Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

< 3 May 5 May >

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton |  00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Opposed four engines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article is already covered in the articles Flat-4 and H engine. The author is trying to create a term to include both flat-4 and H-4 engines. The term he has created is not only non-notable, it is also confusing for those looking for the article Opposed piston engine No signature (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete once again Knowledge (XXG) is the proud father of a neologism with ZERO Google hits elsewhere, not even a mirror. Drawn Some (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - a completely non-notable subject, causing confusion in two genuine articles. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge or something. The term is used and is a type of engine as evidenced by this. So the above statements that it is a neologism with zero google hits is incorrect. Note that the article title is plural which is contrary to the manual of style, and a search on that string in quotes turns up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Here, don't take my word for it, try it yourself, it's up to four hits total all on Knowledge (XXG) because of this AfD. Google search for "opposed four engines" Your Google book page is not viewable by me and it would still be a neologism. Are you sure it's not a typo or something? Drawn Some (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You need this search. I don't know why the Google Book link doesn't work for you. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There are 21 total references to it in the singular all of which are completely trivial with no discussion of the concept. The count Google gives is higher than what it actually produces, even looking at "similar pages". Drawn Some (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The Google Book link is working now, Google has algorithms and rules for restricting the display of copyrighted content, probably I couldn't look at it because you just had. That is a non-trivial discussion, are there any other non-trivial references available? All of the web references are trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned about the issues raised by SamBlob. Perhaps the page should be treated as a sort of disambiguation page with a very brief description and then pointing towards the in-depth articles. With the references available this will never be much more than a stub without WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that it is clear that the nomenclature is used, but there's not a lot in substantial referencing. Converting to a disambiguation page given the current sourcing seems to be a viable solution. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is a fork, containing nothing that won't be duplicated from either the H-4 or flat four articles. And a trivial fork at that, getting only about 1% of the Google hits that "flat four" gets. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Merging is not viable because almost the entire article comes from an earlier version of Flat-4 when User:R69S decided to confuse the flat-4 and the H-4. After his references to H-4 engines were deleted from the flat-4 article, he set up an article of his own to include both flat-4 and H-4 engines, both of which are adequately represented in their respective articles.
What is an opposed four engine? Is it a flat-4? If so, it's covered. Is it a four-cylinder H-engine? If so, it's covered, and if that article isn't enough, then the article H-4 engine can be created, although I'm not sure how notable the H-4 configuration is. Is it a four-cylinder opposed piston engine? I don't think so, as the text of the article does not mention these engines. Is it an ambiguous term used by User:R69S so that he can have a single article about both flat-4 engines and H-4 engines? That's what it sounds like to me!
At the very least, this article should be redirected to Flat-4, although I'm not sure who would search for a plural title. No signature (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • keep Having a n article on the general type of engine should not be precluded because the major sub-types already have pages. Even if the title is a neologism, it could still be used as a descritpive article title, and the article is not about a neologism, clearly this type of engine has existed for a while. If any merging occurs, it should be in the opposite direction, moving the sub-articles into this one, but that is an editorial decision that should be based on utility.YobMod 10:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the article is not about a general type of engine. It is about two different types of engine grouped together under an ambiguous term. The supposed "opposed four engines" covers the flat-4 and the H-4 engine, which are two entirely different configurations. No signature (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The H-engine was, once upon a time, a good way to get the maximum power in a compact envelope for use in aircraft, stuffing 16 or 24 cylinders together into a very small space. Only one person/manufacturer has ever tried to apply this principle to a 4-cylinder (70 years ago) and he may have made 5 of them. In order to accomodate this vanishingly rare (if not trivial) event we have to have an article that will forever confuse other significant articles. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:39, 8 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton |  00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE, non-notable college career and went undrafted. Giants27 /C 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no proscription against so-called "local" coverage in WP:GNG or WP:BIO. And the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Seattle Times have circulations over 400,000 -- these aren't small-town newspapers . Strikehold (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per numerous feature articles cited by Strikehold. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is one of the leading papers in the Western United States. Whether he's a long-shot to make the NFL is irrelevant. As noted in prior discussions, playing a game in the NFL is an automatic ticket to notability, but a college football player can be notable without playing in the NFL if, as here, he has received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press. This is more than sufficient to establish notability under the general guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - That's hardly what I'd call "significant coverage." Also, WP:ATHLETE is referring to individual sports and the Olympic Games, not college football when it talks about the "highest amateur level of a sport." D-I football is not included in that and never was meant to be.►Chris Nelson 06:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Multiple feature articles solely about the subject in publications with hundreds of thousands of readers is not "significant coverage"? And your interpretation of WP:ATHLETE is just that: an interpretation. You, not having been the sole author yourself, are not really in a position to state with surety what WP:ATHLETE "mean to" include. It says nothing about applying exclusively to "individual sports" or the Olympics or excluding college football; to say as much is pure extrapolation (and arbitrary). Notwithstanding, with either interpretation, the existence of a professional level does not negate the notability of college football (see: WP:CFBATHLETE for further discussion). Strikehold (talk) 07:42, 5 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus: Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Upcoming game about which "not much is known." Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Delete without prejudice against recreation once the "not much is known" comment no longer applies.  Blanchardb -- timed 23:55, 4 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 merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players. –Juliancolton |  00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A minor league baseball player who plays for a AA team, two levels short of a major league team. There is nothing significant of his career yet and isn't notable for anything else. As such, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Tavix |  Talk  23:38, 4 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 speedy keep . Nominator withdrew nomination, and nobody had advocated a delete position (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 Mardin Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete This article is about a terrible event, however represents a very local area and this would be better served on Wikinews. It also has very few sources, and is not ready to have it's own encyclopedia article. T3chl0v3r (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep While the current article is underdeveloped and in dire need of sourcing, I do not believe the event itself is unnotable. Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) could also be considered a "local area" event. ~Cr∞nium 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Fewer people have died in other terrorist incidents that have their own articles. Heck, fewer people died at the Virginia Tech Massacre. Yes it needs more sources at the moment, but that doesn't mean it should be immediately deleted. Savager (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to add information and sourcing it, I basically have no experience when it comes to editing. So, I'm basically just adding information to the page and would like others with more experience to edit it to comply with the standards. Jamesryan87 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, changing vote to Speedy Keep. T3chl0v3r (talk) 11:09, 5 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete. This is a textbook WP:BLP1E example, if even notable for that. JBsupreme (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - It doesn't sound like you understand what was being said by citing WP:BLP1E as the deletion rationale. It means the nominator thinks she was notable only for one event. I suggest you read the relevant section. LadyofShalott 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I completely understand, but there are better ways to fix an article than downright deletion. I stand by my rationale for keeping. Nate • (chatter) 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources cited in the article do not encompass the entirety of sourcing on the subject. Also, BLP1E was dealt a fatal blow by the 2008 election. I don't think it reflects current practice to delete or merge heavily sourced articles solely due to the nature of the subject's fame. As a note, this discussion was previously closed and the closure was discussed on AN/I where an administrator decided to re-open it. Please consider this if you are contemplating closing the debate early. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment. In what way, LadyofShallot? Although we have an article about Obama's personal secretary (for whom the notability looks a little iffy to me), we appear to lack ones for the personal secretaries of both Bushes, of Reagan, of Carter, and, as near as I can tell, of any other president, which would suggest that the position is not an inherently notable one. How does Currie's notability, if she is in fact notable, derive from anything other than her tangential involvement in the Lewinsky affair? Deor (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
On further review, I see that we do have a few articles about earlier presidents' personal secretaries—Tobias Lear V, Ann C. Whitman, Marguerite LeHand, and perhaps a few others. But my question remains. Deor (talk) 04:58, 5 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 List_of_characters_in_the_Pokémon_anime_series. ffm 23:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Pokémon voice actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lists of voice actors have been discouraged for anime series for several years now as redundant to the character lists, and this list in particular was previously deleted as a result of AfD. I'm not seeing anything in its current iteration that would justify keeping it over its predecessor. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I remembered the voice actors in the character page... So I'm not crazy! -sesuPRIME  00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the voice actors to the character page. But judging from MegaHL90 edit history, he has never discussed anything with other editors on a talkpage. --Farix (Talk) 00:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete That kind of information should be inside the characters list or section and not separate or redundant from it. MegaHL90's edits is a vain try to give that list more legitimacy but all it did was to reinforce my conviction that there should not be separate list for voices actors. --KrebMarkt 07:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment What about all those listed at the end? Also, showing what episodes the voice actors worked in, might be useful for anyone trying to find that information. I see no reason to not have it in both places, this article having more than what is listed elsewhere. I have no idea why anyone would ever want to look at a list of all the voice actors from a long running popular series, but having them in one place, would make that easier to accomplish. Dream Focus 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If it should not be listed separately, it should be in a character list (not individual articles, or sub-sub-lists no one can find. This should go through a merge discussion first. - Mgm| 13:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, except we've all seen how well THOSE go: The information is deemed "unimportant" and is then discarded in violation of WP:PRESERVE. In other words, merge = delete. I'd !vote merge if I thought it would do a lick of good. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:Preserve requires information worth retaining, this differs from case to case just as "unimportant" information depends on a case by case basis. In this case, the relevant information was already in another article, and more importantly, belongs in that other article and not this one (and has now been restored). Additionally, whatever your personal view on merge=delete, there is one noticeable difference you can't ignore - delete removes the page entirely, merge leaves a redirect to a more appropriate page (in this case it would be the character list, where the info originated and belongs) Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
All relevant information has already been added back to the character list. I don't see what you're complaining about in this case. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect as redundant to the character list. I'm unable to think of a legitimate reason for having a dedicated list of voice actors, especially when the information exists on a much more detailed character page. I don't see how you can assert that a list of voice actors meets WP:N, the notability of the series can't be inherited here, and although a few of the voice actors may be notable due to their entire body of works, thats still no reason to shove them in a list. I would have gone with merge, but Farix has already restored the deleted material. My "vote" boils down to if the article is a likely search term or not, if so, then a redirect is necessary. If not, then delete. Either way, all the content worth keeping has already been kept. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is a useful list, as readers will not be interested in an list of voice actors of different characters, and no sources discuss this as a topic. YobMod 10:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of articles out there which most don't consider useful. But someone does, or it wouldn't have been created. The information is all worth preserving to some, it all a matter of personal opinion. The list makes the information easier to sort through, and this article has information which isn't found anywhere else, such as the additional voices section. Anything other than Keep, would result in some information being deleted, no matter what you call it. Dream Focus 20:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • And there are a lot of problems with your arguments. Firstly, keep in mind WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Second, Knowledge (XXG) articles are not judged based on their usefulness, but on the standards of verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view. Verifiability is trivial for a voice actor/staff list, but notability is incredibly difficult to illustrate (NPOV doesn't apply in this case so much). Third, if the list has information which can't be found anywhere else, that information is original research and should be removed anyways. And even a keep closure would see some information being removed, in the course of cleaning up and expanding the list. Of course, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain all this to you; you've had it explained to you already way too many times for you to be ignorant of it by now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dream Focus. No obvious parent list, and surely this can be sourced somewhere. As a list I don't see a need for out-of-universe commentary. This is a one-down-list from the series page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No obvious parent list? It's been discussed many times! List of characters in the Pokémon anime series. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, just because something can be reliably sourced, doesn't mean it has sufficient notability for its own article. As I said above, it's trivial to source a cast/staff/voice actor list; no one is arguing that. 「ダイノガイ千？！」 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merged Dream Focus has point, however, the page could have still been removed (since the template was still there), so there for, the page has been redirected to Anime Characters (which has been merged with the actor page to show more detail). Check Out Here: List of Pokémon characters & voice actors in the anime series. I also do apologize for editing in vain, sometimes I don't remember to chat before I change anything. - User:MegaHL90
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Recreation of a deleted page on a non-notable term. This page was recreated with substantially the same claims made in the previous iterations, viz. that political society is a notable term of art used by Alexis de Tocqueville that is not already covered by the article on Politics. It is not, and the contention that it is seems to rely upon a mistranslation from French to Polish to English. RJC Contribs 22:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


are you providing others with true facts rjc?

