Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 29 - 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Exert (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here at Knowledge (XXG) we don't delegate decisions of notability to religious leaders. We have our own standards of notability. Drawn Some (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We also have standards of civility here. Someone with four books and a papal homily in the references is notable, period. No need to sneer at some religious authority; the authority that matters here is WP:GNG. Djidjov was beatified in 2002; that alone is probably enough to acquire notability, something that both you and the nominator could have found if you had read all the way through the article. And I know there is no guideline that says that--there doesn't need to be. People who are beatified generate coverage, and so did this one. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 5 July 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 and rename to Tork Angegh. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Gbook and gscholar search for any of the spellings isn't coming up with this usage. Can't find author or book mentioned in ref in gbook or gscholar search. Hoax tag removed by IP editor without comment, so I'm assuming a prod will be contested. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 29 June 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 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Public School System#Elementary schools. (non-admin closure) --Explodicle (T/C) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tanapag Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly fails WP:N. With no special notability, this Northern Mariana Islands school is just one of countless elementaries schools in the United States. The subject does not merit its own article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:19, 29 June 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. I say it's an "organization", or at least an organization wannabe, and as such it made no showing of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

recently made up religion. no sources, no google results. Beach drifter (talk) 23:03, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Valley Athletic Social League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One article in a local-interest paper is not enough to pass WP:ORG. No other indications of notability are given. This thus fails notability criteria. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:01, 29 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Several notable appearances, but no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete After a few Google searches I found nothing independent of the man's website except for this: (presumably his endorsement of a brand of guitar string)- other than that, Facebook, Myspace.... nothing of any note. Nothing relevant in Google News archives either. Clear delete. The DominatorEdits 05:16, 1 July 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The notability of this article is neither apparent nor established. Chidel (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • We might if the article made no mention that he was a head of state! When I found the article, it made no mention of that fact; I had seriously considered whether there was an assertion of significance in the article or whether to speedy delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep with option to reconsider. Based on the fact that he was a co-head of state, the subject has a reasonable amount of importance. However, he was part of a ruling council, so the question may be how much can be written about him individually. (Analogy: not all members of musical groups are notable enough for individual articles.) The article is currently in a very weak condition, but I think the correct remedy right now is to expand the article. If after a month or two it isn't much more than "he was part of a ruling council and was killed," then a second AfD is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - A google book search turns up this amongst many hits. Many of the results are in French which I cannot read but there appears to be sources writing about him in some political context. -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The user in question has nominated six articles I have created in the space of a day (See John Frawley,Pierre Anga,Jan Gunnarsson,Douglas v Hello!,Kaye v. Robertson and the probablly non-notable 2009 United Kingdom heat wave) While all of these articles need improving they are nominations which might not have been made had the user read Knowledge (XXG):Do not disrupt Knowledge (XXG) to illustrate a point Francium12 (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No "point" is being made here or elsewhere except your ongoing failure to WP:AGF and the non-notability and otherwise woefullness of the articles in question. Chidel (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You could improve the article! Just a suggestion :-) For any French speakers a good article is Sadly my French is a little rusty and translation in Google isnt brilliant Francium12 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe there were less non-notable articles then. Personally, I am not fond of the "idea man" concept (I have an idea for an article, you do the grunt work since I came up with the idea). I think if you're going to do something on here, at least do it to pass the minimum standards. I have an article that I am writing now. I have enough sources that I think I could successfully get it past notability, but I want it to be stronger before I put it in the mainspace.....and I don't expect other people to make it work for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Niteshift, I take the point you are raising but your comments (above) are a bit bitey and hardly encouraging to those comparatively few editors who still bother with content creation. Francium's comment should not have been just dismissed so: an examination of the responses to/outcomes of Chibel's AFD noms as mentioned by Francium - and this one under discussion - shows that they have not exactly been endorsed. And Chibel's singular resort to No, U! AGF! is as telling as it is tiresome. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I think an analysis of my near 5000 edits shows something other than a work-shy Wikipedian :-) Anyway I think notability has been established now though this is clearly the sort of article which needs an expert rather an a deletionist screaming "no ghits". 12:52, 4 July 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 per G7. The author placed a db-author tag. --JForget 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Greatest Hits Collection III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, can't find anything on a third greatest hits, CMT doesn't have anything about this album Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I will say that i didn't know what i was thinking when i created this article, but i have gotten rid of the unsourced info about the new album on the biography page, noticing that it wasn't sourced. Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:46, 30 June 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) 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Kaye v. Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This case is already covered adequately in the Knowledge (XXG) articles about Privacy in English law and English defamation law. Aside from that, this article grossly overstates its notability. Chidel (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. A Google search turns up hits across two continents for this case. It looks like there's plenty of material out there to demonstrate the notability of this article. I think the correct course right now is to expand the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong Keep IMHO, its difficult to overstate its notability. This is a landmark case, still essential to any comprehension of the current law and still occasioning much debate and applicational angst. How about tagging for rescue and getting the law project bods on to it? Plutonium27 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder if this may be somewhat of a WP:POINT nom...? Plutonium27 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - a quick look at http://test.saflii.org/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%20FSR%2062 shows that many important (including many high) courts have cited it, both within the UK and in other common law countries. --Philosopher  04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This is a leading tort case in England. It is difficult to understate its importance. Francium12 (talk) 09:51, 30 June 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) 00:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Douglas v Hello! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence of the notability of these cases or this article. Chidel (talk) 22:43, 29 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cherry On Top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Refused PROD, non-notable corporation Talain (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. There is an option to merge some of the content to another article. Whoever is interested in doing so, please drop me a note and I'll provide the content. Tone 22:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NSC-Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


No secondary sources, no publications listed in citation indices (except one, which has zero citations). No commercial applications (demonstrated). No coverage in the media. This is not enough for an invention to get its Knowledge (XXG) article. --Pjacobi (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As a administrator on hr.wiki and scientist myself I personally helped to create this article about NSC engine. Article is fully written according wikipedia standards, and it is fully backed up with relevant primary and secondarry sources (although, these sources were not recognised by German wikipedia because they are coming from one small country, and one small universityn, not from mighty Germany), but they are clearly wisible in the article and more secondarry sources can be added.

Whole article is not about an invention (invention is written on the page) but only about one breakthrough in that dirrection which is surely very interesting for scientists and students.

Knowing all this, I do not see any valid reason to delete this article. User Pjacoby is claiming that there is no media coverage. That is false and he knows it. There is media coverage, but not in commercial media but in scientific circles, one examšle is this year rewiew of university of Zagreb technical journal, and I clearly stated that in previous debate about this on German wikipedia. But, that is also not written in mighty German language and is not valid for German speakers. Now mighty Germans want to muscle their way here as well. Regards --Lasta 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Coverage in scientific and technical community can be objectively (at least objectively enough for purposes of determing relevance) quantified by using citation indices.
Anyway the case was clear enough to delete the article on dewiki, but different Wikipedias have different criteria for inclusion, so I hope this case get decided by the assessment of other editors, not previously involved in the case.
--Pjacobi (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Covered under WP:OR. Purely primary sources. No secondary source coverage. Dr.K. logos 07:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Apart from the nationalistic concerns providede by Lasta, there are simply no secondary sources available, which is way to less for a 11 year old concept. The argument, that publications by the inventors – especially by the origional autors – can be called secondary sources lacks of … about every thing. Blunt. (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Notability as invention does not seem notable enough, particularly due to its failure to appear in secondary sources. If, in the future, invention does become well-known and adequately-covered, it would probably deserve an article. 2help (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Replay

Exactly, I am giving nationalistic concerns, others are giving nothing, but nothing at all. All participants in this conversation are Germans all except me, so how can you accuse me of being nationalistic. At least I did not ask help of my countrymen to support me in nationalistic debate. This is continuing of misuse of Knowledge (XXG) rules, disregarding all sources, stating that they are primary sources, that there is no coverage,...User:Blunt. is even calling University publications, Quote: that publications by the inventors, which is clearly showing his regards towards Universities outside Germany. Misinterpreting everithing, just muscle way through. I will quote few wikipedia rules which are totaly neglected by all of you trying to force your way.

In article Sources is written: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

This whole article is based on this rule, reviewed journals and books published by University, and reviewed books and journals are clearly third party sources. That I wrote on German wikipedia before and was told that mentioned University is small (that publications by the inventors),...

Nobody tried to argue, just verdict in German stile, Delete without any real argument. Just like now. Just delete, based on fact that there are no secondarry suources?!!! Guidances here do not qualify article for deletion, article fulfill all rules mentioned here.

Further, I am not author of this project, but I am writing about it. If somebody can say that this come under WP:OR, that is clearly misinterpreting rules, if I am not autor of project, how I can do original research?!!!

Also, I want to point one more wikipedia standard, clearly forgotten by guys above, standard that voting can not be substitute for discussion. So just find few of friends and vote to delete this article. That is not acceptable. First we must see what independent point of view will be. Let guys from Project Engineering decide. At least they will know what is article about and they can give one good insight. And they can give independant view. Without their view, it is clear what is going on. Thanks --Lasta 07:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment from the Engineering project talkpage. I am not involved in any way with anyone here and contrary to your assertion I am not German. I quote from WP:PRIMARY:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

You are using papers from the original authors and you are quoting them and their conclusions in the article. This goes against the quote above that:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.

These are highly technical claims and noone other than the original authors have evaluated them as significant. At the same time no layman can evaluate these claims without specialist knowledge. This use of primary sources in the article is not in compliance with the policy I just quoted above. Therefore as a neutral observer I agree with the nominator that this article lacks WP:RS and thus it cannot be kept. Dr.K. logos 07:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation, and I can see the your point, and I appreciate real arguments. Also I am willing to accept arguments and valid points, even if that is against my point of view. That is reason why I wanted somebody neutral, to check this article, not to be kicked from wikipedia, without real discussion. We can debate about are these all primary sources, but, that will lead us nowhere. Let be more constructive in our debate. Let see what happens if we agree that all sources are primary, and reliable, I think that we can agree on that. Now, what is remaining? Exactly what you wrote above: Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source, and Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Question in this case is, are there any interpretations based upon primary sources, are there any explanations or evaluative clams. If you read article carefully, I strictly abstained from any of these. Only part which can come under these terms is Efficiency and work production of NSC-Motors where at the beggining is written disclaimer :According to information supplied by its inventor. With that disclaimer I showed fully compliance with quoted article and therefore I do not think that article qualify for deletion. --Lasta 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You discriminate us for our nationality by saying we din't accept the literature because we are the mighty Germans and you come from a small country. Thats simple playing with nationalistic stereotypes and has nothing to do with an argument. In German Knowledge (XXG) we don't accept concepts that haven't spread around, I don't know about hr.wiki, but as you claim to be an administrator there, hr.wiki might differ on that one. Blunt. (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
@Lasta: Thank you for your kind comments and your reply. This is true. Your claims are mostly descriptive. But even if they mostly describe the content of the paper, the article fails the descriptive test:

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge

In the absence of any external criticism coming from a reliable secondary source analysing the findings of these papers I don't think that a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can verify these claims. So it fails the verifiability test as described in the policy. To put it in other words: I don't think that Knowledge (XXG) can publish articles based on unverified research, even if the research is published. This research must be evaluated by reliable secondary sources before it can be used to create an article here. This research obviously has not been evaluated by any other scientists in the field, other than the principals involved. Therefore it cannot be used in the article in my opinion. As far as nationality-based arguments you may have seen from my userpage that I dislike them. I think editors should be judged according to their arguments not according to their nationality. This is or, at least, it should be the Wikpedia way. Dr.K. logos 14:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


  • Merge The article lacks notability by itself, and the use of primary sources means that most of the technical information in the article can not be verified per WP: Primary. However, the article describes an application of the Stirling Cycle with phase change. This is something a layman could understand (see the thermodynamic cycles end table).

