's also this review.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep No problem with this stub. Heavy metal bands don't get a lot of mainstream coverage, that's true but on top of the Göteborgs-Posten article there are multiple interviews out there. Not in the NYTimes or Rolling Stone of course, but well-established websites devoted to the genre , covered by websites in French , Italian . They've had gigs in Germany, Sweden, Romania, Norway, as well as a three month tour in the US . Active since 2002, signed to Victory Records, per article on sv.wiki and band's website, 3 full length albums (though only the latest on an important indie label). I don't think there's any question the band is notable. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:44, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a band that does not cite sources to establish notability per WP:BAND. According to the article, their entire output so far seems to be home-made "street" DVDs and mixtapes. Astronaut (talk) 18:38, 9 April 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Offenburger FV players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No need for this page, even as a redirect, as nobody will search for it. The content has been moved to the team's page. Over The Desk (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I am happy that it be deleted, unless anyone is willing to take on the task of making it what it claims to be. But it should not have been moved to the club article in this way. It is now a Notable players section, which, when it has no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria, is POV, OR and unverifiable. Indeed, it was removed from the club article for precisely that reason on 15 March. If OTD's intention is to make a merge, then that is what he should have proposed. Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a discussion suggestion deletion, the final consensus may be "merge" but this is not an Articles for Merging discussion, and there is no need to wait for a "Merge" outcome before merging content. Over The Desk (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the removal of this information from the club article was done with clear edit notes which cited several policies and preceding discussions, and the act of merging was essentially an unexplained reversion of that edit. However, User:EA210269 has since given it a heading that provides inclusion/exclusion criteria, and references as to why the two players involved should be on it. So long as the list is complete, or there is the intention to make it so, I now think that delete and merge is entirely appropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop being so pedantic. I explained why I was putting it in the article. It was not a major change and hardly controversial. If you agree that it was actually the right thing to do, why are you continuing to harp on about tiny details of how it should have been done? Rather than complaining in the first place, perhaps you could have made the changes that EA210269 made instead. Let's focus on getting stuff done rather than moaning about whether it follows the letter of whichever obscure code of conduct you think we should be following. Over The Desk (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as it stands with no prejudice of recreation if someone writes an actual list. Punkmorten (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I withdraw my earlier 'keep vote'; a quick search for notable players to have played for this club does not bring up many more than the two internationals whose details are already mentioned on the main article page. Therefore, I doubt the club merits having a seperate article about its players. GiantSnowman 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nikola Rachelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  18:15, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohio Higher Education Rail Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proposed rail network with no coverage and no sources. The only source I can find is a proposed resolution written by the creator of this entry, Jerry Wicks. Wperdue (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this one. It was an accidental second nomination due to latency issues. I have indicated this in the other nomination. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue
I have closed the other nomination, since it was the first one and this is the second. The discussion can be continued here. (adding the <small> tag to these comments)— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is written more like an essay or even as rhetoric. But the main issue is in finding references for it. If this project is truly notable, and it ought to be because it is large, then there will be many references. But there are not. Since there are not I must conclude that it is either not notable, or that its notability is not verifiable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't DELETE Gentlemen, the OHERN Institute is new. Please visit our web site maintained on the campus of Bowling Green State University (ohern.bgsu.edu). The Institute was created toward the end of last year for the purpose of researching the issues surrounding the creation of a statewide rail network linking Ohio's colleges and universities. I'm sorry there are no other links to this topic as yet. These matters take time. We are in meetings with various city, county and state officials. Unfortunately, these meetings do not generate the type of links you may be seeking. There will be a good deal of press coming on this matter in the coming months, but again, we are moving slowly on this since it is a complicated matter that requires judicious work. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryWicks (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hasan Salaam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rapper and community volunteer. At first glance appears to be OK, there are references and he's won awards. However, the awards are not significant (as required by WP:MUSIC) and the references are from 1) a user-submitted-content site 2) CDBaby (an online store) 3) an unknown site (hiphoppalalce.com, mislabeled as Hip Hop Connection—the site is currently down) (reliablilty?) 4) and a blog. A fifth reference is ostensibly from Source magazine, which is good but the link is to a blog (for the text) and MySpace (for an image of the article). If the image of the article is to be trusted, it appears to be a sidebar of another, larger article on an unknown topic. So really the only thing near to a reliable source, is the Source article, and even that is on shaky ground. Fails WP:MUSIC (and close to failing WP:V). TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  18:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note. The article has been improved since it was listed here. The nominator's comments on the sourcing in the article relate to the sources prior to the improvement.--Michig (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient coverage in hiphopdx, Exclaim!, The Source, etc. (Also the blog mentioned above was the blog of Rich Knight, the journalist who wrote the piece in question.) 86.44.26.18 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The article contains no sources that have been independent from the manufacturer of the compund, according to the text in the article. Article is written rather like an advert. Article does not cite sources with regard to the reduction of facial muscle movement, but rather makes inferences from the unsourced claim that argireline lessens "reactions causing contractions" and the theory of such contractions causing wrinkles. WnC? 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for advising me of the usability of PubMed; for some reason that didn't cross my mind. Mailed you re: the sources. Am I supposed to close this AfD now, and if so - how? WnC? 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's OK, I'll do that for you. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 10 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nitin Ticku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not believe this blogger/businessman meets notability criteria. Nick—/Contribs 17:46, 9 April 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Call Girl the Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musical, fails WP:NOTE, sparse references not only one reference reliable per WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. MuffledThud (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Katarzyna Dolinska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article's subject fails to meet general inclusion criteria and inclusion criteria laid out at WP:Entertainer. Also, subject did not finish in top 3 on ANTM. Previous AfD established only top 3 contestants from each season have notability conferred by participation in ANTM. L0b0t (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep being notable having signed many agencies (Elite, Ford, etc.) ApprenticeFan 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment A model engaging in the business of modeling is no more notable than a chef cooking, a teacher teaching, a writer writing, etc. Doing one's job does not make one notable; being recognized as superlative in one's field does. L0b0t (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I know she's a working model, but does a model getting work automatically become notable? Yes, there's the whole America's Next Top Model aspect of it as well, but she didn't win or finish high (wasn't she 5th in her cycle or something?), nor has she done anything notable as an entertainer/personality since her appearance. I really don't believe that she meets WP:N; she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I mean, if you take out the fansite galleries (which are an obvious copy-vio, but we'll ignore that for now) and her modelling agencies, you're left with links to magazines. There are no articles, no interviews, no news reports, no nothing. Honestly, most of these "sources" would not pass WP:RS. I understand that she's a fan favourite, but honestly, there are major general notability and sourcing issues. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Misty Willows (talk · contribs) was decided to do the Katarzyna Dolinska article and Misty is interested in America's Next Top Model.