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tocqueville/alexis/democracy/book1.html#book1.6

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tocqueville/alexis/democracy/book4.html

and search

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/ch05.htm

--Żęść (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment The first hit in google is interesting: What do you have to say about this source? Here's another interesting source: . Or this one: . Heck, look at the 34,000+ google scholar hits for the exact phrase Political society: I am leaning towards a Keep but I am uncertain and want more discussion first. Cazort (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply. I'm sorry if my nomination was brief; I probably assumed too much of the past discussions. The phrase "political society" occurs often—the question is whether it is a special term not already covered by politics, society, or the state of nature. The phrase does indeed appear in the titles of a chapter and a part in Democracy in America, but Tocqueville does not describe it or suggest that it is a special term; it does not appear in the subject index of Mansfield and Winthrop's translation of Democracy in America, contrary to expectations were it a special term that Tocqueville used. John Locke also uses the phrase "political society," but synonymously with civil society, society, and civil government, and in opposition to the state of nature; his usage is captured by the other articles. The questions for me seem to be, In whose thought is this a central enough term to warrant an independent article rather than a dictionary entry? and Why is that idea not better addressed in the articles on those people? Concerning the Marx link, the hosting site for that reference does not include "political society" in its Marxist glossary, nor does the phrase appear at all in the article on Karl Marx; it does not seem to be an important term in his thought. Partha Chatterjee and Doug Bandow use "political society" in a technical sense, but who has responded to their work in such a way as to satisfy the third-party coverage requirement of notability? Are they talking about the same thing when they use the same phrase (which seems necessary if we are to say that they are working on the same thing)? And why isn't their thought best described in the articles on them? The article as written is not about a theme in anyone's thought, however, but rather asserts the existence of something called "political society" about whose essence we can have a discussion. The last time this article was created, it served as a POVFORK for original research by a now-banned user (Discourseur); the latest version bears these same hallmarks, down to the references to Tocqueville. This article has been deleted twice already with no new arguments offered for its recreation. RJC Contribs 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Aren't the citations included a third-party coverage that exclude also possibility of original research? It is also not true that Tocqueville did not describe the term - his direct de~finition of it is present in the reference to Schleifer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanazifrommunich (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Another newly created account contributing to the discussion. This one's already been banned (username violation), so I'm not going to submit it for checkuser unless this AfD ends in keep. RJC Contribs 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Additional Note The user that recreated this page has since been identified as a sockpuppet of the now-banned user who created this page twice in the past; see Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Discourseur/Archive. RJC Contribs 09:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for letting us know. This is useful information, and I am agreeing with you that the current material needs to go. I am not convinced, however, that we shouldn't have a page on this. I see that John Locke uses the phrase synomymously with "civil society", but what about the other source I gave: . That seems to be a more specific use? Cazort (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • problem is that it is in use by many scholars and they ascribe to it an importance and a specific meaning. it is completely different from this old outdated chap Locke, but very similar to modern thought of Tocqueville and Marx. shouldn't it be complemented rather? --Wer34 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Wer34 is a new user with few edits outside of this discussion (contributions). Because a now-banned user re-created this page and has already engaged in this discussion with sockpuppets, I have requested a checkuser. RJC Contribs 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) — Update: confirmed. RJC Contribs 20:16, 6 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  00:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I've done searches for all these pairs; it seems Greek relations with Latin America are, in general, routine and have not been the subject of significant coverage, either in news articles or books. The presence of embassies is already noted at Diplomatic missions of Greece (and the equivalent pages). Where noteworthy, the Greek diasporas already have pages: Greeks in Argentina, Greeks in Brazil, Greek Mexican. Other than that, there isn't much to see here. If someone does find significant coverage for one or more of these pairings, I'll be glad to strike them out as that happens. Biruitorul 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

:Argentina–Greece relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greco-Brazilian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greece–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greece–Peru relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greece–Venezuela relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Question Biruitorul, of the several pairing articles you have put up for deletion, have you ever struck an entry or closed any deletion debate on these country pairings which you have opened? Ikip (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, and I will be happy to strike pairings if and when significant coverage is found. - Biruitorul 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course it does, if the "significant coverage" bar is completly unattainable. Ikip (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, unless we throw WP:GNG out the window, deletion (or at best merging (not that there's much to merge) or redirecting) is the solution. - Biruitorul 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If any AFD shows that no source will ever be considered "significant coverage" by Biruitorul it is this response to the 36 references provided by User:WilyD at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations. There are no amount of refences which will ever be signifigant enough for Biruitorul. 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not on the contributor. No independent significant coverage has been demonstrated, and no amount of filibustering will change that. - Biruitorul 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have brought it up, unless you would stated what you did in the last sentence. I suggest striking it, since there is no amount of sources which will be signifigant enough. thanks. Ikip (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Ikip, you've done more than enough smear campaigning and assuming bad faith around here, find a rational argument or be quiet. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Remember the train wreck last time these kind of lists were bundled? Even if someone thinks that all but one should be deleted it really complicates things. I know people can investigate six articles in a week, but that is besides the point; usually some are more notable than others. Tavix |  Talk  23:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Colombia–Romania relations worked just fine. Look, I understand why bundles of 20 might be too much to stomach, or why bundles of half a dozen involving completely disparate countries may be a problem, but I really don't think it's that hard to assess the notability of the relations of Greece (population 11 million) with 6 countries on the opposite side of the world, with which it has very little in common. I've said why the embassy argument is a red herring; the lack of significant coverage (unless that turns up) simply means we should delete these. - Biruitorul 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I normally support your nominations, but I feel like the bilateral relational articles need individual nominations, regardless of what countries they are. Tavix |  Talk  02:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: this discussion is now solely for Colombia-Greece; the other pairs have their own AfDs. - Biruitorul 06:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Having embassies would imply that other sources do exist - proof of an extensive effort to find sources failing is needed, imo.YobMod 10:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The lack of secondary sources, references and content after a year of this article being here is insufficient for this? --BlueSquadronRaven 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Imo, yes. Many of these articles are created in a stub-creation-spree, so the lack of citations is usually due to no-one having done a good enough search. As most of the sources can be assumed to be in non-English languages, a google search is not sufficient; unless Greek editor makes a concerted effort to find sources and fails, i think the sources are to be found, and just need time.YobMod 08:41, 7 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 speedy delete. Per G3 - information matches another contestant 1:1. SoWhy 11:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Prod removed without explanation. Previous article deleted in May 2008 because of a lack of reveremces. This is likely to be a hoax, Jhunny jez. receives no Ghits at all. Jezreel Veradio receives less than 10, mainly from mentions in Knowledge (XXG) and 1 IMDB hit as a minor player in a soap opera. The links and references are either totally irreleavent or lead to another reality show star - JC Tiuseco Porturology (talk) 22:22, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Appears to be advert/spam mhking (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete The source listed is clearly a press release. I can't find any sources other than this: , which is also essentially a press release. I agree that this is advertisement/promotion, and I think this article is unsalvageable because the topic has not received ANY coverage (let alone significant) in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I could not find any more than Cazort did. And I concur that the one single article not labelled as a press release is essentially a press release as aside from the opening paragraph, every paragraph starts with a variation of "The company says..." and goes on to quote the company. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. Maybe it will benotable in the future, but it isn't yet.YobMod 10:40, 6 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Derrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)A non-notable college athlete whose sole claim to significance is winning a single race at a track meet sponsored by his school. A speedy delete tag was removed by a non-admin, so the article is being brought here to establish consensus. I do not believe the subject meets WP:BIO standards, nor does he meet WP:ATHLETE standards, which covers: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Pastor Theo (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is my argument. WP:ATHLETE Criteria: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." Derrick has competed at the IAAF World Junior Championships, finishing 15th IN THE WORLD and helping the USA finis 8th (http://www.iaaf.org/wxc09/results/eventCode=4140/sex=M/discCode=XJ/combCode=hash/roundCode=f/results.html#det) He also holds a US Junior Record, and whatever people may say about it, he is the fasted US 5ker below 20. http://dailynews.runnersworld.com/2009/05/may-4.html?cm_mmc=RSS-_-rwrsshome-_-NA-_-NA That, along with his accomplishments as a High Schooler, qualify him as "notable".