The article itself needs most of the technical information dispensed with and put into a new subsection of the Stirling Engine article, with an external link to the primary source. Then as secondary sources make the topic more notable (if and when they do), this article can stand alone. --66.181.150.22 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with such approach. Good points. Dr.K. logos 22:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
@Blunt: I did claim nationalistic view, not because I am nationalistic, but because, on de.wiki nobody said anything about article, all my attempts to argue were useless. And you tried same here. I accept any and all good arguments, as Dr.K. gave. And I can understand that in his point of veiw, article fail to meet required standards. And although I do not like his view, I am gratefull for it, and that will serve only to improve our wikipedia. And, I gave my arguments, now, I am waiting to see other arguments, but from you, here I did not see any argument except that you do not accept comcepts that haven't spread around. If that is main reason to delete an article, and that is your only explanation, combined with fact that nobody talked with me on de.wiki, then you do not need to be surprised that I had impression that this is just organized plot.
@Others: Thank you for participating in discussion, and for your point of view. --Lasta 06:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Lasta. It was a pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. logos 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. As far as Blunt I think his expression "it has not spread around" means that there are no secondary sources which mention this engine. So, in effect, he means the same thing I said, only in fewer words. Dr.K. logos 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Dr.K., you understood my point.
Danke schön Blunt. Auf wiedersehen. Dr.K. logos 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
And Lasta, I tried to talk to you, even in english to avoid language barriers. You just didn't respond.
By the way: The publication of W. Servis has not been cited by anybody but W. Servis. Blunt. (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 29 June 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. A7 Tone 22:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete nn actor, no refs, no assertion of notability, so nn we don't know when or where he was born or even whether he's alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 29 June 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. Consensus is quite clear that the Leinster Senior Cup does not constitute the "highest level" of playing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE; insufficient material to pass WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 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 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

This article appears to be an autobiography and the person is not notable. Google news reveals a Brazilian politician with the same name but I can't find anything about this Jorge Bechara. Essentially a CV or resume and therefore should be deleted. Smartse (talk) 22:03, 29 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

IME Process Metallurgy and Metal Recycling at the RWTH Aachen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete perhaps just short of blatant advertising but nothing indicating notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 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. A7 seems reasnable here. Tone 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Hornet (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subjects fails WP:BAND criteria for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). The Real Libs-speak politely 21:58, 29 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

A made-up genre built entirely on original research with not a singe reference to support any of the content. A Google search shows no reliable sources to back-up the term as a valid music genre - mainly hitting clothes marketing websites. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

*Keep No indication that nominator has followed all the preliminary alternatives to deletion. -- TheGriefer (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE The above keep vote is the first edit by a new account created within minutes of this AfD. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Now, that's just not nice. -- TheGriefer (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nominator made a good faith effort to find possible sources for verification and was unable to find any, like I just did as well.--Talain (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE (you know, actual policy) says to use the talk page and talk to the article. Not only has nobody talked with User:Chris Henniker, User talk:Chris Henniker shows that the nominator didn't even bother to notify him. This kind of quick loss of information that's been here for years isn't good. -- TheGriefer (talk) 23:14, 29 June 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 per G7 by TexasAndroid. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

This is an stub article that I created. Dr. Seinfeld clearly is notable per WP:PROF, but I never got around to writing more than a short stub. I'd prefer it get deleted until I (or someone else) can actually write something substantial about him. I recognize this isn't really a valid reason in the deletion policy, but I think that because this is a BLP, it still should be deleted. Atmoz (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment you can request deletion of your own content under G7 (tag article with {{db-G7}}) but lack of content that will be recreated later is no reason for it to be deleted. If you are expecting some info later, you can tag the article {{construction}} instead of deletion. But since G7 is a valid criterion, it is up to you. ZooFari 22:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone else has edited the article, but if an admin were to G7 it I wouldn't complain. As the bio is now, it doesn't convey any information about the subject, and is a target for the addition of harmful information. -Atmoz (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
All edits other that the original editor's were either reverted, or taggings. All content on the article (other than the tags) was from the original editor. Thus, it is now G7 - gone. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Starving the Monkeys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A disputed speedy and disputed prod (the latter removed without apparent improvement). Self-publication attracts no notability; a brief Google search reveals nothing that would confer or bolster notability, no reliable sources (two blog mentions and the author's own promotional materials). no verifiability. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"A disputed speedy and disputed prod (the latter removed without apparent improvement)"

The above statement is incorrect. See the talk page for the article for justification for the author to remove the PROD tag.

Again, the book addressed in the article contains strong political content. Removal for taste (and ultimately, notability is a subjective matter by Knowledge (XXG)'s own standards), would indicate censorship in this forum. If Knowledge (XXG) allows any complaint to remove articles that have strong political content, then this venue is worthless as an open forum.

It remains to be seen whether logic or reason prevails, or whether Knowledge (XXG) is a thin veneer for censorship.

The fact that some community members object SO STRONGLY and have objected SO QUICKLY after the posting of the original article indicates notability on its own accord, doesn't it? This when there are plenty of meaningless articles on Knowledge (XXG) that get no challenge at all.

I find it interesting that when the first complaint (not-notable) was so easily swatted aside by referencing Knowledge (XXG)'s own book-notability criterion, that another complaint, this one subjective, immediately arose to take its place. This may make the book's author correct in many ways ...

LandHawg (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the policy on what Knowledge (XXG) is not, specifically, that it is not a soapbox, not a forum and not censored. Vicenarian 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the attempt by the PR firm of Glenn Beck, a notable person, to censor or edit the promotion of this book by the author meet the notability criteria? See the link at the top of the book's site where Premiere Radio shut down marketing because the author disagreed with Beck. If it managed to get their attention so quickly and cause such a strong reaction, then a sort of meta-notability is now at play. The fact that a small press author is able to cause a rankle among right-wing notables is itself notable. LandHawg (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Considering that the source of the claim is related to the book, I'd have to say no. And after reading it, I don't even see the attempt to "censor" anything. They simply don't want him on their show, which is their absolute right. Claiming "censorship" and using their names to manufacture controversy and draw attention to his book is one of the lower forms of promotion. I have even less respect for the author after reading that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift36, thank you for your opinion but your respect or lack of respect for the author is unimportant. If we only allow articles here based on a consensus of respect there would only be a few pages, if that. And you misrepresent the author's claim, which is not that Glenn Beck wouldn't have him on his show, the author never asked for that. The issue that is notable is that Glenn Beck wouldn't sell the author advertising space while claiming publicly in numerous forums to want to hear all points of view. Perhaps your stated bias influences your perspective on the issue.LandHawg (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The "issue" is absolutely non-notable. There is a letter that declined to advertise the book. Period. See WP:NOTE for Knowledge (XXG)'s specific usage of notability. And quite frankly, even under a broader dictionary definition, it would still fail to be deemed notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 4 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although I don't generally take articles with a long history to AfD for being too promotional, I can't find any non-promotional versions of this article, and the history seems to represent a losing battle against promotionalism. Probably best either not not have the article, or to start from scratch. - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though someone has now removed substantially all of the copyvio content from the article and attempted to make it into a stub, this company is not NOTABLE enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. There just isn't any independent coverage of the company that would establish notability or aid in the development of an appropriate article. Their only real "claim" to fame is that Glen Taylor is their founder and chairman, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Taylor's own notability, if indeed it is enough to support his own presence in a Knowledge (XXG) article, is based on his ownership of professional sports teams and involvement in that area, NOT his work in this stationery company. OfficeGirl (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Even after the bold revert to remove the promotional copyrighted material a user from an IP Address registered to Taylor Corp-198.12.16.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). has been inserting promotional language and links into the article. We have a clear case of WP:COI and someone who wants to be the article's WP:OWNER. OfficeGirl (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please let me know what I need to do to improve this article. I'm a new user to Knowledge (XXG) and want to make sure that I'm following all standard protocol. Comm*1975
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin) closure. An AfD on this article, started 2½ hours earlier by the same nominator, is already running at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Song For The Man. No need to scatter users' opinions between the two. Deor (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Song For The Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song that was never a single KMFDM FAN 20:52, 29 June 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 all. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lists with little or no real purpose or possibility for expansion (exception 2009). The following are included in this nomination:

2008 Band of Brothers veterans deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 Band of Brothers veterans deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Mufka 20:43, 29 June 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 JoJan, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

American Virtual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable university. Delete TheRingess (talk) 20:33, 29 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP concerns; does not appear to readily meet WP:N. Entire notability appears to be tied into one event so WP:BLP is a major factor and concern here. WP:COATRACK applies as well. This not a biography in any sense, nor encyclopediac. It's a laundry list of allegations and maybe-crimes. Also, being an executive at a corporations is not evidence of notability in any way, shape, or form, either. There are thousands of such corporations and divisions. Delete per WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:COATRACK, and WP:N considerations. rootology (C)(T) 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, and consider speedy or courtesy blanking during the discussion. This is edging uncomfortably close to an attack page, and I certainly agree with the nominator, particularly about the BLP concerns. I would add WP:WEIGHT to his list of considerations.—S Marshall

/Cont 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Downgrading to weak delete, see below—S Marshall /Cont 00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Why would you delete an article about a public person (government employee) who has significant in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? Clearly notable. Clean it up. Drawn Some (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You may wish to add sourcing then to demonstrate notability before the AFD closes, or else your keep has no standing. The burden is on those wanting to Keep. rootology (C)(T) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think there are sufficient references here to demonstrate notability. In particular, the existence of the highly in-depth CBS news article is a strong claim to notability, as is the fact that Donald Rumsfeld commented on this case . In response to the comment above: the fact that an article is 'more than 50% attack/controversy' doesn't mean it should automatically be deleted; it means it should be improved, where possible, to comply with our neutrality requirements. And in cases of people only notable for negative events, a mostly negative article is appropriate: Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff are pretty negative biogaphies, but nobody argues they should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 4 July 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 copyvio TeaDrinker (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A Knight in the Congo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can see no notability about this topic, and it is an orphan article. Timneu22 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I retagged as G12 - the entire text for this article is lifted verbatim from a paragraph in the cited book, which is copyright-protected. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copy vio or not, the book seems to fail notability. Current sales ranking at Amazon is #3,701,636. Granted the book has been out of print for a while, but the lack of reviews etc make it tough to call notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Not notable, advertising. I have speedied this before and it has been re-created with protestations from the author, so I concluded that a discussion at AFD may be the best way to handle this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 29 June 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. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Flashqard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Epoxy putty. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