There are some references or sources in her modeling work:

ApprenticeFan 16:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Those sources aren't independent of the subject; the first two are profiles on her agencies' websites, and the last one is a fashion model directly. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: that just means the article still needs to be improved, with better sources. ... MistyWillows  17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: there was an article about her in New York Magazine's The Cut. http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2009/03/antm_rejects_book_internationa.html --Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Ranking on ANTM should not matter, a person is no more notable for being on the show is they rank 3rd than 5th. As a model, Katarzyna has a much higher notability than most other Top Model contestants, who articles, including some of the winners. She certainly is more notable than Heather Kuzmich, who also ranked 5th, but was voted over whelmingly to keep. If Katarzyna doesn't meet WP:N, than only Adrianne Curry, Kim Stolz and maybe 2 or 3 others do. ... MistyWillows  17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The reason the article on Heather Kuzmich was kept was because of her notability re: her Asperger's Syndrome and received coverage for it, including an article in the New York Times and coverage in People magazine. Katarzyna, on the other hand, doesn't meet the basic criteria listed on WP:BIO. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Heather's Asperger's is basicly triva, she hasn't become a national spokesperson for Asperger's syndrome; the Artlces in NYT and People, are just human interest stories that only exist because she was on the show. Kat also was in US News and World Report, and did several TV interviews after the show, those certainly match the notability of Heather's NYT and People refs. And being a model who graduated from an Ivy League College, is at least as noteworthy as being a model with Asperger's syndrome. ... MistyWillows  19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see why it can be argued as trivial, but there's no arguing that regardless, she did receive national coverage on the issue, and that was repeatedly brought up in her AfD. She was a reality show contestant that has a somewhat unknown disability that made her notable enough to warrant independent coverage. Kat, on the other hand, was just another reality show contestant, so she's not notable under WP:ENTERTAINER. As a model, she hasn't done anything outside of typical model campaigns — she hasn't had any national advertisements, nor was she a "face" or muse for a certain designer or company, nor has she received coverage as a notable model (for example, a fashion magazine like Vogue calling her a face to watch, or something to that effect). And how is being model who graduated from an Ivy League school notable? It's an interesting fact, and perhaps it's rare, but I don't see how that automatically makes her pass WP:N. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
She can be considered the "face" of Gerlan Jeans --Carrieunderwoodfan (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Yet I don't see you putting AfD on those pages, why are you singling out Katarzyna, (as you have done since last year)? this is an unfair and arbitrary application of standards. Also you keep harping on Top 3, I really don't see any reason for top 3 to make a difference. As for Evidence Katarzyna passes WP:ENTERTAINER, if what we have isn't enough, then I can't find a way to justify ANY reality TV personality under WP:ENTERTAINER. So are you ready fairly and equally apply the standards and AfD all of them? ... MistyWillows  23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, in an AfD last year it was decided that only the top 3 contestants on ANTM had enough notability conferred by the game-show to warrant discrete articles, consequently all of the also rans had their articles deleted and changed into redirects for the appropriate season of ANTM. I'm unclear as to what you are referring when you claim "...singling out Katarzyna, (as you have done since last year)" but I will ask you to assume good faith and concentrate on content not contributors. To be frank, I can find very little to justify the inclusion of any game-show contestant and I will happily nominate their articles for deletion when I come across them. Beyond that you might want to check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Cheers. ````
Comment Should L0b0t (talk · contribs) blocked for editing to deciding for delete an article of ANTM contestants. I should request it at notice to the admins. ApprenticeFan 09:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I've left ApprenticeFan a note on his talk page about inappropriate behavior. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly what happens in the event of a delete. That is just what we did last year with all but the 3 finalists in each series of the game-show. L0b0t (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment if Katarzyna was a fictional character, and America's Next top Model was scripted drama, would anyone be complaining that she wasn't notable enough? Shouldn't real people be considered more notable than minor TV characters of equal exposure? ... MistyWillows  00:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course they would be AfD'd; articles about fictional subjects are deleted all the time. Many of the "List of characters in X" articles came about as result of deleting individual character articles. L0b0t (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should do that with all ANTM contestants, who's pages have been deleted. Recover the info, and make one page with all of them. ... MistyWillows  01:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Except that notability is not demonstrated in the article. Please show how subject passes muster with the general notability requirements and notability requirements for models. L0b0t (talk) 15:50, 12 April 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 redirect to Texas Rangers minor league players. I am not convinced about the sources; I checked the four given in the "Reference" section and they all pointed to 404 error pages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Beau Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor leaguer Wizardman 16:21, 9 April 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Redirect vote defaults to keep (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasey Kiker (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor leaguer. Wizardman 15:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See, if sources like HBWS's are added to minor league articles in the first place, then it would be a lot easier to see which are notable and which aren't. Looks like this one is, I withdraw my nom (though I'll leave it open in case others disagree) Wizardman 14:22, 10 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph M Remy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable violinist. Only thing I can find on "Joseph Remy" or "Joseph Ma" that remotely matches the person described in this article is a passing mention here, but that's hardly enough to establish notability. Very impressive if the article is true, but no RS coverage turned up. KuyaBriBri 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Article subject is not sufficiently notable for Knowledge (XXG).THD3 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 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 speedy delete as yet another article by a proud friend. It's more well written than most, but it's otherwise exactly the same. Uncle G (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Christofono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject appears to be a non-notable high school athlete, not a gay rights activist. This is likely a hoax/attack page and in violation of BLP. Should be "speedied". Mitico (talk, contribs) 13:27, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Cartu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. Crashoffer12345 (talk) 13:25, 9 April 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 redirect to Bionicle. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Metru Nui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

None Notable fictional location Cabe6403 22:53, 8 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Samet Gündüz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN footballer, the player has not been played for fully-pro league Matthew_hk tc 12:41, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pascal Schürpf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Schürpf has not played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk tc 12:31, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nikolaj Gavric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Gavric has not been played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk tc 12:18, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dominik Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ritter has not been played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk tc 12:15, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Willian Daniel Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Willian has not been played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk tc 12:11, 9 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

David da Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

da Costa has not been played in fully-pro league. Matthew_hk tc 12:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. As far as I can tell, the general consensus seems to be leaning towards keep. This is indeed an out-of-the-ordinary case, and at the moment it seems notable enough for an article. Once the dust settles, the situation can be re-evaluated in a few months. –Juliancolton |  03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandra Cantu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Note: In the interest of being bold, I renamed and moved the article to "Murder of Sandra Cantu". I checked on the "rules" for ongoing deletion debates, and this is an acceptable action for me to take while this current debate is in progress. See Bullet Point Number 4 at Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. The deletion discussion follows below. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Update: It was pointed out to me that this case is a homicide at the moment, as a "murder" (per se) is only alleged and not yet proven. I tend to agree with that assessment. Sorry for yet another move, but I thought it appropriate. I moved "Murder of Sandra Cantu" to "Sandra Cantu homicide" ... consistent with "Caylee Anthony homicide". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Deletion Discussion:

It's a sad death, but dying is not encyclopedic in itself. Knowledge (XXG) also isn't a news service and unless the culprit is caught, it's unlikely something non-news-ish can be written. Article claims to be in the process of revamping but wasn't touched for the 10 hours prior to me tagging it. Mgm| 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Although the disappearance and death have received daily coverage (at least in our local newspaper, 90 miles away), this is really better suited for WikiNews. There's lots of precedent that we don't have articles on every single crime victim. Sad to say, but this crime appears to be just like hundreds of other senseless murders.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a tragic outcome for a little girl's life and for the woman's family, but how is the story different than that of any other person who dies a tragic death. We all feel for all of those people. However, I do think that the Sandra Cantu's full story should be merged into an article about the disturbing turn in the life of Melissa Huckaby, whose article I was orginally looking for, but was redirected to this Cantu murder investigation article. Canihaveacookie Talk April 14, 2009
  • Keep Although this reminds me of a certain syndrome, it's at the top of the news. People will expect some coverage by Knowledge (XXG). Since a female Sunday school teacher has been arrested in connection to the crime since this page was marked for deletion, I also suspect news coverage will increase. Calls for deletion are premature.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment while the arrest will bring this back into the news for a while, it's still not encyclopedic. Transwiki to Wikinews.--RadioFan (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - If nothing else ... it is highly notable that she was (allegedly) killed by a female, a mother, and her best friend's mother, to boot. Statistically, this almost never happens. Everyone was expecting a male pedophile as the culprit. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
  • Neutral I second the above, but solo killings of children by women are extremely rare (so says the AOL News article on the story). The information here should be used to support a relavent article. SoLowRockerMan (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - To amend my comment above ... this article should be kept ... but probably renamed as "Murder of Sandra Cantu" (or similar). I think that it is the crime itself that is notable, and not the victim per se. This deletion debate comes up every time there is a highly publicized crime ... with deletion debates going back and forth on whether or not the victim was notable, whether or not the crime was notable, etc. These ever-present debates would often result in inconsistent conclusions for different - yet similar - cases. In response, some editors at Knowledge (XXG) came up with the following policy: Knowledge (XXG):Notability (criminal acts). It is probably relevant in this case and in this debate. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