  • If this page is deleted then it just exemplifies the United States' under-appreciation for the most raw and challenging of all sports. Why delete a page about an athlete who, in the near future, will probably be EXTREMELY notable!? There is legitimate evidence to prove that he'll be one of the best. As Rake wrote below, he beat WORLD JUNIOR mile record holder, German Fernandez, in the 5k. In the meet they were also a mere 10 seconds back from some big professional athletes as well. Athletes who have competed at the highest level of the sport. Chris Derrick will certainly be a significant name in the very near future. Nctrack09 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)— Nctrack09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • He was the 2007-2008 Gatorade National Boys Cross Country Runner of the year. He won Nike Team Nationals in 2007 and was 2nd in the Footlocker Cross Country Championships. He ran 13:55 in the 5k, the fastest time ever by a high schooler in an all high school race. Most notably, he now holds the American Junior record in the 5k at 13:29.98. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.76.28 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC) — 71.195.76.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
He competed in the World (Junior) Championships, which is specifically mentioned in the ATHLETE Section. So...he obviously falls under it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.45.127 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) — 68.251.45.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment I think for student athletes as for students, a prize at a national or international level can be enough for notability. We usually havent accepted this, but I can think of no good reason why we should not do so. DGG (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unlike Fernandez and Jordan Hasay, Derrick's times do not match up internationally yet. Fernandez at one point at the top mile in the world (he hasn't run in weeks from the flu after the 5k) and Jordan Hasay has done more on the international stage with her 4th at World Jrs. against top runners from all over the world and her 10th at the Olympic Trials. Derrick doesn't deserve a Knowledge (XXG) page just yet. Also, though Derrick did do well in high school, MANY, MANY runners have competed on that national stage as well. All of those runners do not have wikipedia pages with the exception of people like Hasay, only because she is above and beyond the high school level and has legitimately competed internationally. I agree with the deletion of this article for now.00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As people have said, he's beaten German Fernandez several times. That guy, Fernandez, has an extensive wikipedia article all to himself, and Derrick has equaled, if not bettered, his accomplishments. Derrick was All-American as a Senior in High School and as Freshman in College, he's won major races, and he's now a Junior Record holder. I think that qualifies him for an article. - mwr940 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwr940 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Mwr940 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I would normally agree that he is not notable, but I believe the American Junior Record justifies the page. Fastest 5000m performance of any American under 19? Ever? It qualifies. --Rake (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pastor Theo he has competed in a world championship, the world junior cross country championships, where he finished 15th he also has finished 4th in the NCAA indoor 5000 meters, 5th in the NCAA indoor 3000 meters, 7th in the NCAA cross country championships, won Nike Team Nationals, finished 2nd at Footlocker Nationals and has set an America Record. To me the American record speaks for its self. Michak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
  • Comment There appears to be something funny going on here. People who either have no previous history on Knowledge (XXG) or who have not been part of the community's discussion for one or two years are suddenly turning up on this page and only this page. I don't believe this is a coincidence. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pastor Theo, you are correct. There are a bunch of track jocks on a certain forum who have linked to this page and told everyone to give reasons/make up reasons on why this Derrick guy deserves a wikipedia page... though if you look at his "stats", they are not worthy of a Knowledge (XXG) page just yet. He has not beaten Fernandez "several" times (given to exaggerate 5+ I Assume), this second time he beat Fernandez was when Fernandez was sick and hadn't run for weeks. I agree with you that this article should be deleted. 98.234.70.165 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out he competed in a World Championship where he placed 15th. That is one of the definitions of what makes someone notable enough to have a wikipedia page as an athlete. In addition he has two national records, one high school and one junior(Set in a year during which you remained younger than twenty(20) for the entirety of the year). I find it hard to believe that those credentials don't make someone deserving of a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.213.173 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — 76.89.213.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: I find it dishonest that there are those who think themselves to be an authority on all disciplines of information and knowledge. Do chemists have the authority to pontificate on neurological-surgical procedures? No! Why not? Because they aren't qualified to do so. Why isn't a surgeon qualified to to tell a nurse anesthetist how to administer anesthesia during surgery. Because it is beyond his or her scope of training/education. Knowing a little about something doesn't make an individual an expert on said subject. It is one thing to edit an article and quite another to understand the culture and history of the topic. The problem here is that there is a lack of understanding of both the context and the significance of the performance, which is largely the result of a lack of understanding of the history and culture of the sport. Furthermore, to make qualitative judgements about any American distance runner or their performance without an understanding of the context or possessing a qualitative and quantitative understanding of the sport wreaks of academic dishonesty. I would seriously love to know the credentials of those who oppose CD's article. Those who seriously believe CD is a non-notable athlete would be considered to be ignorant (in this area) among those who are historians of the sport. So the question then becomes what qualifies someone to judge the merit of any American distance runner as it relates to a Knowledge (XXG) article? Unfortunately all that has been demonstrated thus far is a very limited scope of knowledge of the Amerian distance running pantheon. Is it too much to ask that the contributors demonstrate at least some level of academic integrity? Speedplay —Preceding unsigned
  • Note: Decltype, you are right I did redact (in jest) some of the content in the CD article. The redaction was a tongue-in-cheek response to those who pretend they know something about the sport or the history of the sport. I wasn't aware that an article for deletion could be "vanadalized" - I offer my apologies to the Wiki-community" —Preceding unsigned 12:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Derrick's resume of times, records, participation and success in national and international championships merits an article. The 15th best athlete in baseball, football and basketball all get wiki articles without a peep from the notability cops, as do the 150th best and 300th best. Derrick being the 15th best in the world should be accorded the same consideration.--Fizbin (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • -It should be noted as well, that in races that both men have competed and finished (German did not finish the NCAA cross country meet in 2008), Chris and German have a 2-2 record. Chris defeated German at the 2007 Footlocker National Championships in San Diego as well as this past weekend in the 5000 meter run at the Payton Jordan Invitational held at Stanford University. German defeated Chris at both the US Jr. National Cross Country Championships in Baltimore and in the IAAF Jr. World Cross Country Championships in Amman, Jordan this past winter.18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)TGmaverick —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGmaverick (talk • contribs) — TGmaverick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I really hope that Derrick doesn't lose this page. He is among the best young athletes in the up and coming American distance running team. With his 13:29 5k he has established himself as one of the best junior amateur athletes in the world. I can't see why a kid who has now 3 NCAA All-American certificates already and has competed in the IAAF World XC championships cannot have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniacmiler (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — Maniacmiler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I can't help but think about the points about how this deletion would have an effect on American track and field. That is the hair string we as a sport are hanging on now. The sport is making a come back, a deal with NBC for more coverage was just signed and that will help expose the sport. However, Derrick is a BIG part of the return of the sport of track and field to the mainstream. There is no reason he should be deleted. He is a VERY accomplished runner. And the wiki notable athletes standards are very stuffy, and should be flexible, just as this website is very flexible. Hell my professors still don't consider it a viable source. Instead of fighting against runner's like this, why not fight for this site's credibility. That's just me, I still site it and I stand firm that Chris Derrick needs a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniacmiler (talk • contribs) 04:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry but if Derrick's article is eliminated so should hasay's. Hasay ran a 4:14.5, when the best women in the world consistently run 20 seconds faster. For a 5k the equivalent would be running 1:10 faster than a 13:29, which is 12:19 a world record by a large margin. So in considering Hasay's time to the best in the world vs. Derricks, there is no comparison Derricks is better (in comparison to the best not 100 deep). One could argue that the women's field isn't as deep, but Hasay had an article well before she ran anything noteworthy ie. when she was running 10:00 3200s and 4:40 1600s. I really hope this suggestion for deletion was written by someone with no knowledge of track and field, otherwise i feel sorry for that person. User:MATThematical —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep:I want to note that in what are deemed to be the most "manly" sports, (like football and basketball) there are so many pages dedicated to athletes that never accomplished anything on the elite level. And when I say elite level I mean top 500 or so players in the USA at that time in there event. There is no greater example of this than football, where countless good NCAA players who never even made the pros have pages. take Tay Brown for example. Wiki needs to revise its notable athlete code. Note that not all sports are the same, its not fair to consider every professional player eligible in football and basketball and then not say nationally ranked runners are not notable. Highest level needs to be redefined as a national term. Are you saying that at any one given time only 3 or so runners are eligible per event in the US when there are countless linebackers that are eligible. This hardly seems equitable. Deleting this page means we need to definitely delete every NCAA football athlete page, and also probably some of the second string pros as well, first string pros that have mediocre careers will also be nominated for deletion, and then we can have the same discussion. If you want to delete this page I have no problem searching for the above pages and nominating them. But I think changing the definition of notable is a more community oriented solution, as opposed to a hostile one. Deleting this page would be against the spirit of the wiki. People are not voicing outrage at this pages deletion because they were told to by some site, they were simply made aware of the situation and told to do what they felt was right, no matter what that may be. Deleting this page would be such a slap in the face to the track and field community. MATThematical (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I move that this discussion be ended. He clearly meets some of the standards in WP:ATHLETE section (as described by several posters, NOTE he is in the top 25 in the world regardless of age this year, edit: if this was not understood this parenthetical statement was meant to show this time per say is not especially notable on its own without the jr. qualification, not a statement of how notable the time is), even if it is somewhat in the grey area. Personally I think its kind of rude of you to call for deletion of a page just because when you searched for "chris derrick" you got a track and field athlete and not the author you were looking for Christopher_Derrick. Next time you come accross something like this the best response would be to make a Disambiguation page, so others do not have the same frustration you experienced. Im sorry if this came off as rude, but I was deeply offended by this motion. The wiki is all about having obscure pages that meet a "vague" set of standards, which should constantly be eddited to reflect the communities opinions on noteworthiness. MATThematical (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not meet the (already very lax) standards of WP:ATHLETE. Note also that apart from some listings on sports sites, there is only an in-passing mention in USA Today. So this certainly misses the more general standards of WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep American junior record is a somewhat big deal, as is winning Nike Team Nationals and 2nd in Foot Locker Nationals. Most of his achievements are qualified in some way (best time in a all-high-school meet, junior record, etc.), but still are a weak claim of notability. For what it's worth, I despise WP:ATHLETE and I recognize that (as Crusio points out) this article seems to be even below its bar, but track & field is different than a lot of the sports that WP:ATHLETE was made to handle, and WP:ATHLETE's standard is a bit arbitrary...for example, people like Chris Solinsky and Galen Rupp were, IMO, notable and well-known long before Solinsky went pro and Rupp competed in the Olympics. rʨanaɢ /contribs 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment So his accomplishments are "a somewhat big deal". Accomplishment is not notability. If there are no sources, there is no notability. Misses WP:BIO, that's the main point, whatever accomplishments there are is not for us to judge and is immaterial to this discussion.... --Crusio (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For clarification what is considered coverage in sources? He is mentioned in every track and field major site/magazine that exists, and in passing mentioned in USA today. Below are the most notable sources for track and field news that exist, and he was named athlete of the week in one of them. He has had an interview on national television (fox sports news). Even famous general sports sites like Fox Sports News, San Francisco Chronicle] mention this performance, and note that they rarely cover track and field ]. Here are the track specific sites: USA Track & Field,, International Association of Athletics Federations, . Note that having an iaaf biography is at least equivalent to being a pro football player. Only athletes that are world caliber get iaaf biographies. Also he has won various awards, which might make him notable under the WP:ANY BIOGRAPHY section.MATThematical (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, no it is not. Crusio makes a good point that all the links are only some sports sites. For some reason, all of these people from the track forum are coming here and changing things (for example the WP: Athlete requirements were changed to "accommodate" this guy)... basically the same people just coming here (and basically biased sources). It should be deleted for now... B0bby flay (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Response I was not referred here by a track website, all you have to do is look at my contributions and you can see that i contribute to the wiki regularly in various mathematics, running, sports history, and ecology, and entomology related articles. Like Jason pointed out, I simply noticed how ridiculous the wp:athlete page was through this site. Additionally if you read the discussion page on notable athlete I provide a reason that is completely independent of this page. Also note that I never referred to the new definition on this page, as it really doesn't benefit Chris derrick since his time is only 24th in the world and barely misses the Olympic A standard. My argument is that he matches the bio criteria and potentially the old wp:athlete criteria that mentions competition in a world championship (of which I believe world jr championship counts). Its funny that I am being accused of running a muck on wiki by someone who doesn't even have a user page, and whose only comment on their talk page is by someone accusing them of vandalism. The only statements you claim in your post is factual innacuracies (newspapers and magazines are not considered any more biased than other secondary news sources), and unsupported accusations (accusing me of editing wp:athlete to support the derrick page, and accusing me of being referred here by a track website), hence unlike the other people arguing for deletion (who i disagree with, but respect their opinion) your post is of no value.MATThematical (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something here? Both B0bby flag and MATThematical are only occasional contributors to WP and some of this jelling concerns allegations or denials of allegations ("I was not referred here by a track website") that don't seem to be present on this page. Is there perhaps another discussion going on on another page or off-wiki? Please remain focussed on the present discussion and dont forget WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Crusio (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Coment Are USA Today and the San Francisco Chronicle "sports sites"? I guess he was mentioned in the "sports section" of these publications, but should we consider notable politicians non-notable because they were mentioned in the politics section of the New York Times and not on the front page? Where in WP:Bio does it say that secondary sources may not not be publications within a specific topic. I guess we should not include people mentioned in the New England Journal Medicine because that is a medical site/journal or Nature because that is a science site/journal. Stop making up rules as you go along. On another note, If you look at the WP:Athlete discussion you will see that the edit you mention was designed to make the requirement more equal across a wide array of sports, not to accommodate a particular athlete. The person who edited it may have noticed the idiocy of WP:Athlete after posting on this thread, but that does not mean he/she did it just to include Chris Derrick, especially considering Chris Derrick meets the criteria WP:Bio, which trumps WP:Athlete.Jasonbholden (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not say that USA Today is a "sports site", nor did I say that sports sites cannot be reliable sources. I said that mere listings on sports sites and in-passing mention in USA Today do not, IMHO, mean that Derrick has been the subject of in-depth coverage in these sources. --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment To use the word biased in this context is a gross misrepresentation of the word. Knowledge and competency do not equal bias, otherwise, anyone could make that claim. For that matter a case could be made likewise for those who are against this article. I would, however, argue that those who are a part of the track community are more qualified to judge the qualitative significance of a performer or performance of a track athlete than those who are unfamiliar with the sport. Evenmore, it is rather patronizing to listen to baseless arguments from those who do not know the sport, the culture, or the history.

Furthermore, who disputes the fact that Track and Field isn't even on the radar of mainstream media's coverage of the sport. There are a lot of track meets between the Olympics. Therefore, it is a weak argument to base notability off of the mainstream media's coverage. If you want to know if it is notable or not check with the media that actually covers the sport and knows the sport. Additionally, to argue that records with qualifiers like AJR dilutes the significance, only demonstrates a double standard and lack of understanding of the sport. These performances, that many on here have disrespected, are considered to be hallowed standards within the American distance running community. I am sure that any reasonable person would be quite offended, if outsiders who know very little about their area of "expertise," barged in and made comments that many in their field would find to be uninformed and ignorant.