No reliable sources found, reads like an ad. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Epoxy putty is nothing new and there's nothing notable about this particular brand of the stuff. The ambitious among us might want to take a look around for other links to Epoxy putty for other articles of doubtful inclusivification, for completeness. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There are frequent references to "Mighty Putty" in newspaper obituaries about Mr. Mays. For example, Holley, Joe (June 29, 2009). "Infomarcial King Has the Perfect Pitch". Washington Post. p. B4.. The current Knowledge (XXG) article notes that the product was advertized in infomercials and was the subject of an expose which demonstrated that people had difficulty using it as advertised. It has enough independent coverage to warrant inclusion. It is an unsavory aspect of our culture which may be documented, like the Teapot Dome Scandal. Racepacket (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Mentions in the obituary of the pitchman are trivial mentions, not coverage of the topic of this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to epoxy putty. Mighty Putty is simply the band name of this kind of stuff. However, it is notable enough to deserve some sort of treatment besides "Billy Mays advertised this." ~EDDY ~ 19:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to epoxy putty. This stuff is notable, but it is probably better suited merged with expoxy putty to keep it at a non-advertisement POV. Tavix |  Talk  20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand This was (is?) a quite popular product, and while there's currently no mention of the profits in the article, it likely made millions of dollars. The article should be extended to cover more of the marketing success of the brand. The brand should also be mentioned over at epoxy putty. PCHS-NJROTC 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. It's a real product that's quite well-known, and I think I even saw it at a drugstore. I've seen it around enough that I'd say it's definitely legitimately notable. I can say pretty confidently that I know very few people that know what "epoxy putty" is but very many who've heard of Mighty Putty. The article didn't seem at all like an advertisement to me; I'm not sure where that criticism is coming from. I would be fine with it as a section in epoxy putty. I would prefer not to have it merged as a section into the Billy Mays article, even if, as an example, this was the case with ShamWow and its pitchman, since this article is not primarily about Mays's involvement with the product. I prefer keeping it separate to merging only because the epoxy putty article is already fairly lengthy and has a decidedly different (more scientific, less domestic) tone. Never mind, I was looking at the epoxy article and not the epoxy putty article. Vote changed to Merge. --llamapalooza87 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 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. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 19:31, 29 June 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 Mourning sickness. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Per WP:NOTDICDEF, article consists only of a definition and examples of usage. Phrase used in passing in three books but this article has little hope of expansion as there are no reliable sources that discuss and analyze the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


  • Delete, neologism, no evidence of any mainstream usage. Even if such evidence were forthcoming, the article at present is a dicdef, not encyclopedic in tone, and would require broader coverage to be suitable for Knowledge (XXG). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Er, i think you've been misled, 10Pound. There are quite a few sources, none of them unreliable or unverifiable. I am not speaking about the book references. - Arcayne () 03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge and Redirect. to Mourning sickness. E-mail, truthiness and hundreds of other neolopisms have articles on Knowledge (XXG). As do many words. There is certainly a good article possible here - tying directly to the history of media, technology and journalism. It took me less than a minute to find several news stories and books. What we have is currently poorly written and under-cited. The neologism itself is new but the subject is certainly notable with hundreds of books focussing on how media focus on death. It may be more NPOV to find a better title like Media portrayals of tragic events. These are all WP:Problems that per WP:AFD should be addressed through regular editing instead of deletion. -- Banjeboi 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My point is that just because a term is a neologism doesn't mean a good article isn't possible. The subject of Media portrayals of tragic events itself is quite notable so several routes to improving this article exist with the most likely path involving a name change - ala "a neologism grief porn was coined in the 2000s to describe _____" - which would also not call for deleting but improving. Where to start? Here's several thousand Google scholar hits but these have both media and tragedy in the title. I'm sure tweking the search terms will pull many more possible sources. -- Banjeboi 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to userfy the article, and work on making it into "something else" at your leisure, please feel free to do so. However, a vague hunch that this might form part of a notable topic in the future is not a valid reason to keep the present article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The subject itself flies past notability guidelines. Studies and books are regualrly produced on media issues involving death and tragedies. This is a no-brainer, find a NPOV title, move the article and restructure it accordingly mentioning grief porn with due weight. -- Banjeboi 11:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be out of line here Tim but isn't determining the possibility of improving an article the point of AfD? We should be here discussing weather this article can be saved or not, right? So doesn't the possibility of being able to save the article go straight to the heart of that argument? We shouldn't be here to delete unworthy stuff, we should be here to delete non-notable stuff. Padillah (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Not out of line in the slightest, but unless Benjiboi changes his vote to Rename or Redirect and actually decides on a new name and topic, this discussion on things the article might be called in the future will remain entirely hypothetical. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly, we have seven days to sort out if this article is encyclopedic in total or some usable parts. There seems little consensus to outright delete it and I now concur that merging it with Mourning sickness would serve this article and our readers best. This section can grow there and if needed can be rebirthed at a later date. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Grief porn seems related to the term "disaster pornography" and probably several similar terms. Disaster pornography is currently an imperfect (though understandable) redirect to Compassion fatigue. I suspect you could find sources that discuss and analyze the broader topic if you expand your search to include these terms as well; Slate, for example has one: http://www.slate.com/id/2112706/ about "disaster porn". I'm not an AFD regular, nor am I an article writer, so I'll leave the decision on whether to delete or expand or rename or merge somewhere to others. But I sort of suspect there's an article lurking around in there somewhere, even if the current one isn't it. Meh, maybe this is too wishy-washy to be helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Schadenfreude could be a valid redirect target. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sort of related, but not the same. Schadenfreude is happiness at someone else's misfortune; like seeing an edit warrior and tendentious editor's article up at AFD. Grief porn is more like sharing in someone else's misfortune in an excessive, inappropriate, and generally creepy way, like feeling a compelling need to be the one to keep the Michael Jackson article up to date minute by minute on all the latest rumors you've heard online. Like the redirect from Disaster pornography to Compassion fatigue, they're related ideas, but they're definitely not the same thing. I think Benjiboi's idea of Media portrayals of tragic events is kind of what I had in mind when I said I sort of suspect there's an article lurking around in there somewhere. Now, if I could only convince someone (not volunteering, I mean someone competent) to write it... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Note: the term is not defined, the article's lead para records it without any distinction as both, "it describes a forced or artificial commiseration" and as "gratuitous indulgence". Fact is, it apparently has no common or consistent def and has been only mentioned on a handful of occasions. It probably means whatever the speaker says at any one time, this conflicting definition in the lead was brought up in discussion.99.141.251.67 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it when I see it :) . --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

* Delete: Disaster porn, grief porn, plane porn, car porn these are simply commonly meshed near-portmanteaus no different than calling every scandal a "gate" like Water-gate or such. One takes whatever has captured the attention at any moment and attaches "porn" to it. "Car Porn" has thousands of potential references - as for that matter does "plane porn" or any number of you name it - "porns". None of which are anything more than simple plays on the attached word as it relates to our porn like attachment to the given images. Border line even for a dictionary and not at all encyclopedic.99.141.251.67 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - That's an interesting, yet rather unsupported opinion, anon75. In point of fact, grief porn is utterly different from your superficial examples. - Arcayne () 02:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - Some sources show the word being used, but none demonstrate nontrivial coverage of it, and there's nothing to show that there's any notable usage of the word. DreamGuy (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think there are a few notable bits about this term - what is being stated above is that the subject is certainly notable enough so an article on the subject which includes mention of this term would likely make more sense. What that article should be called is yet to be determined. -- Banjeboi 01:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Note: The Observer has entirely removed the blog entry which was cited in support of a major edit to the "grief porn" article from its website. 99.141.251.67 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Were you planning on striking that, anon? It's been pointed out that it was simply moved to archives, not removed at all. the correct link has been reinstated in the article. - Arcayne () 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::You are incorrect to assert that the Observer has archived the blog entry, if you feel otherwise please support your post with a reference showing otherwise. 99.141.251.67 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL - Xeno found it and put it back in the article.Please be more careful in the future, anon75... - Arcayne () 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::*Comment: No article was moved to the archives, and you will not find a reference to support your claim that the Observer blog - "was simply moved to archives, not removed at all". 99.141.251.67 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to re-check your claim. It appears that the NYT's mention is from a readers comments99.141.251.67 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, your place was to address that elsewhere, anon75. On a side note, is there some reason you are making your text smaller? Your use of it is somewhat distracting. - Arcayne () 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I shrunk my "margin note" so as to not detract from the main business here -and I addressed it here because this is the first time I've seen the NYT invoked. 99.141.251.67 (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of phrases have been used in newspapers and published in books, but since Wiki is not a dictionary, we don't want articles on bits and bobs or odds and ends. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Reliable sources, published in books and discussed by notable, linked folk - it seems a no-brainer to keep. The only reason why this article hasn't been expanded further is that it had been bogged down in discussion overlong. there are over a dozen sources linked in article discussion that could be utilized in the article, as well as a likely ton if usable other citations throughout the net and academic sourcing.