— Duplicate !vote: Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. WWGB (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not think that these were "votes" to be tallied up. I thought that this was a discussion / debate. You can clearly see from my second (follow-up) comment that I explicitly stated that I was amending my original comment. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
  • Keep - This is not your average murder case and is part of a sad history of child murders User:Donmike10
  • Keep See: Category:Murdered American children. wikipedia has numerous articles on such cases. while this is a fairly new case, the notability of the suspect makes it worthy of an article. as long as the article doesnt become a tribute to the girl. there are lots of newsworthy articles that start off with too much detail for an encyclopedia, but still deserve at least a small article. deletion should be reserved for nonnotable killings, which i believe this isnt. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only reason why this should ever be kept is if, as per previous commenters, the circumstances of the crime and/or the gender of the perpetrator are found to be specially noteworthy. And then the article should emphasize those aspects specifically. But right now, the identity of the perpetrator isn't known, nor are the exact circumstances, so they cannot be judged noteworthy yet. In other words, the very things that make this case notable are currently not confirmed. If they ever are, there will be plenty of reliable sources to allow the appropriate article to be created. Since Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source, there's no reason to rush to publish; we can wait until we know for sure that the case is noteworthy and why. --lightspeedchick (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken in saying that "right now, the identity of the perpetrator isn't known". It is quite well-known, has been confirmed, and -- in fact -- is mentioned at length within the article. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC))
I just mean that she hasn't been found officially guilty yet. Or has she entered a guilty plea? --lightspeedchick (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. You meant the actual perpetrator ... and I misread that as the alleged perpetrator. Either way, however, it is the characteristics of the (alleged) perpetrator that make this a unique and notable case. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
  • Netural. It is sad but she was not only one, there are many many missing children who were murdered so we are having limited articles for them and they are not encylopedian issues but maybe memorial article. My mother's friend's kid was missing for two months before her kid was discovered in the woods so why she don't be on national news and wikipedia?????? I agreed with them about wikinews. If she is fitting in an encyclopedia article, she can. Memorial article may be a better idea. Cculber007(talk) 10:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. If and when a trial develops facts that are notable in their own right, then this article can be restored. But right now, apart from sensationalistic media coverage during a slow news week, and vague allegations in a criminal complaint, there is not much that distinguishes this case from the thousands of other murder cases that occur every year in the United States. The California Reports and California Appellate Reports document tens of thousands of crimes, many of which are far more vicious and brutal than what has been alleged in the Cantu case, but because of the arbitrariness of media editors, most of those crimes get very little public attention. I am well aware of the horrible circumstances of this particular case, but Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial site. See WP:NOT.--Coolcaesar (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Your statements are completely untrue. (a) There is, in fact, a great deal that distinguishes this case from the thousands of other murder cases that occur every year in the United States. Expert criminologists are baffled at the allegations and at the characteristics of the alleged perpetrator (female, mother of small child, acting solo without a male instigator, no criminal history, etc.). The FBI reports statistics on the absolute rarity of this type of case. Thus, how on earth do you classify this case as a "garden variety" child kidnap-rape-murder that occurs thousands of times in the USA? (b) Your premise is completely unfounded. This case is not notable because of its "vicious and brutal" nature and its "horrible circumstances". It is notable for other reasons, as outlined in the preceding sentences. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
  • Keep. I agree with the others who are saying to keep it, the circumstances of the 'who' have brought this to be more noteworthy, though yes, every child who goes missing should have such attention, the fact that it was a woman and a Sunday school teacher, the daughter of a pastor, makes this a little more central. kaiaterra 11:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is way too much speculation and inference going on here based on sketchy reports based on minimal facts, all regarding a living person. "The fact" that "it was a woman and a Sunday school teacher" etc.? Really? Is this a "fact?" There's a difference between a news blog and an encyclopedia, and that should be better recognized here. Steveozone (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
What exactly are you referring to? (a) There is no speculation. (b) There are no inferences. (c) These are hardly "sketchy" reports. (d) These reports are not based on "minimal facts". (e) Yes, it is indeed a reported fact that the alleged perpetrator is "a woman and a Sunday school teacher". (f) This case has been reported at great length in many, many, many very reputable sources ... and not simply in news blogs. I don't understand your post at all, quite frankly. Each and every point that you make is untrue. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
The point is that notability is based on a premise that is speculative--that in fact "it was a woman..." who committed a sexual assault in the course of murder (an intentional killing with malice aforethought). Yes the allegations have been made, in general terms, in the criminal complaint; however, little to no evidence has been presented or even discussed by those making the allegations, and none as to the sexual assault. As the "alleged perpetrator" is only alleged, in conclusory, general and vague terms, to have committed this sexual act which forms the basis of the argument for notability, it seems to be premature to conclude that the event is notable. BTW, I'll live with "unclear," but "untrue" seems a bit heavyhanded to me. Lighten up! Steveozone (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes ... she is obviously an alleged perpetrator at this stage, as opposed to a convicted perpetrator. The notability of this case lies in the details / characteristics of the alleged perpetrator. The fact that she is an alleged (as opposed to convicted) perpetrator does not in any way lessen her notability. Thus, notable ... thus, keep and don't delete. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Note: In the interest of being bold, I renamed and moved the article to "Murder of Sandra Cantu". I checked on the "rules" for ongoing deletion debates, and this is an acceptable action for me to take while this current debate is in progress. See Bullet Point Number 4 at Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Update: It was pointed out to me that this case is a homicide at the moment, as a "murder" (per se) is only alleged and not yet proven. I tend to agree with that assessment. Sorry for yet another move, but I thought it appropriate. I moved "Murder of Sandra Cantu" to "Sandra Cantu homicide" ... consistent with "Caylee Anthony homicide". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 15 April 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. Cirt (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Zahir Idrizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Idrizi has not played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk tc 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was merge and/or transwiki.. –Juliancolton |  15:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unification Church political views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is mainly WP:Original research. It takes a bunch of quotes from Unification Church sources and proclaims that this represents "Unification Church political views" without any secondary sources that say so, or even recognize that "Unification Church political views" is a notable topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: Break up (per Jclemens) mostly a quotefarm of UC quotations, often with little tying them together or to the article topic. No evidence of WP:NOTE, and if an article establishing notability for this topic were eventually to be written, it'd have to be a re-write from scratch. HrafnStalk 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Would be agreeable to moving the excess quotations to wikisource & merging whatever of the remainder isn't WP:OR. Likewise prefer 'Political activities of the Unification Church' to any of the extant article titles. HrafnStalk 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I much agree that "political activities of the Unification Church" is a better title. Then it could be about things people did, not just other people's opinions about their "views." Borock (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
About sources, this one didn't exactly make any best-sellers lists. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge - as Ihcoyc said, the article Unification Church and political involvement already exists regarding this topic. Maybe change the name to something more inclusive like "Politics and the Unification Church"...once we can get citations for the material that is presently in the article nominated for deletion. scootey 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge, agree with Scootey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just a collection of quotes, as the nominator said. All of them are from Unification Church primary sources, with one exception which is the opinion of a leading critic: That is from his website and borders on a BLP violation.Borock (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If it’s not Merged some where else – Delete . I do not see notability here also Knowledge (XXG) is not a list or repository of quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for Wikiquote. Similarly, quotations should always be presented with an introduction; a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. Agree with comments by Hrafn, Borock and Steve Dufour Jlrobertson (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Break up and merge (per Jclemens). There are literally thousands of references to the Unification Church and political involvement in academic publications and news articles going back at least to 1974, including many on the relevant teachings/beliefs of the church. (Actually, one academic source from 1966 that comes to mind might have something useful.) If someone wants to take the time to find some of them, an article with substantial notable material could easily be put together (or in this case, Unification Church political activities could be expanded to include some of it). -Exucmember (talk) 07:57, 12 April 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 redirect to Port_Elizabeth#Education. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Herbert Hurd Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally unreferenced, large part of the article is a copyvio of the mission statement. The school's own website isn't an independent source and the only other coverage I can find is a couple of kids from the school being sponsored by a business to take level one sailing classes at a local sailing school. Admirable, but nothing notable for the school. Delete (please don't waste time on debating schools in general, but let the article stand on its own merit) Mgm| 11:28, 9 April 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 speedy keep. Sources in English are preferred when available, but notability does not depend on language. "English" only refers to the language Knowledge (XXG) is written in, not the sort of topics it should cover. (see the policy: Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Non-English_sources) Mgm| 12:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Henrik Heftye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. Sources all in Norwegian. No evidence of notability in English. Author removed {{db-a7}}. Bazj (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep, article shows notability in nineteenth-century Norway—as banker, philanthropist and member of the board of notable company, and this is supported by not one but two paper encyclopedias. Language of sources is no deletion reason in any case. Punkmorten (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I note that any content forking can be remedied by merging, which does not require AfD.  Sandstein  09:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist metaphysics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bundling these articles with this nomination:

Objectivist epistemology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Objectivist ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Objectivist politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Content fork of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) --Karbinski (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete These are all restatements of Ms Rand's writings, not articles about the topics. If people want to read her works they should do so in the original. Also there is nothing that says all objectivists have the same opinions on these topics as Rand. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a content fork, because it clearly goes beyond what is stated at Objectivism (Ayn Rand), as is its intention. Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not paper states that long articles ought to be considered for splits; that is exactly what has been done here (the main article is 58kB long: long by any measure for a non-list). There is a Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, as well as myriad libertarian journals that include her work within their remit, so I'm sure objectivist metaphysics have received a great deal of coverage. The correct response to the article being a reworking of primary sources (i.e. Rand's work) is to use the {{fact}} tag and request that secondary sources be used. It is no justification to delete. Bastin 12:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination, too much repetition of material between articles. Need to separate Objectivist articles from those about Ayn Rand. --Snowded (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I tend to see Rand's philosophy as somewhat of a fringe position, unoriginal to the extent that it's right, and wrong to the extent that it's original. Rand and her followers' vehemence in judgments on their critics tended to diminish her ideas' chances of being taken seriously as well. Any trepidation I'd have about such articles comes not from the fact that they rehash Rand, but that Rand doesn't merit that depth of coverage.

    That said, she acquired enough of a following that there has come into being a small industry of academics who seek to rehabilitate the reputation of Rand's ideas. And any idea about Rand's thought is only worthwhile to the extent that it communicates the substance of Rand's thought. And to the extent that there is a scope of objectivist opinion, that itself is worth coverage, given that the core of Randian objectivism seems to be to claim that reason dictates a single correct answer to every question. I am not prepared to endorse the deletion of encyclopedia articles on the epistemology, ethics, or political philosophy of Rand and her followers; she was not a major philosopher, but she is a well known philosopher. The rest seems a content dispute beyond our bailiwick. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Definite keep on procedural grounds. This is not an issue for AfD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". Knowledge (XXG) without doubt should have content somewhere on these topics, as they surpass the threshold for notability beyond reasonable doubt (see bibliography of work on Objectivism). The only question here is whether or not the branches of Objectivist philosophy should have stand-alone articles or not, and that is a question of merging, not deletion, and so belongs on the article talkpages, not here. Even if it were judged appropriate to have these articles deleted, the titles would still be redirects to Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and as that article covers some of the same content as these, content from the sub-articles would need to be moved to preserve the best content the encyclopaedia has to offer on the topic. In other words, if the articles are not kept, merging (however selective) is the only realistic outcome. I've gone ahead and redirected Objectivist politics to the main article, without prejudice against recreation, because the summary in the main article was more extensive and better cited. The Objectivist metaphysics and Objectivist epistemology articles offer valuable analyses beyond what is present in Objectivism (Ayn Rand); granted, they are lacking in references, but there are a wealth of reliable sources that can be used to support and expand the articles. It's disheartening again to see the Pokemon fallacy ("topic x is less important than these other topics, but has more articles; delete them") raise it's ugly head here; there is enough space and coverage to write dozens of verifiable, neutral articles on hundreds of philosophical schools of thought. It's a good thing that Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of Objectivism, transhumanism and {{Nietzsche}} is so extensive, because it does not come at the expense of the poor coverage of communitarianism, German idealism, Kripke and so on. Knowledge (XXG):Content forking refers primarily to non-neutral versions of existing articles – which is clearly not the case here: "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View." In summary, this nomination fundamentally fails to address the potential rather than current state of the coverage of the topic. Skomorokh 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The nomination provides no reason to delete. AFD is not a guessing game or fishing trip. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete There is nothing here that should not be put shorter and sweeter on the objectivist page. The reason to delete is actually pretty simple... the material in question has little to no citation count, less interest in the related topical fields, and as such is not notable separate from the primary category. objectivist metaphysics being the easy example... most of what you'll find there is a walled garden, that is a very small group of people citing each other to drive up apparent notability, but very little if any interaction with larger fields. --Buridan (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's kind of my impression of what little I've read in the works of academics studying Rand. There aren't many of them, and they talk mostly to each other. Still, they hold appropriate degrees and teach at various universities. Were they nothing other than a circle of Knowledge (XXG) editors, I wouldn't hesitate to call it a "walled garden". But there are many more such walled gardens in academia. Do we call the twentieth century corpus of serialist music a walled garden? It was one, in the broad sense: it was made by academics and its only real audience was other academics. Rand's followers have established networks of peer-reviewed journals in the standard manner. It may be all an imposture: then again, I get the same impression from attempts to surround schoolteaching, "management science", advertising, and similar crafts with the folderol of academia. But is it our place to make judgments about these enterprises? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
yes. it is our place, especially when objectivism and rand mentions creep across the pages of wikipedia. on any given day you are likely to find a link to objectivism or objectivist metaphysics on the abraham lincoln page or the aristotle pages, the monetary policy pages, a listing of terry pratchett's books, etc. etc. now i am not one to deny anyone their particular academic industry, but... we don't find serialist music or management science really doing much of that, do we? so i'm thinking that when such a small community has such a large set of let's say... 'enthusiastic' followers, keeping the pages that it occupies and references to reasonable size... seems reasonable? it is sort of a a NPOV reasonableness on the one hand and a systematic bias reasonableness on the other.. no? --Buridan (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No.
  1. I have never seen such mentions of Objectivist metaphysics spreading across Knowledge (XXG) unrequited and unwarranted.
  2. If they did appear, they may well have been warranted. You may think of Objectivism as some sort of cult (and why not?), but it's a set of beliefs that affects a lot of people. Such as, for example, Alan Greenspan, who was an Objectivist and on whom Rand had a huge personal and professional effect; sometimes, reference to Objectivism on articles related to monetary policy may not be irrelevant.
  3. If the references are irrelevant, remove them. Do not delete these articles because other articles have flaws.
Please cite policy or guideline before advocating the deletion of material. Bastin 02:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
oh i did, i cited notability. the articles are less notable than their parent, they contain material that should appear in the parent, and other than citing a walled garden, are closer to original research than wp should have. they don't inherit notability from their parent. Kindly don't run up the greenspan flag, the man clearly said her ideals had no affect on his policymaking. --Buridan (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere within the Knowledge (XXG):Article size policy is notability mentioned. It mentions that the criterion that a split must fulfil is Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view to prevent Knowledge (XXG):Content forking. The original assertion is one of content-forking: without any evidence that that is the case. Without an argument being made for the rationale given for deletion, the article cannot be deleted.
If you have a problem with the lack of references to prove notability, you will quite easily find a range of articles related to Objectivist metaphysics in academic journals and other verifiable secondary sources, which will be forthcoming if you make that request. Once again, the correct response to this flaw is to use the {{Notability}} tag.
Greenspan's views on economics were highly influenced by Rand. So... Greenspan said what now? Bastin 23:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
the articles were not nominated for deletion because they were improvable, they are nominated because even if you improve them, the content and citations that you add would be better used to improve the main objectivism page. As for your argument that they aren't a content fork, actually they were, i was around when it happened. People were fussing about the lack of quality and improving content of the subsections of the article and when people deleted the uncited materials and cut the content down to reasonable length, another editor created new articles and linked them. these are clearly content forks. my position is that they are not notable enough to stand on their own. they might be extremely popular, you might find some citations for some of their content, but these categories, and i just don't mean the metaphysics one, are not categories that are notable in the world. They are far closer to say... virtue metaphysics which also is not notable enough to have a category then say nihilist metaphysics which may be notable enough. --Buridan (talk) 16:53, 15 April 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. --GedUK  06:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