Lastly, I think one of the most underappreciated and overlooked aspects of this debate is the context. Chris' American Junior Record establishes some context and a standard with which to gauge/judge his notability. I argue that within the distance runnning community the American Junior Record has significant importance to the landscape of distance running in this country and for that matter the sport as a whole. Let me illustrate my point further. Roger Bannister is a legend in the sport of Track & Field because he was the first man to break the four minute mile (context). This context establishes the significance of Roger Bannister's performance in view of the history of the progression of the mile at that time. However, Roger's personal best in the mile today would not be nearly as notable because there are tons of runners currently (and since then) that can break the four minute barrier. Should his significance be diluted, because the quality of his performance has been somewhat diluted in the past 50 years? I don't think so. Likewise, Chris' AJR, establishes some context that separates him from all other runners in this country, in this event, to this point in time. Chris Derrick will be forever a part of the progressive fabric of the American junior record in the 5K. That is notable! I believe that Chris Derrick is a notable athlete, not just because of his records, but also because the distance running community collectively and overwhelmingly recogonizes him as a notable and significant contributor to the history of their sport! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedplay2 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

KeepChris Derrick meets the notability requirements of any biography (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.). There is no mention that these sources cannot be sport sites/magazines or sports sections of regional and national publications. They just need to be "reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject". For those people who think he is not notable, please explain how USA Today (largest newspaper in the US), the San Francisco Chronicle(the 12th largest newspaper in US), Fox Sports News and Runner's World do not fit this criteria. He was also mentioned several times over the course of multiple years on Fox Sports News. All of these sources are either prominent, internationally distributed running publications or national and regional general publications. Whether Chris Derrick's accomplishments fit WP:Athlete is irrelevant, as this criteria is not exclusionary, but rather a loop hole to make it easier to include articles on non-notable athletes in popularized American pro/amateur sports (football, basketball, baseball, etc) and does not make an athlete notable or not. Chris Derrick's accomplishments as the American Junior Record holder and the possessor of the 25th fastest time in the world to date only adds to his credibility. Yes, I understand that the 25th fastest time in the world so far is misleading because it is early in the season, but how many US runners (of any age) have ran that time in the past year or two. I bet it is far less than the number of non-notable quarterbacks, defensive lineman, or running backs with wiki pages.Jasonbholden (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep While I am not a die-hard wikipedian, I do spend some time on wikipedia, and I have made some contributions. I am, yes, also a distance runner, as should be evident from the fact that several of my contributions are to running-related pages. That said, I hope you will take it as "expertise," rather than "bias," when I say that I think that the Derrick article should be kept. The strongest argument, to me, is MATThematical's point that plenty of NCAA basketball and football players who are not among the top 150 practitioners of their sport within the United States or top 300 in the World still have wikipedia pages. Notability is a slippery phenomenon, of course. More people do know about the 300th-best NCAA basketball player than one of the NCAA's best distance runners, simply because basketball is a better-known and more followed sport. I admit that I sometimes have little sympathy for gamers who want separate articles for all the weapons and devices in Halo 3, but I think that with athletes we run into a trickier scenario. Certainly, Derrick is much more notable within his sport than many (perhaps the majority) of athletes on wikipedia, but it is true that his sport is itself less well-known. This raises an important question: should we have different notability-within-their-sport standards for athletes in different sports, depending upon the notability of the sport? I favor having the same notability-within-their-sport standards for all sports, regardless of how notable the sport is, because an encyclopedia is about the preservation of history and knowledge, not simply a reflection of majority interests. If it were about majority interests, we'd have more articles on Halo 3 and fewer on theoretical physics.Squelchtoad (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Although I certainly agree with your comments on weapons/basketballers/etc. I should point out that the existence of this stuff does not justify keeping other stuff (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, less politely also know as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Response: This is true, but it doesn't refute the strongest part of the argument. That is in order to provide justification for deleting the page, one needs to have a logical explanation why coverage over a period of more than two years in regional newspapers (the one that has had multiple articles is 12th ranked nationally, he is in passing mentioned in the number 1 ranked nationally newspaper), national sports broadcast interviews, and publications in the most well known sports specific magazines (i.e. runners world) and sports specific websites (International Association of Athletics Federations) does not qualify under unbiased reputable secondary sources. In addition no one has provided a reason why all American does not qualify under the awards section. In order for this page to be deleted all of these points must be refuted.MATThematical (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Response: I didn't intend to make an other stuff exists argument per se. My argument, as I saw it, ran as follows: 1) Let's assume that some of those basketball players actually deserve to be included in wikipedia. 2) A question then arises: what is it that makes them fair game for an article? Does it depends more heavily upon (A) their notability within their sport or (B) how well-known they are to the general public? If they deserve to be included more because of (A), their notability within the sport, then there almost certainly a good case for Derrick, since he is quite notable within his sport. If they deserve to be included more because of (B), how well-known they are generally, then perhaps there isn't a good case for Derrick, since he is not particularly well-known to the general public. I then argued (3) that the criteria ought to be more heavily weighted toward (A) because otherwise we run into the problem of having lots of cruft articles on subjects that are sufficiently popular (e.g. basketball, halo). I do realize that this argument has its limits; I think it makes sense to have fewer articles on curlers than on basketball players. That said, athletics is actually a fairly a popular sport (much more so than curling, though not as popular as basketball), and Derrick is notable within it. This still may not be a valid argument; I do not know how fluid or static wikipedia deletion criteria are, or whether there exist competing philosophies, etc. Others can feel free to enlighten me on that point.Squelchtoad (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I still have the uncomfortable feeling that several participants to this discussion use the "normal English dictionary definition" of notability, not the Knowledge (XXG) version. Accomplishment, being known, etc. do not equal notability in the WP sense. For that, we need non-trivial coverage in independent, verifiable, and reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is the confusion at all, as many of the sources mentioned in this argument fit into the criteria on independent, verifiable, and reliable sources (if not most of them). I think there is potential confusion on what is deemed as "significant coverage", certainly a sentence is not significant coverage, but what about a small paragraph or minute long interview, which all apply in this case. This is probably where the uncomfortable feeling is, because the page you mention specifically includes major newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle. I really don't think anyone questions how reliable, independent, or verifiable fox news, and major newspapers are in this case. The question is whether a small article counts as in depth coverage. But remember that in depth coverage is not required by a particular source Note: from the WP:BIO page "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." So the question is how many sources and how substantial. This is what makes this deletion such a tough call. Everyone agrees that Chris Derrick is well known to the running/track and field community and also anyone who follows track and field (lets say to the point of someone who watches the national championships every year). The criteria can't be general public, or only superstars who have reached celebrity status would make the cut. But i agree that it can't be only the stat junkies who intensely follow every aspect of the sport either. There has to be some sort of fine line drawn in between the two extremes.MATThematical (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Think about this all you IP's (who will most likely be ignored by the closing admin) he got 15th in the world once. Not first, not second, fifteenth. By pure definition, he did not attain the highest level of amateur sports, and this also falls under WP:1E--Unionhawk 17:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry, I'm getting very confused here. WHAT significant coverage? Let me go through the 7 references that the article currently lists. Reference 1: mentions Derrick in passing. #2: just a listing of results. #3: Yes, it's USA Today. No, the article is not about Derrick and it only mentions him briefly. #4: the only substantial article on Derrick. I am not sure in how far this is a notable source. #5: a mere listing. #6: A comment posted by someone linking to a YouTube video. #7: a bare listing. --Crusio (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Response I was under the impression that notability was determined by a person's coverage, not how well referenced his/her wiki article is. I have added a few references to the article, but this by no means represents the volume or quality of coverage on Chris Derrick.Jasonbholden (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • New #4 a "biography", consisting of a simple list of times etc. #9: Yes, it's the SF Chronicle. But only 7 sentences about Derrick in a very short article on two different persons. #9: A real article, but on a blog. Not a RS|reliable source. --Crusio (talk) 21:22, 11 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I PRODded this when it appeared yesterday, and the PROD has not been contested, but on consideration I would like more eyes on it. New editor Smithonian (talk · contribs) entered two articles, Political Semantic Fields Theory, based on a book in Spanish by Jorge Majfud, and this one which defines and discusses a word used in the other. The reference cited for this article is a parallel text in Spanish and English: the word "ideoléxico" occurs only in the Spanish text, and each time is translated in the English text by the established English word "ideolect" (see below) is translated in the English text as either "ideolect" or "idiolect".

With the PROD notice, I suggested to the author that as I can find no evidence for the use of "ideoléxico" in English, it would be better for him to add any relevant material to the existing article Ideolect rather than to introduce a new Spanish headword which people are unlikely to search for. He has not so far replied.

I am not entirely convinced that "ideoléxico" is being used here in exactly the same sense as "ideolect" and so I hesitate to propose a merge; if there is a new concept here it may need a new word (ideolexicon?), but per WP:NEO we should not have an article for a neologism for which there is no evidence of any use in English.

I therefore propose that we delete this article, and invite the author to merge any necessary material back to Political Semantic Fields Theory to make it self-contained, and to propose any addition to Idiolect which may seem useful, consistent with its established meaning. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Don't get distracted by translation. "Ideolexico" is a WP:NEO in any language. English "idiolect" is Spanish "idiolecto". Furthermore, the meaning of "ideo-" is quite different from "idio-". It looks like a mistranslation in the parallel texts from "ideolexico" to "idiolect" when "ideolexicon" may have been a better neologism in English. I don't think his article "Ideolexico" has any relationship to the "Idiolect" article. I would tend towards deletion strictly on the neologism/original research aspect but will withhold opinion in case of factual error in what I am saying. Drawn Some (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for unconfusing me between "ideo-" (idea) and "idio-" (individual, personal, distinct). I was puzzled that I couldn't find "ideolect" in the dictionary, and when I found it here didn't notice that I had been redirected to "idiolect". In the magazine cited, "ideoléxico" is twice translated "ideolect" and once "idiolect"; I think that one is a mistake, and that the meaning intended is actually the "ideo-" (idea) one. In that case my remarks about "idiolect" are irrelevant, what we have here is definitely an unsupported neologism which should not have its own article, and the Political Semantic Fields Theory needs to be rewritten to be self-contained, perhaps using and explaining within the article some new term like "ideolexicon" - I think "ideolect" would be unsuitable as too liable to cause confusion with "idiolect". JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As JohnCD notes, ideoléxico is clearly a Spanish word, not an English one. I have found no occurrence of the term ideolexicon, but a handful of uses of ideolect in literary criticism, and use by one anthropologist. It's not clear to me, though, that the several users share the same sense or usage of the term. Most of the literary articles are written from a post-modernist stance (including a few translations from French, not Spanish), but a few are from a Marxist stance (which would seem to accord with Majfud's usage in Monthly Review). The anthropologist who uses ideolect (PDF here) says that he is suggesting a new term, and defines it differently from the page proposed for deletion. I guess all of this is a long way of suggesting that (what I take to be) the English equivalent lacks notability.
I am therefore leaning toward a delete !vote or possibly a merge into either Language ideology or Political correctness, though neither of those seems like a very good match. Political Semantic Fields Theory is obviously a better match, but I'm not convinced that that page is notable, either. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 5 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 "Top-rope Falcon Arrow! Bah Gawd, King, he's broken in..." er... I mean speedy delete as an A7, a G3, and various other "nice try" reasons. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Evan Cole Roberson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:HOAX. A pro wrestler who is fifteen years old, with no google (or any other) evidence other than a poorly designed site at a free webhost? I doubt it. Ironholds (talk) 21:20, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Undrafted free agent who does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Good faith search has only recent news and this article about his recent signing doesn't mention anything like awards that warrant notability. Being released today doesn't help his cause. Giants27 /C 20:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - Only media coverage I found is in Pensacola News Journal and Scout.com; first is about him getting signed as a UFA, second is about him potentially being drafted. I don't think this alone qualifies as significant coverage, and thus fails WP:BIO (unless someone else can provide more). He also seems to fail the additional criteria of WP:ATHLETE: (1) I don't believe he has played professionally (he tried out for the CFL before college , but does not appear to have played), and (2) did not play at the highest amateur level of American football, which is Division I FBS (Concordia is NAIA). Strikehold (talk) 04:47, 5 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Undrafted free agent who does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Good faith search has only recent news and this article about his recent signing shows no evidence of a great college career. Being released today does not help out his cause notability wise. Giants27 /C 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - I've been as guilty as anyone of creating too many articles of non-notable athletes on the cusp of a pro career. That's why I'm trying to avoid that and get others to do the same. This player simply doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE yet.►Chris Nelson 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - All college starters will receiver some amount of media coverage and mentions from the papers of the area. It does not make them particularly notable in the scheme of things. Also, WP:ATHLETE never intended for the "highest amateur level of a sport" to include college football. It's more for individual sports. There are thousands of D-I college football players that are not and will never be notable, that will never be considered by professional teams. Being a D-I college football players does not make one notable enough for inclusion here, and neither should the occasional mention in the local paper.►Chris Nelson 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Using phrases like "Occasional mention in the local paper" is disingenuous at best. There is a world of difference between "mentions" and coverage like that shown above. The articles cited are full-length articles exclusively about the subject. They are also not simply "local papers". Scout.com receives millions of unique hits each month and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a daily circulation of 435,000 . It is also disingenuous to state with surety what the "intent" of WP:ATHLETE is -- that statement is nothing more than your own interpretation. Interest by professional teams has zero bearing on an individual's notability. College football itself is more notable, by just about any measure, than most other sports, professional or otherwise (See: WP:CFBATHLETE for further information). Strikehold (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • An opinion of whether he "did" anything, in college or otherwise, is pretty irrelevant, and is certainly not a valid rationale for deletion. Whether you expect him to do anything professionally is equally irrelevant, in no small part to WP:CRYSTAL. Playing in the NFL would guarantee notability under WP:ATHLETE, but it is no more required for a player to be notable than is WP:POLITICIAN. Strikehold (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Giants27: What is the rationale behind nominating this article for deletion, when you voted "keep" for Bear Pascoe? You said he "Played highest level of pro and amatuer football" -- that was a player who had not actually played professionally (he was a late-round draft pick), but played amateur football in Division I FBS. That is the same situation for this player. Strikehold (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Simple, I deem drafted players unconditionally notable and if undrafted and they didn't have a prolific college career or are not currently a member of a team (or otherwise non-notable) then I believe they should be deleted. Bear Pascoe was drafted and not only drafted but currently on a team.--Giants27 /C 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You are of course entitled to that opinion, but nominating an article or voting based on that goes against all the notability guidelines. The assertion that someone is notable when they are on a team, but if they get cut before playing a game makes them non-notable violates "Notability is not temporary". Having a "prolific college career" is a subjective measurement, and there's no reason that is better than using the general notability guidelines—which Frischknecht passes. Also, a player is not non-notable simply by, as you suggest, not being drafted or on a team, that violates WP:BIO, which clearly lays out the basic and additional criteria for personal notability—which, again, Frischknecht passes. Strikehold (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
But he was never notable not in college or his short pro stint, if he made the team or any team for that matter he would be notable and since we're not a crystal ball we can't assume he'll be notable at some point.--Giants27 /C 01:48, 6 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, there is no consensus to delete any of the three, but Malta–Romania relations and Philippines–Romania relations are on decidedly shakier ground than Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations, and may well have been deleted if nominated separately. As such, there is no bar to so renominating them. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