::Looking at the policy page on Neologisms it seems quite specific:, "Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate." and the following "As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Knowledge (XXG)'s, that project may cover neologisms that Knowledge (XXG) cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead." Very specific direction, neologisms clearly start at a disadvantage. Which is likely why porn-derivative articles like car-porn (mega usage), plane-porn and horticulture-porn don't exist, even though we have a substantial body of references from all media and academia. 99.141.251.67 (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, where is our policy page on neologisms? If you are referring to the guideline: "Avoid Neologisms", you might want to take several moments and review that guideline, anon75. From the very title of the guideline, the reason we are guided to avoid them is that they aren't really understood all that well; frankly, that seems directed to folk who have some trouble being able to use them. You shouldn't assume that simply because you do not seem to understand them doesn't mean some of us do not. As per the definition, the term is a neologism. I mean, you can keep comparing the term to car-porn or plane-porn, but you are only pointing out that you don't really understand the term, its meaning or its application as a neologism. - Arcayne () 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide just a few of these sources that discuss the term as their subject? Please note that I don't mean sources defining the phrase, giving its origin or providing examples of its usage, all of which might form parts of a dictionary entry, but not an encyclopaedia article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for implying that I can't read Benji.....except I can. I know full well where the discussion has gone. I rendered my opinion. I really don't care if you like it or not. It may surprise you to know that you aren't in charge of directing the AfD discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if you felt I implied anything and no, this is a discussion with no one "in charge" including myself, of course. Your rendered opinion is certainly yours to have and hold. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing like sufficient coverage here. GNG demands multiple reliable sources to give independent non-trivial coverage indicating why this should be considered notable enough to be an article. There's nothing like that here. We've got one garbage source making a garbage claim and then some passing mentions of the term here and there. The typical sources for confirming the notable existence of a word or phrase are all conspicuously silent on this term, which is more than enough evidence that it hasn't made it to the mainstream yet. DreamGuy (talk)
You haven't bothered to do a google search for the phrase, have you? If you had you would have found the same 633,000 hits I did. You would have found actual news articles using the term: and you would have found people using the term in blog replies: To try and put forward that there is not sufficient coverage is misinformed at best. To adhere to the outlook that this term hasn't made it to the mainstream yet is short-sighted. Padillah (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Padilah - there are about 630,000 Google results for the search term grief porn but only about 1000 for "grief porn", i.e. the phrase as opposed to the two separate words. Just for the record. Barnabypage (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Before I make my point: Benjiboi, are you the one who added the strikethrough to Teh Crafty's post? If so, don't you find that a little arrogant? Deciding that someone else's post is irrelevant? Anyway, I believe we should delete the article called Grief porn. In my opinion, Media coverage of tragedy would be a great article to have, but the creation of that article is totally irrelevant to this article's AfD. Benjiboi, don't say that "the discussion has moved away from" Grief porn, because that's the article this AfD was created for, so that should be our focus. And in my opinion, there is no question that Grief porn is an unencylopedic, dictionary-style article with no hope whatsoever of becoming an encylopedic article, due simply to its nature. If someone is willing to create the article Media coverage of tragedy, that's great, kudos to them, it would be a valuable addition to Knowledge (XXG). However, the content of Grief porn wouldn't even necessarily be included in Media coverage of tragedy, and even if it was, the issue of whether or not it is appropriate in that article and how to deal with it will be up to the creator and editors of that article, not some unrelated consensus on an AfD page for a long-dead article. Our issue here is whether or not to delete Grief porn. I think we should, per WP:NOTADICT. Creating Media coverage of tragedy is very different from renaming or rescuing Grief porn because grief porn is only a small element of Media coverage of tragedy. Neil Clancy 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think if you look carefully you'd see that the user struck through their own comment. And no, this discussion has moved a bit to asserting that the subject should focus on media portrayals and not solely on this one term. Certainly that would be relevant to this article. -- Banjeboi 16:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Mergeto Mourning sickness. Same mawkish phenomenon, as noted by Timesonline . (Dontcha just LOVE a good cry?) Elvis, Diana, Michael Jackson. The masses getting off with recreational grieving, replete with candles, piles of flowers, and teddy bears piled by fences, with journalists criticizing the sob-fest, and people getting angry that their orgiastic grief is held up to ridicule. Edison (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So Benjiboi, do you now wish to merge and redirect the Grief porn article to Mourning sickness? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mourning sickness. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Neil Clancy - he makes just about every argument I could think of for removing this, and probably clearer than I would have. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, though. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Neil Clancy. Second choice merge to Mourning sickness. Orderinchaos 20:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mourning sickness, as per Edison, Hypocrite, etc. I creatd the article, and was unaware of similar phenomena. Were there nothing else like it, I would be hard pressed to find a good enough reason to delete - actually, I still don't, despite Neil's comments. However, similar behavior does exist, it should be merged. - Arcayne () 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep All we need to concern ourselves with is if the subject satisfies the notability and verifiability guidelines. Both are satisfied by multiple reliable, third-party references, so the article should be kept, or at most merged to Mourning sickness per above. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll go for the Merge to Mourning sickness - this kind of bogus emotional wankery has been well documented and it is no wonder that some terms for it have been coined by various commentators. Mourning sickness seems to be winning. If a better candidate emerges it can be redirected there.  pablohablo. 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mourning sickness, per creator and Edison, Hipocrite, et al. KillerChihuahua 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge - Mourning sickness is a well-cited article that is describing the same phenomenon, far better to move this information over there. -- Atama 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete we need an article on a term sort of used 3 times in opinion columns just about as much as we need an article on a PTA mom mentioned in a couple of human interest columns. As in, not at all. Knowledge (XXG) is not journalism... we really need much better sourcing than this to justify an article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - not sure how many times it has to be pointed out, but I am not going to get tired correcting the fallacy: the references are not "opinion columns". Nor are they "blogs". The citations that speak directly to the term are from rock-solid reliable, verifiable and notable sources. There are additional references in - again - reliable, verifiable and notable sources. That there is a paucity of sources that speak to the invention of the term is the only reason why merging seems the avenue to pursue. Sorry, if it seems like I am snapping at you, Chiliad; I guess I'm still pissed at the banned anon who set he ball rolling with this bloggy opinion bs. - Arcayne () 11:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Every source cited in the article is labeled as an opinion column or a blog. I don't understand what your argument for them not being opinion columns or blogs is... they're clearly labeled as such. As for other sources mentioned but not cited... 1 is a work of fiction (Ten Little Indians), 2 are reviews of that work - all just mention the term but don't explain it in any sort of depth. Then there's yet another casual mention by "Hippo Flicks", whatever that is. Casual mentions do not constitute non-trivial coverage. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is something of a moot point, since the consensus seems to be in favor of merging the article, which is probably a good compromise. However, in defense of the sources in the current article, the "blogs" are attached to The Guardian and The Times, two very notable papers. WP:RS gives an allowance to blogs that are on "the website of a major news organization" and "Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers". Your attack on the reliability of those sources is unfounded. -- Atama 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Where did I say they were unreliable sources? You appear to be replying to an argument I didn't make. My problem is with using opinion pieces as the citation for objective claims, not about whether they're "reliable" sources or not. Glenn Beck's opinion on global warming has been expressed in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean we use his claims as the basis for supposedly objective claims in global warming articles. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a ridiculous example. I think everyone would agree that there's a large difference between the type of source that is appropriate to back up a scientific claim and the type appropriate to discuss a cultural and media phenomenon. If a glen beck article was used to describe the politics surrounding global warming, it would be entirely appropriate.60.240.104.183 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mourning sickness, per Atama. GP could be included in mourning sickness with a redirect. Erikeltic 12:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mourning sickness. It's a media buzzword but certainly not a neologism that was invented here. Still kind of a stub article but makes a great candidate for merging with the very similar "mourning sickness". Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with Mourning Sickness. If it's deleted, the floral tribute leavers have won. Paul S (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge. Upon reading Mourning sickness, it would appear that merging Grief porn into that article is the best course of action. I don't know how exactly that will be done, I would recommend placing a redirect at Grief porn pointing to Mourning sickness, and then giving the term "grief porn" passing mention in the article. I don't believe it deserves an entire section as I still think it is unecylopedic and rather non-notable per my earlier comments, but since I won't be the one doing the merging, I guess we'll just have to see what Arcayne or whoever merges the articles comes up with. Neil Clancy 20:31, 2 July 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. This is not a biography, this is a description of an event. At best, it might deserve a paragraph in University of Nottingham. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you find reliable sources to write a biography from? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:38, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rayat London College Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable organization - speedy deleted this morning and recreated by the original editor noq (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete I'm the {{db-website}} nominator of the first version, the article doesn't meet the citeria for organizations and websites. 4 Google hits with the only source - Knowledge (XXG). This is a clear candidate for speedy deletion. Note to the creator of the article: Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia and included sujects should be notable. I've informed you properly about rules at this website, just check the links. I'm sorry, and good luck with your project. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

:Keep Its a information forum for RLC students and international students, its in growth stage and will develop with the passage of time. If its still not notable what changes shall I make to keep it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.13.98 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Its an active club with a hough potential to grow, it is no only notable national (RLC existing and potential students) it is also notable for international students and potential students as RLC (Rayat London College) is part of the Rayat group which runs education business not only in UK but in India with number of colleges. Rayat-Bahara Group webssite—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.13.98 (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you probably want to read the guidelines for notability of clubs and why arguments like "huge potential to grow" carry no weight. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:04, 1 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dormant sensory organ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listing AfD after a prod tag was placed on the article for the second time. The prod reason was: Appears to be synthesis of a Lovecraft quote and Blavatsky's interpretation of the pineal gland. The sections about vestigial tails, webbed feet and diseases seems to be WP:OR, and unconnected to "sensory organs". decltype (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's part of the problem, vestigial organs aren't "dormant", they're extinct! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever :). The article misses evolutionary biology and falls into the realms of Hancock's Atlantean Dolphin Masters I fear.]Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 29 June 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 Hello Nasty. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Song For The Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song that wasn't a single KMFDM FAN 18:31, 29 June 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, G3, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Possible hoax. I'm no artist, but they certainly don't look like works of genius to me. The ISBNs given are not for those books- two do not exist, the other is for a book about Oliver Cromwell. Google doesn't throw up anything at first glance. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks so much for your valuable input, J Milburn. I take it you have some kind of qualification in the field of art critique as you seem to be judging the value of the article on your own taste, or lack of it. This article is not here to confuse, obfuscate, or mislead, merely to entertain mainly Guardian online readers where Martin Wolk is a popular phenomenon. It can only be arrived at by a direct search for Martin Wolk...which isn't likely to happen very often, unless by the aforementioned Guardian readers who are fully aware of the truth surrounding this artist. This page will be abandoned or removed or deleted by me within a few weeks once it has served its pupose. I realise this probably offends your sense of order but surely it is quite clear that there is no malicious intent.

Just give us a break for a couple of weeks.

Major Whipple and rafibrown

Ms Brown and I have discussed this and we have decided that we resent the use of the term "juvenile". We would appreciate it if this distasteful insult were to be removed ASAP.

Thank you.

Major Whipple and rafibrown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Whipple (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 June 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. Copyvio http://www.brekersystems.com/about.php GedUK  19:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Breker Verification Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A nonnotable 2003 software startup - Altenmann >t 16:10, 29 June 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. It just needed a little love. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Allen C. Guelzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

m:OTRS ticket:2009062810003088: the subject has requested deletion, identity confirmed. Barely notable per Knowledge (XXG)'s current messageboard-like standards. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-29t15:44z 15:44, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

This is an orphan page with questionable notability. I see no evidence of noteworthiness with a number of related google searches. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul Kantorek put this article here himself. Timneu22 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope Court, NJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete – Fails WP:N; is an irrelevant basketball court whose entry was created by self-promoting streetball players; heavily biased; no facts to support claims; no references can be found regarding this court (except Hoopedia, which is just a WP for basketball). Jrcla2 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete:The only place I could find anything on this was a duplicate article on the aforementioned "Hoopedia", which it is much better suited to than Knowledge (XXG). --Susan118 21:50, 29 June 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 as a recreated article from the first AfD nomination. The current article was "substantially identical" to the previous revision, with no improvement through sources or verification that the station is even confirmed. JamieS93 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Canberra MRT Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unconfirmed possible future railway station. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Contested prod (under what I believe to be a misinterpration of the prod guidelines). WikiDan61ReadMe!! 14:46, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr.K.N.Ezhuthachan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible joke page, created just as a test, very poor references ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 14:34, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Some notability is asserted in the article, but I cannot find any sources on the Web to back it up. In fact, the only thing I found on the Web that would be considered reliable is an obituary for another person with the same name. Non-notable composer. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 14:25, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Action News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy A7 has been declined on the grounds that G11 had also been declined. Non-notable podcast. Delete.  Blanchardb -- timed 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've already explained to you, "Speedy A7 has been declined on the grounds that G11 had also been declined" is untrue. It was initially tagged {{db-A7}}; when that was declined, it was re-tagged {{db-web}}, which is a redirect to {{db-A7}}. "There have also been interviews on the show with Samuel L. Jackson, Alan Dean Foster, Donald F. Glut, James Kahn, L. Neil Smith, and Timothy Zahn" immediately establishes that this isn't some guy-in-his-basement fancruft site, and that {{db-A7}} doesn't apply. – iridescent 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm asking seriously, not rhetorically. Is the TV Show Attack of the Show, a film documentary, and the book "The Star Wars Super Collector's Wishbook" not verifiable sourcing? While none are web sites that come up in Google News searches, I would think they would add to the overall cache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.27.135.35 (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - you claim that you have all this reliable sourcing, but where are the links? The closest mention of "Star Wars Super Collector's Wishbook" together with "Star Wars Action News" is this link, which shows that Nathan Butler and Gary Price (listed under "special thanks") provided some articles and images for it. The documentary, similarly, is unverifiable - you've provided no links. The G4 thing is the closest to an actual verifiable source - but that's the only one. You need significant coverage from multiple sources that are independent of the subject - which, if the two connections above are accurate, would also make the Collector's Wishbook no longer an independent source. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:INTERNET (podcast is not a website only but it is internet content), Star Wars Action News meets these criteria as it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, including:

An article about it in the Star Wars Super Collectors Wishbook page 451.