César Ferreira Cattaruzzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The player has not played in fully-pro league, such as Brazilian Serie A, Swiss Super League Matthew_hk tc 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Jane Caulfeild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A simple genealogical entry, with no indication of historical noteworthiness nor impact. A prod tag was added, but was removed on grounds that 'having an entry in a paper encyclopedia is a strong indication of notability'. That particular encyclopaedia is a 1906 Jewish encyclopaedia, and its entry seems to stem solely from the subject being a Jewish convert, as there is nothing else that indicates even the slightest hint of notability. CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Rubble series. No consensus to delete. Closing as "merge" with no prejudice against keeping if someone wants to expand this article and add additional sources (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Electric Crayon Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. It's no more than a track listing. I had a "prod" on the page which was removed for the addition of a single reference. To be fair to the page (and so it can be reviewed impartially) I've improved it as far as it'll go, and it's still cruft. Bazj (talk) 09:55, 9 April 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. --GedUK  06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

André Viapiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Viapiana has not played in full-pro league, such as Brazilian Serie A and Swiss Super League Matthew_hk tc 09:52, 9 April 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 speedy deleted by Dank55, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keli omega 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This poorly written article seems to be spam for some non-notable product or chemical, and is Original Research. Sources? The author's blog. I'm sure other reasons can be found to delete it, please read it. Thanks. Resurr Section (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeenshire Shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Oo7565 (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 05:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Adele Scheele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I know nothing about this person and this article does not do anything to help me know more about this person. If he is notable, nothing here lets me know that. Oo7565 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That much is obvious. You didn't even notice she's female. ;) - Mgm| 09:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Originally closed "keep" by BusterD, reclosing to fix formatting (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernst Christian Wilhelm Ackermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn person there is no assertion of notability. Oo7565 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. There's already a "proposed merge" tag on this article so that discussion should take place on the talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Acer TravelMate 2420 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

it has been some time since this article has been written and tagged as nn and notability still has not been established. Simply existing does not make it notable. Oo7565 (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Enough (admittedly minor) mentions in several languages to merit inclusion. There's enough of them out there to make it encyclopaedic and potentially useful. I think sources *could* be found, looking at some of the non-English articles  Chzz  ►  17:46, 15 April 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. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Adonis (landmark) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn landmark based on what has been presented. While it may be notable, nothing in this article indicates it is any different from any other landmark Oo7565 (talk) 08:37, 9 April 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. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Shreik Recording (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label - unreferenced and the contents unverifiable. 318 ghits almost all of them wiki mirrors and blogs. Cross matches with many of the names dropped proved fruitless. Even the external links provided at the bottom of the article fail to even mention this label. Could be someone's own vanity label, not sure on that, either way fails WP:CORP JamesBurns (talk) 08:33, 9 April 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. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reto Bolli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reto Bolli has not played in fully-pro, as Swiss Challenge League is not a fully-pro league per previous deletion. Matthew_hk tc 08:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is because FC St. Gallen recent relegated from Super League, and signed few player who have Super League experience. But Bolli only once played as unused member for Schaffhausen at 2006-07 Super League season. Matthew_hk tc 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 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. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Cumbria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial article listing top seven tallest buildings in a largely rural county. Is the only UK county tallest building list on Knowledge (XXG) (the rest of the UK ones are for cities). The top four tallest structures are all transmitting stations - arguably not buildings - and the rest aren't notable enough to have their own articles. Article is unreferenced and has been tagged as orphaned since November 2007. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 9 April 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 speedy deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajesh rairala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only claim to notability is the inclusion of the word "famous", without any substantiation. The use of that term is the only thing that made me hesitate to A7 it, as it is an assertion of notability. Vianello (talk) 07:09, 9 April 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. MBisanz 04:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