None of these three pairings has much notability to it. Trade is limited. Significant coverage of the topics is entirely lacking. Member State of the European Union already tells us Romania and Malta are in the EU; Diplomatic missions of Romania (and of the others) already tell us about any embassies. Nothing indicates Romania's position on the Bosnia issue is any different from the common positions of the EUPM or the PIC. And so on. Biruitorul 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Malta–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippines–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biruitorul, you delete several articles, and refuse to accept 32 sources as enough for an article to be kept, and then accuse another editor of disruption? Ikip (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop hounding me already. I didn't - indeed can't - delete anything. Those sources did not refer to the subject as such, but rather were inferred to do so, and thus are not admissible. Have the decency to leave me alone. - Biruitorul 06:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep First of all bunching up these articles is not a good way to do an AfD. Further they have embassies in the respective countries and per sources of Marcusmax. Ikip (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Delete I find no sources (certainly these entirely unsourced stubs are of no hope for the general reader hoping for some minimum quality standard) that establish notability for these relationships; while the various words may appear in the same article from time to time, no article, anywhere, discusses these so-called relationships that i can find. That it is verifiable that b&h might have a trade tax deconflicting treaty with Romania is not evidence of notability. It would be like justifying a BLP about me on the basis that i am known to "draw breath."Bali ultimate (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep They both are working together on many things, both members of the various initiatives listed in the article. They thus have a relationship with one another. Dream Focus 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please be clear what pairings you mean by "they". And also, have you given any thought to how any of these three nonsense articles could ever viably fit into existing structures? For instance, what article could possibly link to one of these, or is WP:BTW not of any concern here? - Biruitorul 06:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please avoid words such as "nonsense" when referring to articles about bilateral relationships. They might not be notable in some cases, but they are not "nonsense". Fences and windows (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This whole series - at least the ones mass-produced by User:Groubani - is a set of nonsense articles. Some of them have the potential to be expanded out of a nonsense state, but by no means all. - Biruitorul 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • They appear sensible to me. They are almanacical stubs. Information repeated in different forms are always being experimented with in Knowledge (XXG). Infoboxes repeat what is in the article, lists and categories are redundant and acceptable. The lede repeats what is in the article. The GDP and GNP of the United States is mention in detail in a half dozen lists and economic articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There should be more sources to support notability of this article than for the vast majority of the the other bilateral relations stubs, on account of their geographic proximity and former membership in the Soviet bloc. This would be a good candidate for "article rescue" buffs to try and improve within the 7 day AFD period. Please look for and add multiple reliable and independent sources with significant discussion not of the countries per se, but of their foreign relations specifically. A mere checklist that there's a news item that the head of X visited Y is a much weaker demonstration of notability. No opinion at this point. Edison (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a couple of points: Bosnia and Herzegovina has only been independent since 1992, after the USSR ceased to be; and the state it was part of, Yugoslavia, was Communist but did not belong to the Soviet Bloc. - Biruitorul 07:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the correction. Still, former commie countries in geographic proximity. More closely related than many of the random pairings. Edison (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations, based on the sources foudn above, but delete the other two. In addition to the other arguments, please consider (a) both were once part of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire at different times, (b) both are former countries that were under Communism, and (c) they have many cultural ties in common - from Slavic languages to Roma (gypsies). They have about 6 or 7 factors in common, according to my standards for notability. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • a) Whatever connections the two had under Ottoman/Austro-Hungarian control was slight, and can be covered elsewhere; in any case, it has nothing to do with the modern states; b) Bosnia and Herzegovina was not actually a country until 1992, and in any case the entity it was part of, Yugoslavia, was not in the Warsaw Pact; c) there are under 10,000 Roma in a Bosnian population of over 4 million, and in any case that has zero to do with interstate relations and is covered at Romani people; d) the Romanian language is not a Slavic language; e) it would help to have sources on the interstate relationship rather than plucking out random facts you happen to think connect them. - Biruitorul 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected about claim d) - Romanian is a Romance language. I think the other facts show notability - as a group of facts rather than as a single fact. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I'll just say Romania has closer cultural ties to France than to BiH, so I'm unpersuaded, but if someone can actually do a robust expansion, more power to him. - Biruitorul 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Let's add the following: Romania was not ever "part" of Austria-Hungary, it was an separate state throughout Austria-Hungary's existence. Transylvania, the Banat and Bukovina were part of A-H and then of Romania, but what is that supposed to add to the matter, since they were incorporated at a time when B-H joined Yugoslavia as a subregional entity. The argument about the Ottoman Empire is equally contrived: Romania did not exist as a single entity for most of the time it was under Ottoman rule. The entire sentence at the end of the current article is therefore absolute nonsense, and forms part of a flood of trivia whose purpose is to whitewash the lack of a notable phenomenon. Dahn (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've spent time doing some careful sourcing. I don't know what searches anyone else did, but I came up with evidence of clear notable relationships, including military cooperation involving Romanian troops on the ground, state visits, trade agreements, issues with sex trafficking, support for EU membership etc. I've expanded the article on the basis of this. This is a prime example of an article that should never have been nominated, and which editors should not have voted for. Sources were not exactly easy to find, but far from impossible, and the fact that both countries are in South-East Europe/Balkans could have given a clue that they might have a notable relationship to be uncovered. I've seen people criticise the Article Rescue Squadron, but I'm only here because of it. Far from just voting Keep, I've rolled my sleeves up. I'd like to see a more such positive work from self-declared deletionists. The key to improving articles is not arguing, but finding sources. Fences and windows (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see some of those same sources had already been brushed aside by Biruitorul. Would anything short of Bosnia nuking Bucharest satisfy notability? Fences and windows (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Well, romaniandaily.ro is a blog. More important is the lack of sources discussing the relationship as such - we have here a pastiche of news bits designed to give the impression of notability, but nobody's ever written about "Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations" as a topic, and instead we have editors surmising what's notable about the purported topic, probably in breach of WP:PSTS. Oh, and there was no Bosnian conflict in the mid-90s. :) - Biruitorul 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say there was a conflict in the mid-90s; that's when the troops were there. If it reads poorly, please clean it up. Fences and windows (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and the story is from Bucharest Daily News, if you actually look at the source. I think your idea of what constitutes a source about an article is odd. Does it need to be a news article with "Bosnia-Romania bilaterial relations: the latest" as a title? How is a state visit not about the relations? Or military cooperation? Or trade agreements? Would Knowledge (XXG) really be improved by binning a now reasonably written article with several reliable sources backing it, or can you just not back down from a deletion? Fences and windows (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1. You didn't get by what I meant when I said there was no Bosnian conflict in the mid-90s. Click 90s and you'll see more clearly.
2. Sure I looked at the source. A news story hosted on a blog is still a blog entry. We need to link to the original source, or just not link.
3. What you just named is what you've surmised constitutes bilateral relations, and in may be a very reasonable conclusion, but your conclusion needs to be validated by secondary sources: see WP:PSTS. I've changed my mind during AfD many a time, if warranted. - Biruitorul 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is extreme pedantry some kind of hobby of yours? Fences and windows (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The above cannot be considered an argument for keep as per WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually they are the only considerations that Knowledge (XXG) requires. Please note that WP:ITSNOTABLE is a personal essay, and not Knowledge (XXG) policy. Knowledge (XXG) policy requires that topics be notable and verifiable, and this topic is both. Generally it is not a good idea to quote personal essays per WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What about WP:GNG? - Biruitorul 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Richard, I used the word "considered". as such your vote argument is weaker as you haven't backed it with any explanation or sources. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"Notable and verifiable"? Prove it. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Notability and verifiability are determined by external media coverage, and there are 13 references. How do you plan to prove they are not notable and verifiable? Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also point out that WP:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY is a page/redirect/essay that Richard himself created, which pretty much smacks of WP:POINT to me. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I like its self-referential nature, it being a personal essay... nothing pointy here, as he was just using a link on a talk page not editing to be disruptive. There's far too many wikilawyers bandying around policy here, can we just focus on whether there are now sufficient sources to demonstrate notability? Fences and windows (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - While the relations between two countries that are less than 75 miles/120 kilometers from each other should be inherently notable, the relations between these two nations are the subject of secondary sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. In addition to the English sources found above, a few seconds of searching brought up several more Romanian ones directly about the relations between these two nations. --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • A visit (news/trivia) and a visa-free travel agreement (idem) are not something we'd ever bother noticing outside this series of nonsense articles. Would we ever bring up the visit in Băsescu's biography, for instance? Of course not - and of course you give no thought to how this article could fit into existing structures; no article could possibly link to this one, meaning WP:BTW is being ignored. Such things happen every week of every year. Moreover, let's mind WP:PSTS - that you surmise these events constitute evidence of notable relations is nice, but it's not actually validated in the context of a source discussing BiH-Romania relations as such. - Biruitorul 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The relations are notable, that's why secondary sources have written about them. It doesn't matter that you think the relations are "trivial." "Trivial" coverage is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as "passing mention". Even a vis-free travel agreement is covered in a non-trivial matter (again, not a "passing mention"). Your alluding to the sources about relations between these two nations and attempting to downplay the significance of the relations ("a visit" and "a visa-free travel agreement" for examples) is in fact confirmation of the non-trivial coverage the relations between these two nations have received. --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because you declare something to be evidence of "Bosnia and Herzegovina – Romania relations" doesn't necessarily make it so, without validation. One doesn't simply pluck bits of trivia (or news, if you prefer) and declare them evidence of anything. Why isn't this mentioned at Israel–Italy relations, this at Slovakia – United States relations, this at Egypt–Israel relations, this at Czech Republic–Slovakia relations, this at China–Russia relations, and so on? Obviously, because outside AfDs of this type, editors behave in a usual fashion: they think twice about the validity of information, how it fits into existing structures, what its real relevance is, and so on. They look for broader discussions of the subject to see what importance it's given beyond a day's headlines. In the mad quest to find "sources" validating trivia of this sort, normal procedures are thrown out the window, and we end up prioritising irrelevancies.
And of course, still no hint as to what article could possibly link to this one -- apparently it's destined to sit in isolation. Rather than do that, let's strip away the irrelevant content from it, see just how little is left, and be done with it. - Biruitorul 05:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't know how editors behave, since there a very large number of editors, and they don't act the same manner. Some believe it has met the notability requirements, and wish to keep it. They aren't going to waste time arguing with you, since you've clearly made up your mind. Dream Focus 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If I may: the point of Biruitorul's comment, a comment which I find a exceptionally pertinent one, is that irrelevant facts that we wouldn't normally mention at all are abusively seen as decisive in assessing the relevancy of other articles. If we were to apply the same standard to articles on more notable relationships, we'd end up in the most ridiculous of situations. Consider: at this moment, the Bosnia-Romania article uses a reference to a 2001 police raid inside Bosnian brothels. Now, apply the same standard to the France-UK article, and imagine for a moment including mention of French brothels and raids as related to UK women in France. Would one, hell, could one possibly justify lowering the bar to include that level of trivia in the more prominent case? We both know the answer is no. But once it's useful as a device for "rescuing" an article on nothing at all, sure, it's "important", it's "vital", it's "decisive", and, what's really impressive, it came up on a google search. Dahn (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep -obviously ofnotability. Sources exist which indicate noiability, I'd imagne there is even more in native languages.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As a native speaker of one of those native languages, I have to say I wouldn't. What comes up in searches is some coverage of a single official visit. Dahn (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure plenty of trivial material can be gathered to "create" a valid topic ("look, I can google Bosnia and Romania together"), but this isn't really worth a separate article. Dahn (talk) 23:03, 11 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.