Detailed coverage by Star Wars comic book author Nathan P. Butler on his official Starwars.com blog.

It was featured in the documentary The Force Among Us (actual article link, registration required) or you can also see the reprint of article and an article was written about the show by the documentary's director for press materials.

Their work covering Star Wars fiction has been covered by other sites clubjade.net and rebelscum.com

News broken by this podcast includes the contract extension between Del Rey Books and Lucasfilm, and that news was covered by other sources anakinweb.com, and information about the upcoming fan convention Star Wars Celebration 5 story at rebelscum.com and their attempt to create a comprehensive map of all Star Wars R2-D2 mailboxes was commented on by MSNBC

Further, they have been reviewed by several Star Wars Fan Groups paducaimperials and oswcc

And they are the winners of several Star Wars Fan Audio Awards in 2007, 2008, and 2009, an independent award administered by StarWarsFanWorks.com. Their awards are 2007: Best Panel of Radio Show Hosts, Best Regular Radio Show Segment, and Radio Show "Rookiee of the Year" awards and 2007 awards 2008: Special Award for Podcasting Community Leadership 2008 awards 2009: Best Star Wars Based Radio Show 2009 awards. Ferpsihas (talk) 23:31, 1 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Institute of Polish Affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG, lack of significant third party coverage . google search mainly gives directory listings. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you have not demonstrated any reliable sources which prove the article meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done. I added a quick selection of ext. links just now. --Poeticbent talk 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
the sources merely verify the organisation's existence but do not establish its notability. there is no significant coverage in reliable sources such as major newspapers. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 4 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

looks like a blatant resume written by someone close to the subject. fails WP:BIO. no third party coverage , claims of being an academic...only 1 hit on google scholar , many PhD students get more hits than this... LibStar (talk) 13:10, 29 June 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 Kobe Bryant#Back to the top (2008–09). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant's 81-point game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N -- the game did not establish a new scoring record, or come particularly close to breaking the old record. Furthermore, the article content is a direct lift from Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game and is therefore factually incorrect in the article's context. Myasuda (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC) :Strong Keep and Expand It did come close and essspiacly for a gurad. We can just expand and fix your other issues. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

I agree that this is notable, but there simply aren't enough info for it to be in a separate article.—Chris! ct 04:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
How about the statistics, the media reaction it got, it was a massive performance in sports. Other one other time had there been anything remotely similar. I believe it desveres a page, just google "Kobe Bryant 81" and see all of the things you come up with, it is an important day for basketball history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mookiebomber (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mookiebomber. There's enough to write a respectable, stand-alone article. We could describe the game in more detail, and summarize the reaction and analysis of it. Maybe we could only churn out two or three paragraphs, but that would still be enough to justify a spinout. Of course, the current article isn't very helpful, so if people want to make it a redirect for the time being, I'd be fine with that. But we should definitely allow for future expansion. Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to Kobe Bryant. Not enough information to warrant a standalone article. Would probably make an exception for Wilt's 100 point game, since that is the record, but this game is not. Still, it is obviously important enough within the context of Bryant's career to be discussed within Kobe's article. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 2 July 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 America's Next Top Model, Cycle 8. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Only her notable entry in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 8. A year after the show, so WP:ONEEVENT applies here. ApprenticeFan 13:06, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

This autobiography has one source, an interview in a Shanghai magazine. That the creator has been entertaining himself with an earlier account vandalizing David Copperfield (illusionist) is sort of funny, but not strictly relevant. I didn't find any other sources that would allow me to expand an article about Owenhouse; does anyone else have better luck? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note. The article should not be deleted only because of the bad behavior of its writer, but only if Jay Owenhouse himself does not meet the notability criteria. Which, er, I couldn't find much evidence of, since none of his many sockpuppets have done much in the way of adding useful sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: Note. Of course; my vote was solely because the article did not meet notability requirements, and I found no other sources either. I just found it a little amusing the number of attempts he made to keep his two sentence-long page. Wikieditor06 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I nominated it for speedy deletion based on the fact that after googling, I didn't feel it met the criteria for inclusion. At this point I'm still inclined to believe that Jay Owenhouse does not merit an article on Knowledge (XXG). HarlandQPitt (talk) 23:52, 30 June 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. A7. Tone 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Questionably notable biography, seemingly written by the subject. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 11:48, 29 June 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) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested Prod. I looked for reliable sources that discuss this cannon. I could not find a single one. This appears to be the editor's original research to create a how to manual. This is not notable or verifiable. A new name 2008 (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because It is basically the same article under a different name:
Works cannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new name 2008 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 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. Tone 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Crackbaby United Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable club Kevin McE (talk) 10:22, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List of films which share their name with a title of a song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is an indiscriminate list which would, if complete, be very, very long, and with very little value. There is no clear link between the films listed: some are films by or about bands, where the song is by the same band. Other ones will be songs named after a movie (e.g. Breakfast at Tiffany's), movies named after songs (less frequent), movies and songs both named after a book, comic, event, ... (e.g. Wuthering Heights, Titanic, ), and movies and songs which share a title completely by accident (Scream, She, Iris, Beat it, ...). The inclusion criteria are thus way too broad, making the end result meaningless. It does not highlight a particular topic (which e.g. a list of films based on comics does), trend, or exceptional circumstance. Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment  : I guess at issue here is utility or "contrived" rather than indiscriminate. The ability to make these ad hoc lists with automated tools however is almost a holy grail for some search researchers, and even more interesting would be "films that are not also songs". You see selection bias or confirmation bias in science quite often and having various lists of counter-examples or alternatives could be helpful and in fact the mere act of producing some lists can generate perspective and insights for the author. Viewed as fact finding, and helping play " one of these things is not like the other" from Sesame Street, lists can be helpful and while requring "research" effort to compile don't normally constitute OR as defined here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • But then basically you have two lists, films which share their name with a song, and films that don't, totalling all films. Not really workable, and not very discriminate either. "Useful" is not an argument to keep anything, and I don't really see in what way it helps to know that there is a film and a song called Supernova, and the same goes for Fever, and the same goes for Firestarter, and for Endless love. How useful it is to have on one list the three movies and 20-odd songs all titled Alive? Fram (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - why is this trivial? If you had to make a list, for whatever contrived reason, how would you do it? This is less trivial than making a list of insurance companies. Here, you need to make two lists and compare them. It may be silly but it isn't trivial. I'm grinding my "curated lists in the post tree killing era" axe again, since I can't cut down trees with it :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It is trivial as there is no context, on the contrary a list of insurance companies would be a content fork from the article insurance companies. This list is poorly defined, for example the film Scream is unrelated to the song Scream, My Blue Heaven takes its title from the song but the plot is a sequel to Goodfellas (seriously its based on Henry Hill's life). What importance does the song play to the film? American Werewolf in London has many "moon" related songs (but not the Warren Zevon song Werewolves of London?) in it, there is no clearly defined criterion, therefore it is trivia. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:05, 3 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. almost no third party coverage . LibStar (talk) 09:14, 29 June 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) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