William Self (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not to be confused with other famous William Self's (novelist, actor etc), this William Self hasn't done anything notable outside of running a company. Does not appear to have published anything as an archaeologist, nor released anything as a musician. Many of the claims, such as being taught by Slim Edwards appears to be independently unverifiable Article was previous speedy deletion candidate but declined. Another editor had previously tagged the article for COI/self-promotion re: , JamesBurns (talk) 07:01, 9 April 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 redirect to Cotton States and International Exposition (1895). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Atlanta Exhibition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I would support an article about Booker T. Washington's 1895 Atlanta Exposition address, but to just copy and paste it into a Knowledge (XXG) page doesn't seem proper. JaGa 06:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you, but in this case, I think "Exhibition" is a mis-spelling of "Exposition".—S Marshall /Cont 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Same answer—"Atlanta Exposition" should redirect in that way, but I don't see that "Atlanta Exhibition" should.—S Marshall /Cont 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree; a redirect with this term would do no harm at all. The terms exhibition and exposition for these kinds of events are used as liberally as the word 'expo'. Both Atlanta Exhibition and Atlanta Exposition should redirect to the Piedmont Park article, as described above. Nate • (chatter) 04:43, 10 April 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. MBisanz 04:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unnecessary page. JaGa 06:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmmmm Tag for refs and expand? This will happen @ 2012. Had to laugh at the statement of Athletics is usually one of Great Britain's strong points at the olympics though! With all the gun-crime in London, I reckon those crafty cockney's can get a gold medal in the shooting events... Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    I should point out that since Dunblane, people have been tending towards the use of knives as guns are harder to get a hold of since. Then against, I'm not a Cockney, so... Sceptre 18:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - As the nominator says, "This is completely unnecessary", considering it's more than three years away. As for what the person above me says, athletes is such a strong point for GB that we only won 4 medals in Beijing, and we didn't get a medal of any colour in shooting. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the 2012 Olympics itself is notable, but this is too detailed and speculative to be of use. Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation.- Mgm| 09:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep people start plannning early, and writing about the plans. DGG (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless at this time. Punkmorten (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete no further announcement by IOC and it will wait by January-March 2012. ApprenticeFan 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete For us Yanks, "Athletics" is what we call "Track and Field". This article has nothing to say that isn't already in the 2012 Summer Olympics article (August 3-12, 2010 in London). It says that there are "47 medals up for grabs"; these would be the gold medals. I certainly disagree with "planning early" as a justification for an article that has no information to impart; Knowledge (XXG) is not a fancy restaurant that requires advance reservations for a table ("I'm sorry, but the earliest date we can give you for your 2012 Olympics article is next February"). At the least, one should wait until a schedule (of which events will be run on which days) is available. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mandsford. Sceptre 18:57, 10 April 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. MBisanz 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We Are The Emergency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Lack of reliable third party sources, unsigned, has only released EPs. Frozenguild (talk) 04:49, 9 April 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. MBisanz 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Summer EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future EP of a barely notable artist, supported with only blog/myspace sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Astronaut (talk) 04:44, 9 April 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. MBisanz 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Naga Chaitanya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Most of the article argues about how notable the subject is due to his relatives; problem is notability is not inheritable. Also his own accomplishments are not quite there yet - an appearance in a movie that is still filming. Tabercil (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

This was prodded and an admin has undeleted it. First and foremost WP is not a venue for advertising. We don't need to know that this entertainment system has 112 movies and 740 music CD's. The contents of this article covered succinctly at Singapore_Airlines#In-flight_entertainment_system_and_communication, still with the feel of advertising, but not like this - the company has a massive advertising budget, we aren't here to do this for free. What next? Singapore Airlines' fabulous peanuts. Russavia 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, un-encyclopedic, advertising.--Frozenguild (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the history of this in-flight entertainment is actually quite notable. I believe there is enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. It certainly needs aggresive pruning and better sourcing. But Krisworld was and perhaps is an industry leader and really set the standard for inflight entertainment. Singapore Airlines has consistently been ranked very highly for its ammenities and is reknowned for its services including in-flight entertainment. I'm not sure how big a deal it is now, as I think other airlines have improved their offerings to compete, and I haven't kept up with that kind of thing nor had the opportunity to fly internationally in many years, :( but I believe the history is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The claim that an article reads like an advertisement is not an argument for deleting it; it's an argument for rewording it and/or making a more neutral choice of facts to include/exclude from the article. The claim that an article has unnecessary details is not an argument for deleting it; it's an argument for removing those details. As for the notability guidelines, I don't really get them, but if we get a consensus that it's not notable, then at least keep this article as a redirect. However, a quick Google search suggests that there's no way that will happen if someone works on this article properly. Brian Jason Drake 11:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 04:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

BBY Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG no real significant third party coverage. see google news search LibStar (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. If you type BBY Ltd or BBY Limited in Google News and select 'All Dates' you will discover that there are many newswires which highlight BBY and what appear to be its analysts commenting on Australian Company's. If you have look at the facts, BBY Ltd accounts for a sizable amount of ASX market share, at present 10-15% the Size of Macquaire Group, one of the largest company's of its kind. BBY certainly would not be classified as a Large Investment Bank, but it is still noteworthy, espcially when you consider that it was ranked 9th Overall Best Invesment Banker in Australia by 2008 BRW East Coles Magaizine, ahead of Credit Suisse at 10, Caliburn Partners 11, and Morgan Stanley 12. See, http://bby.com.au/Portals/0/BBY/PDF/News/BBYNews05Feb09.pdf for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zip1010 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Why not just delete half of Knowledge (XXG)? So much 'corporate' coverage is weak and/or self-serving, and presumably carefully vetted/planted and 'maintained' by the subject, yet allowed to remain if the company is big enough (and so presumably deemed 'significant')...this item has value, even if only providing quick reference/context, as do most items of this ilk. Correct, I am not Knowledge (XXG)'s greatest fan (precisely for poncey behaviour like this), but I nevertheless do use it a lot as a lazy starting point (but at least half the time end up having to get accurate info elsewhere) and this item is not standout-weak...you 'editors' really need to grow up a lot if you're seriously considering cutting this but not many thousands of other company items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.65.250 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 78.32.65.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. WWGB (talk) 23:23, 15 April 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Mgm| 09:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Geometric Design of Roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a textbook. Rschen7754 (T C) 02:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I'm withdrawing this AFD - can somebody close it so I don't have to deal with the templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - The article doesn't look like a textbook. According to Knowledge (XXG):NOTTEXTBOOK, a textbook type article would have questions and answers, problems sets etc, to teach the subject. An encyclopedia article would simply present information. This article looks like it's presenting information. It's also sourced, and I'm not a specialist, but the subject looks like an important part of road construction. I would like to see some more diversity in sources and some sources that can be verified online. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not instructional, and it's a perfectly valid topic in highway engineering, as can be seen from chapter 3 ("Highway geometric design") of ISBN 8120320840, chapter 4 ("Geometric design of roads in rural areas") of Highway Engineering (Ashworth; Heinemann Educational; 1966), and many others. This is a woefully incomplete article. For starters it could do with some globalization and the use of more than just 2 sources. (Both problems could probably be addressed at the same time by starting with Geometric design practices for European roads, Federal Highway Administration report FHWA-PL-01-026. ☺) But deletion isn't the answer, and the multiple independent in-depth sources exist. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep since Linguist and Uncle G have pointed out the notability of this topic, as well as the flaws in the treatment--and AfD is not for cleanup. The topic needs another loving expert with slightly more books on the shelf. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Major engineering topic. many books and other sources available. DGG (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Undefeated horses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-sourced list; original research (violates WP:NOR) mhking (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment They do. Poechalkdust (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I've put my money where my mouth is and referenced the list as best I could. We'd need an expert to improve the lead section, though. - Mgm| 10:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 09:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd French Summer Tour 1974 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour, mostly consists of a setlist and tour dates, nothing to suggest notability. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 21:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:32, 9 April 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 Snowball delete as obviously made up on a forum. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Neologism. Originally tagged for a PROD (and seconded), but the author is removing the templates as fast as multiple editors can install them. No references, no sources. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 01:16, 9 April 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz 09:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean diving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Talks about the Caribbean and diving in it. The article seems to have an explanation to what the Caribbean is, which we already have at the Caribbean article. ZooFari 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton |  00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP1E. It's actually 2 or 3 events for each of them if you count the other minor criminal offenses, but they are in no way notable. Coverage of the event at Westside Middle School massacre (which may need renaming for NPOV), and I see no verifiable information that needs to be merged. No redirect needed as it's an unlikely search term. Atmoz (talk) 00:25, 9 April 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. –Juliancolton |  00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Josh Johnson (infielder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor leaguer who hasn't played past Single-A, definetely doesn't clear the WP:ATHLETE guideline. Giants27 /C 00:18, 9 April 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 redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. MBisanz 04:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe Dickerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor leaguer hasn't played past Class-A, clearly doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 /C 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1 People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
2 People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.
  • Delete Class A is not a fully professional level, in the sense that one can make a living at it. Although judging from the article, he's now with a class AA team, he has not yet played a game at that level. We are debating whether or not to accept AA, and not everyone is convinced of AAA, but A is below any reasonable bar. And at any level, the player has to actually appear in a regular season game DGG (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    Just a comment on the AA team -- their season doesn't start until tonight, so he hasn't had a chance to play at that level yet. (I know, could fall under a bus, etc.) I just don't want anyone to think that as of right now he's being purposely kept from playing by the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete or redirect. I've added a link to the OC Register article about him. I don't think that's enough by itself, but if anyone finds more I'll happily reconsider my !vote.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn baseball player. Disagree with a redirect. Wizardman 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with DGG - A ball is not fully professional. I would say anyone (other than first round and/or notable prospects) below AA should not be considered for Wiki pages unless they have done something extraordinary. Mandermagic (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Kansas City Royals minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 15:35, 14 April 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 redirect to Northwest Arkansas Naturals. MBisanz 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cody Strait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor leaguer doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 /C 00:13, 9 April 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. –Juliancolton |  00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jared Hyatt (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor leaguers are not notable unless they're A) a top prospect or B) played in the majors, thus doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 /C 00:11, 9 April 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Brillhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. There appears to be another Aaron Brillhart in the history of this article, a voice over artist, but I question their notability as well. JaGa 06:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:09, 9 April 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Gorson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He seems to be somewhat famous in the gambling scene. What do you all think of the reliability of souces like these? , , , , . Apparently, he also played himself in an episode of a TV show: . Now combine that with the sources Atmoz mentions (trivial mentions), and do you have notability? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:08, 9 April 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 redirect to Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore. –Juliancolton |  15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Albert Mudrian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author. Fails WP:CREATIVE Untick (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Assisted listing that was requested at WT:AFD by Headbomb. Headbomb's rationale there was "Vanity page for a corporation". I personally have no opinion on this deletion discussion and my listing it should not be taken as a !vote either way. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:08, 9 April 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. MBisanz 02:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of KHL players who have played in the NHL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested so I'll take this here. Nothing special about having played in two professional leagues which makes this list redundant and trivial. —Krm500 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to the KHL article in a minimal form (lose the flags and the NHL stats), since this is a list of KHL players with NHL experience. The "Kontinental Hockey League" is the description for the pro hockey league in Russia and other former Soviet states, based on "Kontinentalnaya Khokkenaya Liga" and with a K to distinguish it from other Continental Hockey Leagues. Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • And what if we do that with the NHL article? It wouldn't even be possible to load if you listed NHL players who have played in other professional leagues. —Krm500 03:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, did I accidentally write "merge to the NHL article"? I meant to say "merge to the KHL article". I sometimes get my N's and K's mixed up. It won't happek agaik. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
please give a reason, otherwise your point will be dismissed as per Knowledge (XXG):NOREASON#Just_a_vote. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 9 April 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gives You Hell Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable concert tour. Just a list of dates that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