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Broadwood and Sons (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the prod: I cannot find anything (see search) that shows any verifiability of this netlabel. No logical place for a redirection. I do not see any establish notability as needed. MuZemike 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check: http://www.gainlad.com

the netlabel does exist.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkvoid (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it exists or not (I'm sure it does). Existence != notability. MuZemike 22:03, 4 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 Qigong. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party references RadioFan (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to lean towards agreeing with you. I am changing my recommendation to Merge to Qigong and mention that this term has been used to refer to the scientific study of Qigong. But I do find far more articles studying Qigong from a scientific perspective, and not using this term, than I find articles using it. Cazort (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Qigong. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 5 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 rougish speedy delete (G11) with extreme prejudice. The article had already been created and speedied twice before. Author blocked for a spammy username. Blueboy96 21:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD. Software is non-notable, written about by a user with the same name as the article. Initial release in 2009 indicates that there is no notability yet. Xclamation point 19:49, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Better the Devil You Know (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. The article needs to establish notability by giving references to reliable sources Anshuk (talk) 19:40, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:Entertainer

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Drawn Some (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This taken from your user page is worth taking into account, too:
".....my philosophy collides with WP:NOTABILITY. I believe that if you can write a decent article on it that forms part of the web and is well referenced and well written, the article should stay- no matter what wiki- policy says on it."
I'm not trying to get in a tangle with you but I was wondering why you were saying to keep articles whose subjects clearly are non-notable, I think I have the answer! Improving articles is admirable but claiming that an unreferenced probable high school role in a Disney play meets notability requirements is another altogether. If you disagree with a guideline or policy you should work to change it. Drawn Some (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:GNG is the parent of the the lessor criteria WP:ENTERTAINER. If WP:N is met, one need look no further only in order to find ways to exclude. Schmidt, 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I request that this be relisted for consensus. The "Disney" role isn't referenced and I can't find it anywhere. I still maintain that the basic requirements for notability are not met and neither are the requirements for entertainer. The references added are insufficient. Drawn Some (talk) 00:55, 11 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 delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Koyuki/Princess Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor anime character. Drawn Some (talk) 19:26, 4 May 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, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarifying my previous comment, Koyuki is a minor character but Princess Snow is a major character in the series. It is Princess Snow that the separate more detailed article is about. Calathan (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment sounds like a good way to handle matters to me. JJL (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  21:34, 11 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:Entertainer

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Drawn Some (talk) 19:24, 4 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Declined speedy deletion nominee. Potentially fails WP:CORP as a non-notable foundation. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:17, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Easter television specials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously speedy nominee, original rationale was, "more red than blue links, unmaintainable list, zero references, original research". SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:03, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Devil's Colonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable new cocktail made up one day (May 2, to be precise). Not surprisingly, a search finds nothing relevant to suggest notability. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NFT. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • From Poster I apologize, this was only meant for use as a reference. Everything at some point is made up, I didn't realize mixed drinks require sources. I fully understand policies and if you feel this isn't appropriate that's your call. I only wished to post it as a reference, again I apologize for the inconvenience. My intent wasn't to make something up, for the sake of making it up or to gain credit, simply as a reference. Ironic, you need a reference to make a reference. Again, I completely understand the policy but I hope that at least the information under "Duo and trio cocktails" may be allowed to stay. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iampatyouarenot (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Knowledge (XXG) is not a reliable third party source. So if you were trying to use the fact that this drink had a wikipedia article in another wikipedia article as notable, that cannot be done. Also note that every article needs to have reliable, verifiable third party sources. Obviously there are articles that don't have them, but thats why we have this process. Livewireo (talk) 21:36, 4 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 delete. WP:SNOW Tony Fox (arf!) 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Made-up holiday / hoax Passportguy (talk) 18:54, 4 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 WP:SNOW delete. Guess he's 150-1 now, huh? Tony Fox (arf!) 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Very likely hoax, as I cannot find any trace of him on google. Passportguy (talk) 18:44, 4 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  00:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non notable subject. He's written a few books, but what professor hasn't? Being a university lecturer and having written books does not, in itself, establish notability. Google search returns nothing but primary sources, and shopping sites. HJMitchell You rang? 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that a few citations constitute "significant impact". Those are strong words. I don't see it demonstrated. Drawn Some (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me, I had pasted the wrong link in my Google Books reference. It is corrected now, and shows plenty of citations of Wegemer in reputable books in the field--we're not dealing with "a few citations." Nominators and commentators really should do their homework. Wegemer's Thomas More on Statesmanship was (according to JSTOR) reviewed four times, in The Sixteenth Century Journal, Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, The Review of Politics, and Renaissance Quarterly. I could go on. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, respectfully, this is a four-line stub. I am not impressed that his books were reviewed and cited. That still does not constitute "significant impact", ideas or thoughts that changed something or contributed greatly to the body of knowledge of the subject. Please explain how he has made significant impact in his field of study, even one idea that has shifted the direction of discussion, even. Drawn Some (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Writing a book that is reviewed in four such notable academic journals is automatically a good reason to assume that the subject's work is deemed to be notable and significant. If it weren't, it wouldn't be reviewed--it's as simple as that. And if that significant number of notable books and citations revealed through Google Books and Google Scholar doesn't convince, and if a regular News search doesn't convince you, then I guess I have little more to add and we'll just have to agree to disagree on what it means to have an impact as a scholar. Go through the News search until you get to (I added wikilinks) "University of St. Thomas School of Law dedicates statue of St. Thomas..." That article says, "The dedication included remarks by Dr. Gerard Wegemer, director of the Center for St. Thomas More Studies at the University of Dallas and one of the pre-eminent scholars on St. Thomas More. Mengler presented Wegemer with the school's Dignitatis Humanae Award, presented annually to an individual whose professional career is a model of the integration of faith and ethics into professional identity."

I might note also that the condition of the article has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the subject; a four-sentence stub simply means it's not finished. In fact, I'm going to add the award to the article, and perhaps other editors will be more convinced than you are. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

An award for "integrating faith and ethics into professional identity" is no indication of "significant impact" in a field of study. It means he is a well-liked professor. I do understand that the state of an article does not indicate notability but in this case it appears that the size of the article and the lack of any meaningful discussion of his contributions to the field are correlated. I would like to reiterate that having a book reviewed does not indicate that it makes a "significant contribution" to a field. I still would like to see just one idea that he has contributed that has changed the direction of discourse or even multiple small ideas or thoughts that have substantially added to the body of knowledge. I just don't see anything. Drawn Some (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not what that means. He teaches in Dallas and got the award in Minnesota, and not for his teaching. I don't think you know what it means if your book is reviewed by four journals of that caliber, and I'll leave it at that. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Your line of reasoning is quite circular and false: His book was reviewed so it was important because if weren't important it wouldn't have been reviewed. The guidelines are quite clear regarding significant impact. Do you have a personal or professional relationship with Wegemer? Drawn Some (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I would remind you of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry that you've taken offense and apologize for questioning your motivation. I've made my point about not meeting WP:PROFESSOR and won't comment again unless new information comes to light to change my opinion on the matter. Drawn Some (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Though he's a full professor, its notat a major research university, so it raises no presumption of notability: we need to look at his work. What usually makes professors in the humanities notable is writing books, which shows their notability as authorities within the subject. The books need to be from scholarly publishers and get reviews, and the journal articles must be widely cited. By no means all professors write 4 books; the average in the humanities is closer to 1, & 2 is enough for tenure at even the highest quality universities. I fail to see what is circular about reviews, because only the significant books get reviewed at all; 4 reviews for a book is quite a high level in the academic world. Reviews and citations prove the importance of books Besides the books, he has 10 articles. I note the citation information above. This many publications is enough for notability. He's clearly an authority on More, thus meetingthe first criterion in WP:PROF. Publishing "an idea that he has contributed that has changed the direction of discourse" is not the standard, and a good thing too, because we're not qualified to judge that. We are, however, qualified to check on reviews and references: that's what we mean by significant impact The people who judge the quality of the work are the peer-reviewers for the scholarly publishers. We accept their standards. DGG (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with DGG's findings. 7 to 10 articles are good enough.

--Saynara (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Satisfied that he meets WP:PROF per his publishing history and citation thereof. Maralia (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be low. Most widely held book in libraries, 'currently in less than 60 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. By comparison, a book by Richard Marius on Thomas More is in more than 2,000 libraries worldwide. In fact, I was able to find more than 10 books on Thomas More in about 1,000 libraries or more, according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. I agree with the nom that being a Prof and writing books is not automatically sufficient, but these books seemed to have been reviewed enough for me to consider that overall his work reaches "significant" impact.YobMod 10:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Borderline delete and I could be convinced to keep but not with current sourced material. The criteria for academic notability are high for a reason. If every published prof met the criteria it would render notability meaningless.Johndowning (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
normal publication level for a tenured faculty member in the humanities at the very best universities is 2 books. He has more. the criteria for academic notability are high, and he meets them. DGG (talk) 02:44, 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 Keep Marasmusine (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non notable video game article that cites no sources or external links whatsoever. HJMitchell You rang? 18:32, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Pablo Gomez-Marttila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on a football player with no assertion of notability. HJMitchell You rang? 18:30, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete this stub on an Indian surname has gone through many attempts to be an article, all without success, many versions in the history, but alas none of them showing an iota of notability and wholly bereft of sources. There is just no indication that this surname is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Apparently a non-notable neologism? A search of Google for "Common Stock Line of Credit" revealed three results. One was this article, and the others were where two sentences bumped up next to each other. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete unref'd blp of a beauty contest loser, not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Iowateen (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I'd rather look at the bright side and consider her a winner of Miss Kentucky, rather than a loser on Miss USA, there's simply not enough information for even a reasonable stub. Anyone who wishes to create an article would write that first, so nothing is really lost. A bio article needs basic biographic details. = Mgm| 12:35, 5 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 merge to Texas A & M University. –Juliancolton |  21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Texas A&M Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails WP:CORP and WP:N. The subject is a foundation that raises money for Texas A&M University, but very little information exists about this topic in independent reliable sources. What sources are cited in the article are either to very local newspapers or to the university or the foundation itself. The foundation just isn't notable separately from the university, and it needs no more than a very brief mention in the university article (which is already there). Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: The primary author of this article self-identified as being an employee of the foundation. I gave guidance on his/her talk page as to what should be included in such an article, and when no further improvements have been forthcoming after months (and I couldn't find any better sources), I decided to nominate for deletion. Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any information worth merging. The Foundation had already been mentioned in the university article before this was created.Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • keep This will recur as an issue, because all public universities nocw have some such parallel organization--which is gradually becoming responsible for a very substantial amount of the total funding. assuch they are a very major factor in the functioning of the university. Sources are a problem, but reliable primary sources on the operation of such foundations are always available. DGG (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't a subject need secondary sources to meet the notability requirements? —Emufarmers 02:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You are referring to the General Notability Guideline, which is just a default guideline, called a guideline because it's just a guide, not a limit. One expects there to be many exceptions. The only actual policy requirement is WP:V & the foundations IRA tax report is a reliable source, because it's audited. DGG (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with the university article. The foundation doesn't have the coverage to establish independent notability for a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect. The activities of the organization are tightly linked to the university. Until such time as (a) the content required for reasonable coverage exceeds the amount that can be comfortably held in the main article; or (b) the foundation becomes independently notable (for this sort of organization, this happens mainly by negative events—compensation disputes with fund managers, huge losses / lawsuits—but is not unheard of), it should not have its own article. Bongomatic 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge, with redirect. Will be better for readers to have the information in the uni article, rather than in a stub that is unlikely to grow. Can be spun out from the university if sources appear that make it large enough to be warranted.YobMod 08:48, 7 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 speedy delete. Per A7. Might have existed but certainly has no claims of importance or significance whatsoever. SoWhy 09:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete no sources, no indication that this writer is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