fails WP:BIO, hardly any third party coverage . LibStar (talk) 09:09, 29 June 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 deleted early by RobertG under WP:CSD G7. RobertG ♬ talk 06:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Unsourced since March 2008. The subject is not clearly notable, and the author of the page implies it is up to Knowledge (XXG) to provide sources. I have brought it here for consensus after the latest exchange at the discussion page made it clear that the author believes doubters have some personal axe to grind. RobertG ♬ talk 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: On 3 July, the article's creator blanked the page and substituted a lengthy verbatim passage from fastcompany.com completely unrelated to the article's subject.. I have reverted it to the original version under discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. No WP:RS to support claims of notabilty such as they are (and I . I googled around and could only find what others noted: passing mention at most. Despite the extensive list of venues where he claims to have played, few of them are important or connote any sort of recognition at all, and none of them are cited. If someone plays once at some even incredibly famous concert hall and nobody even bothers to review the performance in depth good or bad, that's pretty damning against being notable. DMacks (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment See article talk-page for others' analysis of lack of citeable specific claims of notability. DMacks (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails all of the notability criteria for musicians - has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, has never had a notable album or compilation, has never received coverage for a national or international tour, has not released two (or even one) album, has won no major competitions, does not appear to have a major fan base and has not been part of two or more notable ensembles. Article has been tagged as needing sources for more than a year, with followup requests at the Wikiprojects for music, classical music and musicians, all to no avail. The one potentially verifiable claim (a good review inthe New York Times) is not substantiated by reference to the Times archives, which mentions him only once in a trivial listing of artists. An extended notability debate here generated nothing except vague assertions by the article creator. Dotoratos certainly exists, but the article simply doesn't meet the notability criteria. Euryalus (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - per my comments on the article talk page which I am copying here for the record:
As of now, the subject doesn't meet any of the notability criteria normally used for classical musicians. Coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject is non-existent. A search of the New York Times archives shows no reviews mentioning him by name despite the claims in the article (and only one trivial mention in a concert announcement). I've also searched this data base to which I have a subscription - nothing. In lieu of significant coverage, are there reliable sources to verify that he has placed first in a notable national or international competition? Has he at least two recordings with on a notable classical music record label? Has he appeared as a soloist (not simply playing a solo part while seated in the orchestra, but standing in front of the orchestra) with major orchestras? Is he a member of a notable chamber music ensemble? I suspect the answer is no. If it were yes, there would be some coverage to be found. I'll give you some examples of AfDs in similar cases where the result was delete: Richard Spece, Laven Sowell, Malina Dimitrova. I'd suggest asking for an opinion at WikiProject Classical music. They have access to specialist publications, and could give you a view on the likelihood of this passing an AfD. My own view is that it wouldn't pass.
A further comment to the article's creator - this AfD does not imply that Ray Dotoratos is not a good musician or that his community outreach performances are not worthwhile. It concerns whether there is sufficient and verifiable notability (by Knowledge (XXG)'s standards) for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A common misperception in AfDs is that "notability" is synonymous with "accomplishments". It isn't. Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't think Ray Dotoratos or Itzhak perlman or Pinchas Zukerman or Chin Kim or anybody else who graduated from the Julliard School would want you people bothering the school to verify that they attended. Certain editors above seem to be going past their responisilities, and deciding which concerts are more note worthy than others. That is not editing but making judgements calls that are borderline political. If so, sad day for Knowledge (XXG). One even "assumed" I am Ray Dotoratos or even know him. Neither are true. I know of him.Borismule (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. And right there is your problem. You're finding passing mention and simple lists of concerts, not actual reviews of performances. The only thing that even comes close is the tennessee.edu one, which says "world-class violinist Ray Dotoratos", but that's the only mention of him in an article in detail about others that makes zero other reference to him. If that's all you have, you basically support everyone else's point that he's not notable per the standards others have mentioned. DMacks (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agreed. The definition of significant coverage in the notability guideline specifically excludes "articles that simply report performance dates" and generally excludes "articles in a school or university newspaper" The links above are mentions in lists of artists at performances, a mention in a university newspaper, and a google page showing the above plus some Knowledge (XXG) mirrors and Dotoratos' own website. These do not, alas, fit the definitions of either significant coverage or reliable sources. Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Borismule, there is nothing "political" about the criteria for notability or for the requirements that the assertions in an article be referenced to a verifiable, reliable source, which is completely independent of the subject of the article. These requirements apply to all wikipedia biographies, not just this one. The biographical information in concert announcements and concert programs is not independent. It is supplied by the artists or their agent. Note also that perceived or actual conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion if the subject passes the notability and referencing requirements, although COI articles almost invariably need re-writing as they have an inappropriately promotional and/or personally invested tone. I've rescued several articles from AfD which were originally written by the subject, their agent, or someone with a personal connection to them, by adding references and re-writing. In this case it's impossible. There are no references to add, nor is it possible to find any other evidence of notability.
We don't have "to bother Juilliard" to verify that he attended. That is not why this article is being proposed for deletion. Simply having graduated from a prestigious music school does not make an artist notable, any more than graduating from Harvard Medical School automatically makes a physician notable. It's true that with classical musicians, significant coverage can sometimes be difficult to find in mainstream publications. In those cases we look for other ways to establish and verify notability. It takes at least one of the following:
1. Credited as a soloist on two recordings with notable classical music labels. These are the results for "Dotoratos" on Amazon and Archiv Music, i.e. zero
2. Played as a soloist (in front of the orchestra) or served as the concertmaster for a major professional orchestra. Neither of these claims are explictly made in the article, let alone referenced. For example, if you go to The New York Philharmonic archives, you can quickly find that Joshua Bell has performed as a "front of orchestra" soloist 11 times between 1990 and 2009. Note that even being first violin, first cellist, etc. in a major orchestra does not qualify on its own. It requires a parallel solo career. In addition, performances with the Juilliard orchestras are not professional engagements. They are made up of the current students. As their site says:
Juilliard's performing orchestral ensembles give more than 30 concerts each season at Lincoln Center in the Peter Jay Sharp Theater, Alice Tully Hall and Avery Fisher Hall, as well as in Carnegie Hall and other venues around New York City. Participation in these ensembles provides a solid foundation for instrumentalists hoping to join professional orchestras.
3. Winner of a major music competition. Again, virtually all the major competitions have archives where the prize winners can be verified, e.g. , , . So far the article doesn't even assert that Mr. Dotoratos has won a major competition, nor can I find any evidence of that to add to the article. - Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete; fails verifiability, so even though the talent, promise, and musicality of this violinist may be immense, he cannot have an article here by our policies. Borismule, I'm not happy to have to state this, but we have to abide by our own site's policies. I do have a question for you though, which may help: you state that you are neither Ray Dotoratos yourself, nor do you know him, and I'm assuming good faith here and believing you. So -- you wrote the article. You must have a source in order to have made the claim that Mr. Dotoratos's "repertoire encompasses some 65 concertos, 110 sonatas and 214 short works". Where did you get those numbers? You must have had a document we can use as a source. If you only knew of him, but did not know him, you must have had a published source for those numbers. Can you please provide us the link, or the name of the book, periodical, and page number? Thank you most sincerely, Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete This AfD seems to be just about a done deal at this moment, but I spent the last quarter hour reading through all this for some ungodly, so I thought I could might as well !vote. The only really relevant policies here are WP:V, WP:RS and this article quite clearly fails both of them. Google News Archives seem to turn up a few results but generally nothing more than him being included among a long line-up of musicians. The only thing of note: is that article that mentions him more than briefly, but it is merely an advertisement for a local seemingly non-notable appearance. The DominatorEdits 07:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


DELETION REQUESTED I am citing two examples of inconsistencies made by various Knowledge (XXG) “Administrators”.as to why the author of this article now prefers its deletion. Some Administrator’s views claim that they cannot count on Google search for examples to bring forth information to back up information in articles in contrast to other Administrators who are pursuing Google search for information.

Second example is Knowledge (XXG)’s choosing to conceal important news worthy events from the public as cited below and on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow’s Show”.

In concluding, I request that this article be deleted as to protect who the article was written about from any further manipulative commentary and negative innuendo by Knowledge (XXG) Administrators concerning the article’s content. Other articles about people written by this editor will also hopefully be deleted.Borismule (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=new+york+time+wikipedia+rachael+maddow+David+Rohde+&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.mediabistro.com/Arianna-Huffington-profile.html

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/wikipedia-dabbles-dubious-morals-save-kidnapped-journo Knowledge (XXG) and 'The New York Times' Suppress Facts to Save Kidnapped Journo BY Kit EatonMon Jun 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Last week, journalist David Rohde escaped after a seven-month kidnap by the Taliban. It's fabulous news, and it's been partly attributed to the fact that The New York Times suppressed it in the first place. But today we learn that Knowledge (XXG) did so too.

That raises a couple of very interesting questions. The New York Times worked very hard to keep facts about Rohde's kidnapping out of the media, with the intention of denying the Taliban the media coverage it desired and thus helping Rohde's chances of release or escape. The technique obviously paid off in this case, and it's certainly been done before. But in a Times piece yesterday, the paper also made it clear that it had the help of Knowledge (XXG) staffers who suppressed the news popping up there too. Since Knowledge (XXG) is crowd-sourced and openly editable, the news did manage to arrive on the online encyclopedia several times, whereupon it was quickly erased and sometimes the offending page was frozen to prevent any further user-editing. Rohde's own Knowledge (XXG) entry was even edited by a colleague immediately after his kidnap to enhance the Islam-friendliness of Rohde's previous journalistic work. This information dance on Knowledge (XXG) all happened with the specific help of the site's founder, Jimmy Wales. But while commenting on the moral angle of the Knowledge (XXG) tampering, Wales noted: "We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source...I would have had a really hard time with it if it had." And that's where this story gets interesting to people who believe in freedom of information: In essence The New York Times suppressed the info themselves, and by influencing other old media outlets, which then enabled the new media outlet of Knowledge (XXG) to feel okay about continuing the propagandizing. It's a journalistic moral ouroboros, for sure, and it raises a couple of questions. Did Knowledge (XXG) damage its reputation as a crowd-based and open-access information source? The answer is yes, a little (and it's not the first time Knowledge (XXG)'s admins have been caught manipulating entries). Knowledge (XXG) isn't a traditional media outlet, and therefore has no hard or soft journalistic moral code to abide by, which means it can be more flexible in its actions--and the fact a life was at stake here is a mitigating fact. But Wales' excuse still sounds particularly weak. As a result, the next questions about Knowledge (XXG) are: What other news pieces is it hiding? And will users trust in the site as a news source take a hit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borismule (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 July 2009

Comment, Borismule, are you saying because of the Rohde incident you now want the article about Ray Dotoratos deleted? --RobertG ♬ talk 05:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I think Borismule has just answered this question elsewhere. --RobertG ♬ talk 05:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but take it easy will you? Not everything is a conspiracy of the liberal media to destroy the foundations of democracy and ensure the Orwellian oppression of the masses, you know? Sometimes, it's just an article failing a Knowledge (XXG) policy... The DominatorEdits 05:59, 3 July 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) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrative, Library and Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced after a number of years, the article gives extremely too much detail, with no context. The title doesnt make sense compared to the article, and is an absolutely horrible title (no one could conceivably be looking for this subject matter under this title, and no one would guess that this title is referring to this content). the article reads like a page from an administative history of a school district, but gives no reason for why this is notable. if someone could have fixed this, it would have been done already. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:26, 29 June 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 BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ragna the Bloodedge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The pages listed at this AfD all stem from the game BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger. The characters are all already covered extensively in the game's article -- the character pages being created seem to be non-notable content forks from the game's article. The articles are new, so I tagged them with notability tags, but they were reverted so I'm bringing the pages to AfD. -- Nomader 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the reasons listed, I am also nominating the following articles:

Jin Kisaragi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Noel Vermillion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arakune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. -- Nomader 06:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. These seem to be the work of one editor. Since you think (with good reason) that the subjects are worse off covered in separate articles than in that of their works, have you tried discussing this with that editor? --Kizor 10:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    I left a note on his talk page last night while he was creating the articles (here (). However, the user just removed my notability tags after receiving the message and continued to edit them (diffs: ). I think he's acting in good faith so I don't hold it against him, but I figured that I needed to bring the articles to AfD if I couldn't have a dicussion with him about them. -- Nomader 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    That looks entirely appropriate. Thank you for showing respect for his feelings and/or efforts, as well as for going out of your way a bit to maintain quality amiably and to treat deletion with the weight it needs. This is the sort of thing Knowledge (XXG) needs if it is to survive, especially now that we're past the easy part of building the largest reference work in history. --Kizor 01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if what I did was anything profound-- but thanks, Kizor. -- Nomader 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    You're welcome. It's just basic courtesy, which is why its rarity around here is so nargletoting frustrating. :-) --Kizor 13:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Pretty much all in-universe violations of WP:N. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all as these articles fail WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE. I agree that there is no evidence these characters are notable, and the lack of citations to verify the source of these articles suggests their content is comprised of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep all Nothing wrong with character pages. I don't care whatever the suggested guidelines say, since they change every few weeks according to whoever has the most determined campers there to change and defend. There is enough content to justify their own article, content which is not covered in the main article. Dream Focus 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all as insufficiently notable. No evidence whatsoever that any of these characters have been the subject of substantial coverage by multiple, independent reliable sources. — Satori Son 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Creating character articles so close to the game's console release really hurts the chances of finding sources. However, this Games Radar interview focuses on each of the characters in turn, I looked at a few reviews and a lot of focus on the characters quite in-depth, in particular these 4 (apparently the 3 main characters and Arakune 'the weird one everyone talks about'). I think there is actually some opportunity here for either a list or individual articles.. Someoneanother 10:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that right now, it's at a disadvantage so close to its release. But as they stand, there aren't enough reliable sources for individual articles. I wouldn't be opposed to a list article though, but I think that the coverage needs to be fleshed out before it can be created. -- Nomader 19:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A lot of the sources I looked at since then don't pay any attention to the characters, so there's no burning need to split at this time. It may be that a character article is needed, but I agree there's no pressure for that to happen and until the game article is hammered into shape properly that won't be clear. Someoneanother 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think in general that a "Characters" section should do just fine for now. I'll keep tabs on the article if the character pages are deleted and I'll make a Characters page if I think it's warranted. -- Nomader 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to achieve what the delete-voters want - removal of the articles from sight - while retaining their history to help editors who want to go for the now-plausible optimal outcome, building a new valid article. --Kizor 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)Delete or Redirect all to BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger Having looked again at discussion on the game article's talkpage it's apparent that the content was forked due to question marks being drawn over the reliability of the character information in the main article. It was done in good faith, but now we have a game article with poorly written, hopelessly impenetrable in-universe character bios and articles for 4 separate characters with the same problems. The character section in the game article needs fixing, whether it should become a separate article is a question for the future, in the meantime these characters don't reach individual notability IMO and the new text doesn't offer anything over and above what's in the main article. Someoneanother 18:10, 3 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Notability in question. Has NO sources for nearly six months now. Last few lines in the article justify non-inclusion rather than inclusion. Some minor BLP violations as well in the article. prashanthns (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did do my bit of literature survey for him, but failed to find primary sources with significant coverage on him. Apart from the NYT link that you have posted above, I do not find any of the other sources to be significant coverage. Nothing to justify a biographical article for me. prashanthns (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Sure does get some google hits, but most of them are links to his profiles on various networking sites, or his own posts in various forums, or mirrors of his posts. Very few articles are actually about him, and seem to be written by people who are closely associated with him politically. The only thing he seems to have done is start a website, which is no longer runnign anyway. Hardly a criteria for notability.--Deepak D'Souza 10:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • None of the links I cited above are profiles on networking sites, and none are posts on forums. Is it seriously your position that the New York Times is "closely associated with him politically"?—S Marshall /Cont 10:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
First of all, please control your language. Using abusive terms in edit summaries, even if abbreviated ,is not civil. Second, I did not go through your links(do I have to?). I did a seach on google. And even if he is mentioned in NY Times, it doesn't mean he is necessarily notable. All he has done is start a website. You seem to be taking this rather personally, for whatever reason. --Deepak D'Souza 10:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No, you don't have to go through my links, though the closer will likely take account of the fact that you didn't in assessing the weight xe gives to your !vote.