EXPO REAL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, promotional, unsourced, link-laden cross-wiki spam spread by the author at German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Russian Wikipedias. Alexius08 (talk) 05:13, 4 April 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) 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Too promotional tone, but the fair is notable . --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 09:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

No references to establish notability; product no longer in active development Dandv (talk) 08:35, 30 March 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) 00:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:06, 9 April 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 redirect to SQL Server Management Studio. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Whatever this is, SSMS does not refer to Secure SMS Messaging Protocol except by happenstance. This Google search shows pretty much every other goshdarned thing except text messaging. Instead this is part of an OR contest between two editors that is in evidence at Secure SMS Messaging Protocol.

Is this thing notable? Well certainly not as SSMS it isn't. Nor is it verifiable. Instead it is pushing one editor's scientific paper. A quasi-referenced article it is puffery instead.

The article discussion page makes illuminating reading. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Philosophy of business . MBisanz 09:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Business philosophies and popular management theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete article is essentially all original research also other articles such as Philosophy of business exist making this a POV fork. Jersey Devil (talk) 03:58, 4 April 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) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Love and Suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

More here than the usual; was prodded, but the significance of the first US film shot in Cuba despite the embargo may make this notable under the WP:GNG as opposed to its merits as a film (WP:FILM). Let the community decide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but it has virtually no coverage within the mainstream media. Also note the page was created, bulk of material added, and maintained by the wife of the director, Bobbi Miller-Moro (see ). The sources are mostly ones shes provided, and it has a obvious NPOV issue. Although granted this isn't grounds for deleteing it, it should be made aware of anyone who wants to try to "save" this article that it needs a lot of work. Discussion on movies notablity was also part of this AfD. — raeky  21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment for anyone looking for reliable sources on this film, it shares its name with a 2006 teen romance direct to DVD film starring Sarah Reardon and Stella Johnson. As for this article, I'm on the fence. I did find two reliable sources talking about Moro's risking punishment to violate the embargo, but its really still more notability on him than the film, as only one even says more than "he made this film" before going on about him and the consequences. For now, I'm inclined towards a redirect/partial merge of the relevant info to Luis Moro (which is also in serious serious need of COI checking). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment' I would lean towards merging the info about that into his article as well if it's not already there, and I would agree most sources are about that not directly the film. — raeky  07:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  01:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to the sources in the article, Google news Archive gives a full review in SFGate I consider that sufficient. DGG (talk) 06:12, 9 April 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. Xymmax So let it be done 21:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike Lorello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

declined prod; signed with a pro team, on their website, but apparently hasn't played a game with them yet. On the cusp of WP:ATHLETE, but seems just on the nn side. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Says he was released before the season, so he's not technically signed. Being invited to a training camp is very different then playing regular season games, correct? — raeky  21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  01:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Hess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD said there was no assertion of notability, nor 3rd party sources. However, I feel that there is an assertion of notability, and there are third party sources (one distinctly better than the other). --GedUK  10:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:04, 9 April 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. Wizardman 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cove Country Opry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to have enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify as being sufficiently notable for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 19:39, 30 March 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) 00:45, 4 April 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) 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to go with a delete for now, since I can't find any reliable sources online to show notability. If this statement from the article " show has been featured in many travel magazines as one of the best live music shows" can be backed up with sources, I could be convinced to change my recommendation. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Joseph Simmons. MBisanz 01:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Justine Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Joseph Simmons (or maybe Keep). Merging would be appropriate since she's Joseph Simmons' wife, and her main claim to notability is co-starring in the MTV show, but she is automatically the co-star, since she's Simmons' wife. Keeping might be appropriate, since it looks like she has a (not very notable?) line of jewelry (primary source), and has written & published a (maybe/kinda notable) children's book. , , , . — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been open for over half a month. I see no point in relisting it again (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Disaster preparedness and Emergency Response Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pulled out of the db-copyvio queue because it's not a copyvio, it's a close paraphrase. Notability-wise, this one confuses me. Per their site, they've been around since 1962 and been involved in many major disaster efforts. So why does a news.google.com search for this decade only turn up links to ham radio-related publications in the first few pages for this decade? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:17, 30 March 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) 00:32, 4 April 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) 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps in this case, we should break the rules and keep this article on a legitimate, not-for-profit organization that has made seemingly notable efforts to help with disaster relief for many years, but has not been recognized in online news sources. There is a fleeting mention in USA Today , and some US Gov sites also mention the organization NOAA FCC FEMA, which helps as well. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is this, however: How can we know that what an organization says about itself is actually true? See Knowledge (XXG):Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies. Yes, there is a WWW site that says that this organization has been active in disaster response since 1962. But I (for example) could make that claim about myself on one of my own WWW pages, and there would be just as little reason for anyone else to believe that it is actually true. It's not as if no-one has ever made self-inflationary, or even outright false, statements about themselves on the WWW.