List of broken election promises (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Compare Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of broken election promises (United States). Unencyclopedic, OR, POV, etc. KuyaBriBri 18:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per my reasoning with the United States version. (Never can be NPOV)--Unionhawk 18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment My main issue with this is the sheer volume of items such a list would contain, as it involves nearly every provincial and federal campaign promise and budget right back to Confederation and before into colonial times. Political articles are inherently POV to start with, as with history; but there are grounds to consider a line-cited list of particulars, and there's lots of sources for that (journalism as well as opposition/rival party analyses). Some facts just inherently are POV, or have a POV effect. It's like any list of scandals, which are in the eye of the beholder; but when the beholder is the public, and the major media, theyr'e certifiable realities, POV or not. It's not a matter of partisanship, or doesn't have to be; it can be a straightforward list; Trudeau said "no wage and price controls" and wham bam we had wage and price controls in his next term; Mulroney said "no free trade" and what we got was the FTA. Chretien said "end the GST" and we got the GST". here in BC, Campbell said he wouldnt' seel BC Rail or BC Hydro, and that's exactly what he did. Listing facts which have negative impacts on the perceptions of those who committed them is not POV; it's partisan selection, or partisan commentary, that would be. I say Strong Keep, though I think separate lists shoudl be made for each province/territory and the federal government (omitting cities except maybe the biggest ones). And if an effort is made to encompass the whole history of them, not just the recent/modern ones. Another potential list of this kind is "List of XXX party donators who receieved government contracts", which again sounds POV in nature but is really a matter-of-fact assemblage of facts (also easily sourceable via journalism).Skookum1 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • And not Original Research, either, as the journalistic sources have doen all the research; and the rest is on-line courtesy of disclosure laws.Skookum1 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Entirely dependent on one's PoV in both editing and reading. As it stands, it seems to be entirely focused on transgressions of the Liberal party, and so should be considered suspect. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Burn it with fire. "Broken campaign promises" is empty political rhetoric, and this is going to attract a pile of trivial complaints that someone, somewhere called a broken promise. This is a magnet for POV lint, and if any of these topics are worth mentioning, they're already mentioned in the articles on the party, campaign, politican, bill, etc. No, no, no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - totally unencyclopedic for the reasons identified by the above editors. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR shirulashem (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete like the US variant. THis can't be verified without breaking policy. - Mgm| 12:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete + salt - unmaintainable and POV. Exit2DOS2000 06:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable, and any charge of "breaking promises" can always have alternate POVs explaining why it isn't a broken promise.YobMod 08:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Hopelessly subjective and unmaintainable. CJCurrie (talk) 23:14, 7 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Stewart (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN: a local school board member never elected to larger office. Current version stubbed from an attack page with extensive unreliable sources. Remaining paragraph is reliably sourced but sub-notable. Durova 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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 keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton |  21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Double Rainbow: The Music of Antonio Carlos Jobim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

totally unreferenced article on a seemingly non notable album. Google search throws up nothing substantial- blogs, shopping sites and download sites but nothing reliable. The level of detail is too deep for an encyclopaedia- it might be worthy of a small section in the artist's article but not in its own right. HJMitchell You rang? 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep The album features 5 famous, notable jazz musicians, a lot more than many other album articles. Tribute album to notable brazilian composer.Cosprings (talk) 20:45, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fringe theory disguised as biography, "sourced" from apparently inaccessible works; the author of the article is apparently its subject. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 4 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 keep. As noted by several contributors, disagreeing with the content of an article is not a valid argument for deletion, and all arguments to that effect are discounted. If the content is deficient, please fix it by improving the article. AfD is not a forum for settling disputes about how Soviet or Baltic history should be presented in Knowledge (XXG).  Sandstein  18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Baltic_states_and_the_Soviet_Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (])

(1) The article was started last night by merely copying and pasting part of the text of the article Occupation of the Baltic States, in an attempted move done without consensus (and concurrent with the re-titling of the latter article).
(2) Most importantly, an article purporting to start on the history of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union that oddly begins 4 years after the official 1940 annexations of the Lithuanian SSR, Estonian SSR and Latvian SSR by the Soviet Union makes absolutely zero sense. Both from a historical perspective and from the imposition of an artificial temporal partitiion.
(3) Moreover, the title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" would be highly inaccurate even if no invasion occurred: the Baltic States and the Soviet Union existed as separate entities for nearly two decades (1922-1939, before the beginnings of the Soviet invasion), and were also separated during the 1941-1944 German occupation, yet that's not in this article titled "The Baltic States and the Soviet Union", which clearly does not cover the topic purported by its title. This would be akin to starting an article titled "France and Germany", and beginning in 1943 without including any mention of the decades of pre-1943 relations between the countries (or even World War II from 1940-1942).
(4) In an I would assume unintended (but amusing) POV twist, the first line of the article cites Dado Muriyev: "In 1944 the Soviet Union reoccupied the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as part of the Baltic Offensive in 1944, a twofold military-political operation designed to rout Nazi German forces and liberate "the Soviet Baltic peoples".
(5) In fact, the basis for the invasion, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not mentioned a single time in non-footnote text.
(6) Indeed, even the official 1940 forced annexation following the Red Army invasion and parliament replacements have been left out of the Baltic states and the Soviet Union article. The only mention is the re-invasion in 1944, which begins 5 years after the Baltic States and Soviet Union began military interactions (1939 Red Army actions) and 4 years after their annexation by the Soviet Union.
(7) The reason for this historical disconnect and effectively nonsensical temporal partitiioning is that it is essentially a partial copy and paste job from Occupation of the Baltic States, which included the entire history of the 1940 annexation of the Baltic SSRs and beyond. This is why that material was contained in one article -- the events are inseparable both legally and effectively factually. Picking up 4 years later makes absolutely zero sense.
(8) Consensus should have been achieved before such a major move was attempted.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep pending conclusion of larger issues currently under discussion. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as per WP:Speedy keep#Applicability reason 2.2 "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption" and 2.4 "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course." John Carter (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per John Carter. This is a split from the article Occupation of the Baltic states which is aimed to present the Soviet and Nazi occupations of the Baltic states as something equal. These both occupations were different, unrelated and both deserve its own article. Besides this the title Baltic states and the Soviet Union is more neutral since the status of the states after WWII until the dissolution of the USSR was disputed. We clearly need an article solely on this political controversy, without comparing with the Nazi occupation.--Dojarca (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep on grounds of scope. The original article covered a 60-year period that included WWII events in three states. There were very complex, shifting battles and alliances with their extremely powerful neighbors during the war. If the split articles were expanded, as they definitely could be, they would exceed comfortable reading/editing limits. A fair amount of overlap could be kept. Novickas (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as per User:John Carter. Additionally, it is an NPOV title. It needs to be noted that the Annexation/Incorporation/Occupation of these countries is a disputed piece of history, and there are a multitude of opinions for and against in relation to the annexation/incorporation/occupation. By keep it at the title at this AfD, it is neutral, and doesn't purport to take one side in the debate or not. The rest is a matter for cleanup and expansion. Russavia 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. A fork with no current or foreseen purpose. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, the repeatedly stated purpose of the article, of which the above editor is aware, is that the prior article was both overlong and in rather poor shape. There had been considerable discussion of that purpose, and, considering the above editor took part in that discussion, I assumed he actually was paying attention to what was being said. Evidently, I am wrong in that. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, the repeatedly proposed split has not reached any consensus on the talk page of Occupation of Baltic states --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - True. However, there is more than just cause to believe consensus is not required when one is dealing with what could reasonably be seen as a blatant violation of NPOV, and it had been stated by more than one party that even the previous title made it clear that the article was far from in adherence with that most basic of wikipedia policies. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject of this article is totally unclear. One would think this is an article about international relations between the Soviet Union and Baltic States before the annexation in 1939.Biophys (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Vagueness of topic is rarely if ever grounds for deletion, unless the subject is far too vague for there to ever be a reasonable article. It should also be noted that the article is one of a set including Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II. Given the fact that more than one article already exists dealing with this subject, I have every reason to believe that it will be fairly easy to work out what content goes into which article, and how the articles should be named. Also, as the above editor seems to be primarily objecting to the article's title, it would be fairly easy to suggest alternative titles. I cannot see how it makes more sense to propose deletion than to try to change the title to make the subject a bit clearer. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It was created in such hurry that even title is ridiculous. Since this is basically "copy and paste", it would be better to delete to allow people calm down, and then perhaps create something different on a more meaningful subject. My point was not the title but the subject.Biophys (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed the easy solution elsewhere, which includes returning the occupation article to events of the original scope of time. PetersV TALK 14:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
After recent edits the article has become an umbrella article covering the Estonia–Russia relations&Latvia–Russia relations&Lithuania–Russia relations during the era of Soviet Union. Things make much more sense now and I don't see any problems Keeping it.--Termer (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Just so we're clear for the benefit of others, that is that this article is now regarding Baltic-Soviet relations for their duration, starting with inception with Bolshevist Russia (which, I may add, the Baltic States were the first to recognize de jure). PetersV TALK 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Peltimikko (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, according to nominator's arguments 1-3 and 5-8. (I can not support argument 4 at this time, because I do not understand its full relevance.) I would also point out that the article's scope is unclear as it potentially spans almost a century timewise and many different forms of relations widthwise. Finally, I'm taking this chance to commend Mosedschurte for excellent presentation of his arguments. All AFD nominators would do best to emulate this approach. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Soviet Union or to something similar article. Several points:
  • in principle article should cover Baltic states occupation and annexation topic in post WWII time, rather clear and relatively narrow scope. However the title "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" already implies very broad scope of article starting from dams construction projects ending with daily life of people, topics, which has almost nothing to do with occupation and annexation questions.
  • at this point this article is the fork of Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II, made after controversial and on sided actions on behalf of one involved party.
  • if editors will find a time and write a proper article reflecting the name "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" redirect always can be converted to article's name. M.K. (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • COMMENT ON WHY MANY OF THE PROBLEMS NO LONGER EXIST The reason that many of the problem(s) are no longer apparent in Baltic states and the Soviet Union is that I edited the article yesterday to reflect it's title -- i.e., "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" from the 1920s to 1991 -- as well as putting it in chron order, adding see tags to articles where duped text existed, etc.
Very well and cheers on that. Being WP:BOLD is a preferred WP method of conflict solving. /♥фĩłдωəß♥\ 11:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Before, according to the article's creator when he split off parts of Occupation of the Baltic States to create the article, "Baltic states and the Soviet Union" purported to address only post-1944 issues, despite its title. It also did so in duplication with the main longstanding article on the topic, Occupation of the Baltic States. The same editor also had changed the title of that article to "Occupation of the Baltic States in World War II", and then protected his own change (he's an admin) setting of a firestorm of protest yesterday.
I don't wish to engage in recriminations, accusations, et. al. about that move here. I don't believe that it was done in bad faith. The other article's name change remains today after another admin froze all changes to the article to stop edit warring that followed.
For the record, I think it should still be deleted, but if it remained, it does serve a purpose now as the primary article regarding the rather extensive 1920s to mid-1930s relations. However, those provisions also exist in Occupation of the Baltic States, and there was never, in actuality, any need for a split in the first place.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • comment The opposition to this article-- and the related discussions--seems to be political. One side of it says that the occupation of these countries by the Russians and by the Germans was similar and part of the fundamentally same process, and the other says that it was sufficiently distinct to be appropriate for separate articles. Now, obviously they were historically connected, but so was much else. I see it schematically as whether the occupation by the soviets in 1940-1 is to be associated with the Nazi occupation of 41-44, or the later soviet incorporation of 44- 91. Perhaps there should be three articles, not just two, DGG (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It was a continuum of occupying regimes, each using the others' atrocities for their propaganda. There was no period of non-occupation. It is about the Soviet occupation and the SSRs, interrupted by the Nazi invasion and occupation (and their own act of annexation). There are detailed articles on the individual countries and occupations, the one article, now two, regarding the Baltic States are the parent article, so no need to split further here. There is no Baltic-Nazi relations issue as Germany does not maintain it liberated the Baltics from the Soviets (although it certainly felt that way to those that had lived through a year of Soviet occupation). PetersV TALK 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per the first two comments on the very top. Deletion is not the be used as a way of dispute resolution. (Try WP:MRFD until the split has consensus.- Mgm| 12:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Occupations of whole countries are notable enough to have their own article AND a parent article covering all of them together for a given country. Seems there should be 3 articles: one overall, one for soviet occupation, one for Nazi occupation. Daughter articles that can be expanded to cover a subject in depth are not content forks (even if they start out as a copy/paste).YobMod 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment The hierarchy is 1 x occupation Baltics -> 3 x occupation by individual country -> 6 x occupation by individual country by separate powers (3 countries x 2 powers) PetersV TALK 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Whether the Soviet fabrication of history (no occupation) or not tale of history, there is nothing that occurs at the end of WWII that changes the nature of the Soviet presence from 1940 onwards. The split as originally created contended there was, i.e., occupation until end of WWII and open to genuine interpretation after WWII. That split was totally inappropriate--the only thing the facts and Soviet propaganda agree on--hence the impetus for the deletion nomination here. Subsequent editing to make the article about the ENTIRE Baltic-Soviet relationship outside the EVENTS of the occupation have improved circumstances, however, the editor creating the split has, as far as I can tell, not embraced that WP:BOLD rearrangement (which returns the original occupation article to span 1940 to 1991, Soviet, Nazi, and Soviet (re-) occupation). PetersV TALK 14:44, 7 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang in there, Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable subject. Whereas there are many copies of this poster available for purchase, there is little to no commentary on said poster in reliable, second-party sources. Also no editor has shown interest in improving this page since it was stubbed in over a year ago. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, the phrase "Hang in there, Baby" predates the poster. Very, very few of these news hits are referring to the poster, but rather using phrase itself which is in common usage. The article has also had a prior discussion on its deletion just after it was created, hence the second nomination. As there has been no additional work on the article since the stubbing, and only one article has linked to it in the previous year I thought the subject worthy of discussion again. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
So in your opinion the phrase, which you said "is in common usage", is not notable either? I don't see a prior AFD for this article in the article history or in a search of AFDs *or* VFDs. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hang in there, Baby and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hang in there, baby and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hang in there baby are all redlinks, and I see nothing in the deletion log. There are no VFDs for articles that begin with the word "hang" and for AFDs for articles that begin with "hang", only one contains the word "baby" in the title, this AFD. Now, this article has been tagged with the {{prod}} template twice (incorrectly). Where's the supposed first AFD? --Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 3 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 merged with Cagayan de Oro City by Drawn Some (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri 18:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Media of Cagayan de Oro City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