A mere mention in the New York Times does not establish notability, no. What establishes notability is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's my position that the New York Times, and Indian national newspapers, are reliable sources and the discussions mentioned above constitute significant coverage.

I find it astonishing that you would disregard my comment so completely as not even to bother looking at the sources I cited, and still have the chutzpah to admonish me for incivility; but it is true that in my surprise, I used the edit summary "Wtf?", and I apologise with all due profuseness.—S Marshall /Cont 13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule that you have to base your decision solely on the links provided by other voters. If that is the case then why have an AfD at all? why not simply go by the nominator's opinion and delete right away? And since when did not going agreeing with another voter at AfD and doing your own assesment become incivility? --Deepak D'Souza 04:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I was irritated and annoyed yesterday, since your reply indicated that you had neither performed a thorough search for sources yourself, nor read my sources, before !voting. I find this kind of behaviour very frustrating, because searching for sources is hard work and it's everyone's job.

Today, having slept on it, I realise that I should simply thank you for your contribution. So thank you for the efforts you've shown.—S Marshall /Cont 07:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete. While S Marshall's links show coverage, on reading through the links, I see that all of them are coverage for the website as the subject, not the individual. Coverage of the individual is related to his role as the one running the website, as a secondary topic. I don't believe this falls under substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also, while Tehelka is a news outlet, it's more a sensational tabloid, so I'm ignoring that one, but the NYT, Outlook and Rediff are all focused on the website itself (which probably merits an article, and Vyasmaan could probably be merged there). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a secondary topic. The GNG says:

    * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

    This seems a perfect fit to me.—S Marshall /Cont 20:06, 29 June 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 |  00:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

just a small road in Wanchai. I don't see how it's in any way notable by our standards. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:09, 29 June 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 |  00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unified WWE Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This really isn't needed, the Title hasn't officially been desginated as its own distinct Championship, it's just a continuation of the lineage of the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) and WWE Tag Team Championships lineage. AfroGold - Afkatk 04:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See WWE Undisputed Championship. Redirects back to the WWE Championship, which is what was the name of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship and WWF Championship unified, but kept with distinct histories. Like this Unified Tag Titles.Truco 503 00:13, 6 July 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 |  00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:CORP; no independent secondary sources. Attempt at advertising by yet another minor internet marketing organisation. Claims to be "... one of the largest independent full service internet marketing Companies in China" (whatever that means) but nothing is provided to support the claim and my investigations suggest that what it implies is unlikely to be true.

  • Comment Moondyne You were incorrect in suggesting SinoTech Group was operating for only a month. The link you referenced did not indicate that at all and in fact the company commenced operations in April 2007 as was stated. I agree a secondary reference would be needed but does not warrant removal. Further, SinoTech Group is known as one of the largest independent digital marketing company's in China and many links to verify that can be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarrahbear (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See also: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mathew McDougall (I've kept them separate, as this one may cross the line if some sources are found, but I personally think not). –Moondyne 03:26, 29 June 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 as blatant advertising: founder and Chief Executive Officer of SinoTech Group, headquartered in Beijing, China. SinoTech Group is a full service digital marketing company that is absolutely focused on improving company’s online presence through digital marketing technologies, digital strategy, search and social marketing, creative production, online media & affiliate networks... -Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Apparent advertising for a non-notable individual. I searched, but no secondary sources found. The person may or may not be a Melbourne based website designer at http://www.matthewmcdougall.com/ –Moondyne 03:17, 29 June 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 |  00:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow for Now (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My three minute google search didn't turn up a single example of significant coverage. Article doesn't seem to explain how this book passes WP:BK either. - 2 ... says you, says me 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Books can't be deleted under A7. - 2 ... says you, says me 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course. I'm obviously not completely awake yet. Deor (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Just listed Roy Christopher for AfD. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:44, 2 July 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. +Angr 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

List of terms for gay in different languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Official policy states Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. This article, which contains very little actual content, is essentially a multilingual dictionary listing of the word gay. The Wiktionary entry already contains this information. Delete Gilliam (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you scrolled down far enough on the Wiktionary page? There are tables of translations divided by sense, as homosexual, typical of homosexual appearance, behaving in a way associated with females etc. They seem to cover much of the same ground as this list. Cnilep (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Positive. The WP version contains literal, and often very colorful, translations, as well as the degree of whether it's a derogatory remark or not which the WD version doesn't. That's in addition to my personal opinion that even the information is available on WD is far more accessible in WP's table. My only suggestion is that our article be renamed to something more clinical than "words for gay". Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If sourced, this could provide a Wiktionary appendix, linked from witk:gay, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
'With sources' being the operative word. It can't stay as it is without sources. If it remains as an article, there needs to be some sourced discussion of the etymology of these words as well. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough - the "derogatory-ness" is information not included at WD. Just let me join the chorus of voices calling for better sources. Without reliable sources I'm not changing my !vote. Cnilep (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added a number of highly derogatory English references, one from Jamaica, and some (like 'brown hatter' originated in the East-End of London) are at least 35 years old. I wasn't clear whether 'bent as a screwdriver' or 'bent as a nine-bob note' were appropriate, as these are more descriptive than simple terms, so I omitted them; 'bent as a nine-bob note' was in circulation around the time of decimalisation in the UK, so must be over 35 years old as well. Of course none are sourced, because this is slang. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Requiring verifiability, including when we discuss slang, is what distinguishes from the Urban Dictionary. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
All the non-US specific English terms now either have links to Knowledge (XXG) articles & other Wiki-xxx locations, secondary sources, or other (less reliable) locations. If the article remains, I will track down better sources for those that need them. But I'm not that interested in this, I was interested to put down the terms I have heard over the past 50 years, and check that they are out there somewhere. The two Jamaican terms have been discussed in the national press here, and I have to try and remember which artcle I was editing here that they turned up on. Similarly for the Scottish term, it featured in 'Trainspotting', so I'll need to go through Google Scholar to check out where that has been discussed in Lit/Queer papers. But, if its going to be deleted, I can't really be arsed. The original authors should have done this. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Having played with it, I'm not so sure it has any useful function. Do we need a list of international terms, mostly derogatory, like this? I can see the benefit of listing what the well-sourced 'community' based terms are - but we don't have such exhaustive lists for ethnic groups. My insertions were in part provocative - this is a pretty offensive piece of work really, and has no place in an encyclopedia like this. What next? A list of slurs from around the world aimed at Jews? Negroes? Muslims? Kaffir, Nigger, Kyke, Yid, Paki, pikinini. Sorry, this is unwarranted - and those articles that already include some of that stuff should be expunged as well. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:40, 2 July 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 |  00:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Subject hasn't held political office yet, and the article is way too much like a campaign message. His claim to fame, as far as I can tell, is that he was mentioned in a New York Times article--with a picture, sure, but that's all. Once he introduced Biden as "John McCain," and the St. Petersburg Times ran a short article on him. I'm being exhaustive, since I foresee a tendentious AfD. But the bottomline is simple: the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - I quote cr. 3 of WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." What this person is, is a political candidate who I believe has enough sources out there about him to confer WP:N. The nom listed 2 sources and I will ad more; , , , , , , , , , . -Marcusmax(speak) 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This looks like an impressive list, but appearances are deceptive: passing mentions, for the most part--and most of them riding on the Biden gaffe and dependent on each other or, worse, just copies/repostings. The Huffington Post article, for instance, merely reposts the NYT article. That one paragraph from The Story, what is that? a bulletin board or a contact ad? The paragraph and a half from the CBS story also seems to come right out of the NYT (and, mind you, they don't talk about him as a politician, just as a disgruntled Republican). The USA Today "article" is simply a reposting of the Tampa Bay article. Marcus, you know I have in the past appreciated your search work, but this is not one of those cases. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Delete - I don't blame you for not liking the ref work I found, as I re-read I realize that these sources are for the most part terrible in fact the last one isn't even in English. I guess thats what happens when I decide to edit having not slept in 48 hours. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Marcus, that's one of the reasons I like you so much--your obsessive compulsion! Thanks for trying to establish notability for this person, and thanks for reconsidering. Now, you know what you need to do--natti natti! Drmies (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete He got some coverage for calling Biden McCain and for switching parties, and some more recent mentions for being present at events (ie. campaigning) but I didn't see any substantial coverage that meets our guidelines for notability in any of the sources I looked at including those suggested above. If these are some with substantial coverage please point them out and I am happy to reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Coverage for calling Biden McCain was due to Biden's notability, at a public event, not Piccillo's. Nothing substantial in coverage to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the sources, he meets the GNG, and he is a political figure, so there is no BLP problems. And conveniently,he has been engaged in more than one event. why do we have the guideline if we;'re not going to use it.? Should we specifically say in the WP:N page, this does not apply to people? Instead I see arguments that he shouldn't actually be notable, and therefore the coverage is irrelevant--I'm not sure there isn't some merit there, but arguing on that basis is quite a change from WP:N. DGG (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi DGG, I hope you don't think I was putting the cart before the horse. Yes, he has been engaged in more than one event, but I find the coverage lacking--I don't find those sources to have significant, in-depth coverage, and it seems to me that too much of it is dependent on one paragraph in the NYT and one gaffe. OK, that's more than one event--but those events are tiny. The NYT article, for instance, and everything that depends on it, has no bearing whatsoever on this person's notability as a politician, and doesn't make him notable as any other kind of entity. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of course you get some coverage simply by running. Doesn't make you notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Non-notable failed candidate, fails WP:POLITICIAN, lacks substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 June 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 |  00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Essentially an unsourced BLP. The only sources given are IMDb (for a cast listing) and the subject's Myspace page. No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. Five film credits listed, all in non-notable productions. Three single episode TV roles. One recurring role, said to be notable, but listed as "uncredited". SummerPhD (talk) 01:28, 29 June 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 |  00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The strongest claim to notability in this article is that this is one of the most popular rock bands in the city of Karlovac. The only source cited is the band's own Facebook page, and while I acknowledge the difficulty of finding sources about a band in Croatia, I remain unconvinced that, even in Croatia, this band would meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:07, 29 June 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. gone, a7 StarM 01:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable dentist. Mikerichi (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per db-a7. There's no claim to notability, let alone any debate on the issue. --DMG413 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete "an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject", tagged. Might even be borderline "it does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." - 2 ... says you, says me 01:35, 29 June 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 List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters#Students. He already has an entry in that section of the list; and the page history has been left intact if there is any further non-trivial information anyone wishes to merge. The consensus here is that he has received insufficient third-party coverage to justify an independent article. ~ mazca 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Minor character appearing in one episode. No independent reliable sources provided or found. SummerPhD (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect I'm not sure why this needed to be brought to AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Degrassi: The Next_Generation characters. This person hasn't received any significant coverage in reliable sources, so he's not notable enough for a separate article. I'm not sure whether or not he's a minor character, as he's appeared in 10 episodes and may or may not be shown in the opening credits. I see no reason he shouldn't be listed with the other characters from the series, whether main or minor. Timmeh 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge He does not have to be notable to be part of a merged article, and that's the easy solution. But I do point out there are no guidelines for these that have ever achieved consensus, and there isn't even consensus that the GNG is applicable. At this point, anyone who wants to remove them will have to get consensus for each starting from something that is generally accepted. The only thing I can think of is the general concept of unencyclopedic, and that can obviously be interpreted in many ways. DGG (talk) 03:26, 2 July 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. While there are indeed limited sources available, all major information provided is indeed sourced - so verifiability does not seem to be in question. While a reasonable argument can indeed be made that this doesn't meet the notability threshold; consensus here seems to be that that guideline should be treated with some common sense here. As a charting single it's logically a reasonable search term, and despite the lack of widespread third-party coverage the article still serves a valid encyclopedic purpose: to direct the reader to the pages of the various artists that have performed it. Due to the multiple fairly well-known versions of it, there is not one single redirect target for a merge here, even if the song's notability would normally call for that. ~ mazca 17:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