      The mention in the USA Today article is just that: the job title of someone whose opinion on a subject is quoted. The NOAA and FEMA pages are just bare directory entries (merely the 5 word name of the organization in the latter case). And the FCC listing is just a broadcasting licence listing. There's nothing to independently confirm what the organization claims about itself.

      Ironically, the FEMA page gives the best indication of how independent sources largely discuss these volunteer organizations: as directory entries adjuct to a non-specific discussion that addresses all such organizations collectively as a group, rather than individually.

      I couldn't find any independent and reliable sources, documenting this organization in depth and confirming that it really is what it claims to be, and has a concrete existence beyond a WWW site, a broadcasting licence, and some press releases, either. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 10 April 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. MBisanz 01:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Redux (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I just declined a speedy on this but I am not convinced that this website - which is apparently still in beta - meets the WP:WEB notability requirement so am bringing it here for wider input. Nancy 10:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of websites that have been in beta since they started and are nevertheless plenty notable. I don't think that is particularly relevant to the debate.- Mgm| 08:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree that there are some notable websites that have remained in beta for their entire existence however, in this case I think it might be relevant as Redux appears to be "properly" in beta in that it is apaprently being accessed/tested by invitation only. Nancy 10:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Redux has certainly met criteria 3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" The sources include Techcrunch and Venture Beat which are widely read online publications. Furthermore http://www.demo.com/demonstrators/demo2008/124727.html shows a video of Redux Publicity at a DEMO convention. I would say that this site has notability and is legit. More information and background is needed to expand on the article but I don't believe it should be disqualified or removed from Knowledge (XXG).Sc6 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC) — Sc6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • You've misread what that means. It refers to content, meaning podcasts, webstrips and the like. This is pretty much a hair's breadth from speedy deletion to be honest. Hiding T 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd say delete as failing notability guidelines at this time. When/if it becomes more popular and garnishes some coverage in reliable sources, it can be re-created. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see where it has failed in terms of notability. The information is provided and backed up with resources. It is a well known site even though it is currently in closed beta. It has been featured on numerous online sites and there are legitimate articles which have clearly explained the site. Likewise it is a company which has received seed fundings from notable individuals such as Peter T. who also help to seed Facebook. It is a legitimate site. Due to that fact, this article should remain in tact as users of the site continue to add and contribute to the content of this page. 136.152.136.190 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Heath Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG) The Real Libs-speak politely 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:03, 9 April 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Breakaway Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tour, just a list of dates and a setlist. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:02, 9 April 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Escape Together World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable upcoming tour. Half of the article sounds like an advertisement, but most of it is just a list of dates. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:02, 9 April 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. MBisanz 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alethic mood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. I can find nothing on the web about this apparently obscure linguistic term, and the one source isn't available online. A coinage by the author of that work? Don't know. But at best it's a definition of a very obscure phrase. No notability established or establishable by me (if linguistic experts were to come up with some sources for this, that explains what we're really talking about -- for instance scholarly work that says which languages have these moods and which don't -- I might be convinced. But even then, isn't it still just a definition?) Bali ultimate (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep per these sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • cmt "Alethic modality" which has something to do with logic, and this claim about "Alethic mood" as a notable phrase in linguistics, are different from one another. There might be a case to be made for an article on "alethic modality" but all of those articles that mention "alethic modality" are talking about something very different than what is here. I find no research in those citations about an "alethic mood" peculiar to some languages, but not others, as this article asserts.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as plagarism/COPYVIO Text taken/stolen from page 272 of "Necessitating: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases" Ronabop (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bali ultimate. I've read Frawley, the source cited, and this text is a misunderstanding of the source. Frawley makes a clear distinction in §3.1 between mood and modality, as grammatical and semantic respectively, and proceeds to discuss "alethic modality" in §3.2. He doesn't provide support for the notion of a grammatical mood, and indeed outright contradicts this article's premise of a grammatical distinction between the alethic and the epistemic, in any language, on page #9. We already have alethic modality as a redirect, and since this content is contradicted by a source and the concept outright denied by that source, there seems no good reason to attempt to preserve this content, or have a redirect. I've looked for other sources and found nothing to support the notion of any such grammatical mood as proposed here. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete since "there is no formal grammatical distinction in English, and, perhaps, in no other language either, between alethic and epistemic modality." (The passage Uncle G was thinking of, no doubt.) At best, we have a distinction without a difference--but even in that best-case scenario, one could not distinguish by grammatical means between the alethic and any other mood. (This is, of course, how Wittgenstein made a living.) Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's the one. It's also quoted on page 28 of ISBN 9789027223579, which then continues "The present investigation will not uncover one, either.". Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. In researching my !vote on this, I learned that Knowledge (XXG) has articles on grammatical moods I've never even heard of; this site never ceases to amaze me. :)—S Marshall /Cont 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - can we get a few more academics who know more than I do to discuss this? I teach legal writing, and have worked on some linguistics stubs, but I'll be honest, I've never heard of this. Cf. Inchoate. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • keep this term exists in linguistics. check out these sources for example: .·Maunus·ƛ· 05:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mgm| 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Shades of Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notibility R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:00, 9 April 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. Wizardman 16:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric Ahlqvist Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Co-founder of a non-notable company and model of no apparent notability. Article looks more like promotion to me, and the editor who created it is affiliated w/ the company (judging from the name). Of the three refs, two are linked but neither of those appear to mention the subject or his company (or back up anything notable if they did) and Google searches bring up nothing.  Mbinebri  18:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:16, 9 April 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. MBisanz 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yves De Wolf-Clément (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't verify any notability - and it does not appear to have much assertion of notability. There are French and Spanish versions, but no sources either

Unfortunately, someone removed the prod without indicating why he thought the article should stay. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 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. MBisanz 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Returning Officers of the Oxford Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Oxford Union is notable but this list doesn't inherit its notability. Lacks 3rd party references RadioFan (talk) 23:28, 4 April 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) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It might be mergable with sources to Oxford Union, as Nyttend suggests but I disgree with NuclearWarfare - notability needs to be established when an article is created. Generally if notability hasn't been established by the time an AfD has been completed, then it isn't likely to be in the long term. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:31, 9 April 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 redirect to BSD licenses. MBisanz 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Company License (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the modified BSD software license used by the E Text Editor. It is used exclusively by the E Text Editor and has has no notability independent of that editor. The text of the article consists almost wholly of the text of the license. No sources are given. --darolew 23:34, 4 April 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) 23:59, 8 April 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