This song did chart, but it only peaked at #17 and there are no sources at all. Charting singles are not inherently notable. I've tried twice to redirect it but User:2005 claims that the redirect "makes no sense". Either delete outright for lack of sources, or redirect to Bobby Goldsboro — which does make sense per WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are two problems with this nomination. First, the redirect makes no sense and is actually pretty rude. Four notable people have significant association with the song: writers Dennis Linde and Mel McDaniel, and three artists have recorded it Bobby Goldsboro, Kenny Rogers and Mel McDaniel. Goldsboro's version charted the highest, but if anything it is known as McDaniel's song. Choosing any though is unnecessary. There are hundreds of song stubs for songs far less notable, and those usually have clear redirects. This one has four very notable personalities associated with it, which is a good reason to have a separate article so they all can refer to it, and more appropriately reference encyclopedic information about it. Just pointing it to Goldsboro actually removes the most interesting aspects of what is in the article... that it was a hit twice, and that it was written by two famous songwriters, and that McDaniel missed out on having the first hit by not relesing it as a single. Additionally the song is in categories that have nothing to do with Goldsboro, 1986 singles and Songs by Dennis Lynde. We don't delete stubs because of lack of sources, so there is no reason to delete this, but under no circumstances should it be redirected to Goldsboro, deleting it would make more sense than that. 2005 (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Also WP:NSONGS clearly supports keeping the article: Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Following the guideline here is what makes sense, the song is associated with several very notable people. 2005 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You missed the "probably". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Um, no. "Probably" clear supports inclusion, not exclusion. That doesn't mean it mustbe included, but te guideline clearly suggests it should. 2005 (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
          • (copied from 2005's talk page) "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Probably. As in, not always. Your argument is basically "but other stuff exists". The fact that other song stubs exist is immaterial. And you're also failing to address the main problem, which is lack of sources. I usually give anything Top 10 or higher benefit of the doubt, but back in the 1980s, a song that only got to #17 most likely spent fewer than 10 weeks on the charts — as opposed to today, where some songs have spent 30+ weeks on the charts without reaching top 10, and even the lesser notable songs are usually given lengthy reviews in sites like The 9513, Country Universe, Roughstock, etc. "Goodbye Marie" came and went and was quickly forgotten, and noboy ever wrote about it in detail, so it is not individually notable, even if four artists recorded it. Notability is never inherited simply because there're a lot of bluelink names associated with something. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question This is not at all my subject, but I have seen that we consistently interpret "songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" to mean any position at all on the charts. DGG (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You also forgot the "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." (emphasis mine). There's clearly not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, and 2005 is choosing just to dodge that point entirely instead of, you know, digging up sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If sources can be found then it's keep, if they can't then it's merge and redirect the performer - either way it's not an article for deletion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I already tried a redirect, but 2005 is dodging the issue by (unfoundedly) saying that Mel McDaniel is more associated with the song than Bobby Goldsboro is, even though Goldsboro is the only artist to release it as a single. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are you making stuff up, and also ignoring the guideline? Both Goldsboro and Rogers issued it as the A side of a single. McDaniel also issued it as a single, but the B-side, so in total three artists issues it on a 45. Redirecting to Goldsboro makes little sense, and is very unhelpful to users. The guideline suggest a redirect to the writer or performer, but as we see there are three performers, and two writers, all very notable persons. Since McDaniel wrote it, and also released it, he is the most obvious redirect, but again the guideline covers this fairly difficult situation by suggesting when multiple persons are involved the song itself is notable. 2005 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I added a source from Linde's page at the Songwriters Hall of Fame, who considered it notable enough among the hundreds of songs he has written to include it among the 16 listed, right after Burning Love. It is a hard song to reference because it is mnetioned on a zillion websites, and there are also three other songs of the same name that also appear in searches. Given it's association with so many people though it clearly has potential to be referenced more as time passes. 2005 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedstalk 00:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable content worth keeping somewhere, and since there's no single, obvious target for a merge/redirect, let's just leave it where it is. Zagalejo^^^ 06:36, 29 June 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Free Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not WP:Notable. This is a small local newspaper which has only been mentioned because of some controversial remarks by its editor. An article about him might work but the paper itself is very minor, distributed freely twice a month with a total circulation of 15,000. Borock (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think any newspaper is going to get mentioned once and a while by other newspapers. It's hard to imagine one less notable than this however. They give it away free and only 15,000 people read it. Borock (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedstalk 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Marginally notable and probably worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weakish Keep. CoM, what's wrong with the world? We agree too often. The paper sounds like a somewhat distasteful rag, and after looking at their page, I see that it is. I mean, CoM, seriously, who would doubt that Obama has a valid US birth certificate? But a Google search does reveal some hits that suggest notability, marginal as it may be. Oh, Anarchangel is quite right about the writing--could do with some tweaking. Drmies (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Beats me Doc. Do these people think Biden would be an improvement? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 29 June 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 |  00:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

From Talk:Nicola Peltz:

I'dd like to nominate this article for deletion, because it's only about one sentence long and It's fairly pointless only stating that Nicola Peltz is playing Katara in the Avatar movie. This really doesn't need to be on here.

I Feel Tired (talk) 16:02, 10 May 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 IPWA#Youth_Roster. –Juliancolton |  00:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:Note. It appears the individual is part of an academy run by the IPWA; however, it does not appear the individual is a professional wrestler but rather a student. No GNEWS or GHits of substance. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 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 |  00:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nam Tae-Hee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not appear to have competed at a professional level; fails WP:ATHLETE. Contested prod. PC78 (talk) 22:30, 22 June 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) 00:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Van Taylor Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:MUSIC as I couldn't find evidence that this company is influential in any notable music scene. ThemFromSpace 18:02, 22 June 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) 00:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't think entertaining troops is necessarily an assertion of notability - then again, while what constitutes notability is clearly defined in policy, what constitutes an assertion is more subjective. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:42, 29 June 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 |  00:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I nominated this for deletion because the subject does not meet notability criteria. There's no reliable mainstream source that confirms the importance of this company. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to peddle their products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picardinthesink (talk • contribs) 2009/06/20 16:42:11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Google News results provide sufficient coverage to establish notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep without prejudice against another discussion further down the line. Interviews alone aren't brilliant for establishing notability (they just consist of the subject talking about themselves), but Gamezebo is a great source for the casual sector. The company's games are reviewed on quality sites like Gamezebo, GameZone and IGN, according to a press release from this month they're moving onto the Wii and DS. There's a reasonable argument for keeping it without further sources, but if they do release software on the Ninty consoles then there's going to be a lot more sources and some individually notable games possibly needing articles as well. Someoneanother 18:22, 30 June 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

No indications of notability outside of primary sources. The user has also created a vast number of copy pages (that have been mostly turned into redirects) Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 June 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 |  00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Google news search reveals nothing apparently specific to this organization. There is a similarly named government program that is not the same. Cannot find other indications of notability.

CSD denied on grounds of "sponsor of children". While admirable, that is not an indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:11, 22 June 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, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it has lasted this long because nobody has wanted to drop a black ball on a group helping children in China but I can't find anything about it other than its own website, a mention in a powerpoint on a google page and a couple lists and directories. Nothing approaching secondary source coverage, I'm afraid.--Talain (talk) 15:29, 29 June 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. –Juliancolton |  00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Only one minor mention of this battle (other than sources that copy us), even for the Serbian and Albanian names of the battle. Probably not notable. J.delanoyadds 05:46, 22 June 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, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge to Kosovo War. JJL (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Judging battles by casualty count doesn't seem to necessarily be the best way to do it. matt91486 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, it's not non-notable, but it's a problem if it's unverifiable. Punkmorten (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: As mentioned above by another user, the number of casualties is probably not a good way to access notability as it is subjective and a rather arbitary method. Many of the battles in more recent conflicts have smaller casualty numbers than battles that occured earlier in history due to their nature and the evolution of weaponry and tactics, etc. Having said that, this article certainly has some issues. The first issue is its problematic title. The title is Battle of the Belacevic Mine, however, the lead sentence calls it the "Second Battle of Belacevic Mine". Is it intended to discuss both, or just the second battle? If so, the title needs to be changed. In regards to sources, there is definate room for improvement, however, I believe that the source labled rather poorly as "1" in the External links section is a reliable source. It links to an article in The Independent. The other link (listed in the References section) also discusses the incident, but I don't know if it could be called reliable or not. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Battles aren't automatically notable, and there's no evidence that WP:N is met. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I cannot think of any justifiable reason for deleting an article about a verifiable battle between armies; murderers are one thing - but actual battles are completely different. Operation Miracle is one example of a battle that barely anybody in the Western world has heard of, and you'll find almost no references to it; but careful research can unearth mention in ICOJ proceedings and propaganda from both sides in their native language, to piece together what is (immodestly) an "excellent" article on a battle that has never received any main-stream attention or "notability". It is a record of historical fact, and I consider this article to be the same. In weeks, months, years to come, it will grow as people find new sources in unconventional places. Sherurcij 00:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Noteability now well established following improvements by editor Sherurcij. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. I've seen bigger 'battles' in the city I live in most Saturday nights! Jw2035 (talk) 13:47, 4 July 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.

↑