By WP:PROD and WP:NOTDIR. Article is orphaned, and besides, the list does not assert notability to require a separate article. Xeltran (talk) 15:25, 1 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China – Paraguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

any useful information can be redirected here Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_China#Relations_with_Paraguay. the article's statement about Chinese immigrants may be from mainland China not Taiwan. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because all these articles are identically crappy. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
it's not PRC it's Taiwan. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I've expanded the article a bit. For those interested in the matter, there is a whole chapter in Marks' book (see references) on the relations between the two countries during Wang Sheng's ambassadorship. (Unfortunately, many pages from that chapter can't be viewed on Google Books, so you'd have to get to a good library to read it its entirety...) Vmenkov (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Vmenkov great work. Once again, it is shown for a bilateral relations article that a dedicated attempt at finding sources allows expansion beyond stub level. I used to agree that these were generally non-notable, but so many AfDs with so little effort at finding sources has convinced me to give all of these the benefit of the doubt.YobMod 09:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • An informative and well-sourced article. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep; the development of the article demonstrates that this is a notable topic. Smile a While (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice rescue work. The fact that Paraguay is one of few recognisers of RoC, and has regularly pushed for it to join the UN is certainly notable. Fences and windows (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Er. Ikip, does you having a discussion with about four other editors constitute a project-wide consensus? No. Hold your horses. Fences and windows (talk) 20:44, 11 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 Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Shane Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment: I don't know what the deleted version looked like, but if nom is correct that this is substantially the same, I think this should be CSD'd as G4. KuyaBriBri 18:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and Salt not notable.--Unionhawk 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has changed significantly since its deletion in 2007, with multiple sources and expansion, showing notability as a pundit and blogger. I am concerned that delete voters here don't seem to have even checked the article history (or even read the article?), let alone looked for sources.YobMod 09:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Apologies for screwing up AfD process and not being clear that it is the fact that it is non-notable which has not changed, rather than the article. Clearly, it's a vanity article. Having had a few articles published doesn't make you notable. Having a not-well-known blog doesn't make you notable. Working for a comically-small, unheard-of magazine doesn't make you notable. In what universe is this man notable!? Pistachiones (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral Delete. I removed one "source" on Samizdata, certainly not an RS. Linking to appearances as a pundit or passing mentions doesn't add up to notability. I think he's on the verge of being notable, thanks to the way that the media and politics works in the UK; he's buddies with Iain Dale, ran this Tory training thing: and presented on 18 Doughty Street, a now defunct internet telly channel. Being executive editor of a magazine that caused MPs to start an EDM in protest is probably more infamy than notability. Someone with some enthusiasm for the subject might try some better sourcing, I couldn't come up with anything good. Fences and windows (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Quickly, to go over the for politicians, there's no category for unelected appartchiks. We deleted the entry for , and the training thing itself (YBF). As a journalist, he falls comically short of meeting the criteria.
"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."

Knowledge (XXG) doesn't list the "executive editors" for serious, big-circulation publications, let alone "Total Politics"! Pistachiones (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. Fences and windows (talk) 21:01, 11 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 speedy keep . Nominator is requesting cleanup, not deletion, and no one has advocated a delete position. AfD is not the forum for this (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The article's subject appears to be notable, but the article as written is very far from meeting Knowledge (XXG)'s content guidelines. It appears to be more of a fan writeup than an encyclopedia entry. It also appears to be almost entirely written by anonymous/IP editors. I'd suggest the article be heavily truncated, preserving little more than the lead section. Pete (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong KeepI disagree immensely with these sentiments. I do not think this article meets any criteria for deletion at all. Because someone has issues with certain parts of the article, is a very bad reason to recommend something for deletion. If there is a problem of it being more of a fan writeup, then there should be a neutrality marker, not a deletion marker. If this is the case, then people should band together to edit it better. However, this is not the case, and I feel that this is a well written and encyclopedic article, and I have no problems with the style. It is foolish and frivolous to me that this article about a famous Tony Award winning musical, which is not an attack page, or in a foreign language, or copyright violation. Maybe there is a copyright violation I am aware with, but otherwise, I find no basis for this article to be deleted at all. The reasons for nomination are based on things that should not lead to a deletion, and furthermore are not present in the article. 129.64.213.33 (talk) 06:47, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Squeak Plugin For DoubleArray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant violation of WP:NOTGUIDE CultureDrone (talk) 12:11, 1 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 keep. ffm 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

280 North, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable company. Reads like an advertisement. HJMitchell You rang? 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Splisson's only edit. Fences and windows (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The existence of other Knowledge (XXG) pages is irrelevant. They are poorly sourced. However, the company has coverage from Ars Technica, here:. Also see . And their Atlas software seems to be setting the tech blogosphere on fire as a possible "killer app". Fences and windows (talk) 03:08, 11 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  21:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:BIO holds that biographies should be about individuals who are part of the "enduring historical record" in their field, and it gives examples of "multiple history books" or "multiple news feature articles." This article does not cite a single news article of which Long is the subject; all of its sources are company profiles that mention Long and the job he performed. By all accounts, this person is not historically significant, and this page bears all the hallmarks of a vanity exercise or promotional material. Croctotheface (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Part of the "enduring historical record" is listed, but the basic criteria further up the page are far less strict. - Mgm| 12:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right; I went through the guideline quickly and misread it. That said, Long does not pass the "significant coverage" standard either, based on what's cited at the article. The closest I see to an article about Long is a company profile that mentions him as the CEO. Croctotheface (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The subject of this article, while not one of the most easily recognized figures outside of silicon valley, did help bring about the IPO's of some of the more important businesses to come out of silicon valley. Many people recognize sites like WebMD and Mike Long helped bring WebMD and others to fruition, and really helped pioneer the idea of an IPO for companies offering web-based alternatives to keeping physical records. I think many people today would recognize that it is businesses that do just that are going to be very important in the future. JazMan456 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
I think there's a serious concern about whether User:JazMan456, along with User:Hoboqueen7, the only editors who have contributed to the Mike Long articles, are single-purpose accounts who are perhaps members of Long's PR team or family or something to that effect. Croctotheface (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at their contribs, I've no doubt they are SPAs. Harder to prove they're family or employees - or himself in person - without a sockpuppet investigation. They do seem to know their way around. Incidentally, a comment by JazMan456 here seems to be signed as by Mgm for some reason. Could just be me misreading things. Time for tea. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 5 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Mr. Mathewson is a 21-year-old student and amateur actor/comic. Although some of the groups he has been in may be notable, there's nothing in this article to indicate that he himself meets the standards of WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Frank  |  talk  17:19, 4 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 keep. No consensus to delete. Weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target. That can be discussed on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Horizontal boring machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

completely unreferenced essay on a piece of technology that may or may not be notable but it's impossible to tell due to the lack of ] links, WP:RS and the essay format of the article. HJMitchell You rang? 16:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect hmmm, has anybody worked out that there would never be a machine called a horizontal boring machine, or is this article just POV? A bloke called AndrewMy Messies 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

comment - Horizontal drilling already redirs to Directional drilling so merges seem to not be uncommon here. Exit2DOS2000 07:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I Agree the Topic is notable, but the fact that this article is about a single direction of boring does not make it Independently notable from the overall topic of Boring. merge. Exit2DOS2000 10:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Being a stub is not a reason to delete. Maybe a reason to merge, but it seems this is a stub that can expand, per User:Colonel Warden's sources. Doesn't really matter if it expands as a seperate article or a section in a parent article.YobMod 09:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG but not Colonel Warden. Merge would also be fine, but there is sufficient source material that a spinout would be needed eventually anyway. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 15:31, 7 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  00:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable; passing mentions in articles but no reliable source to assert notability. Was unable to locate any significant articles in Google news search etc.  Chzz  ►  07:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that first source is a 404 page in Chinese. The second is not much more than trivial if it isn't trivial. I don't believe it establishes notability. Regardless, several reliable sources are needed to establish that the subject of an article is notable and then the information in the article still has to be verifiable through reliable references. Drawn Some (talk) 16:42, 4 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 Emir Kusturica. As the amount of references is limited, I am leaving it up to editors how much (if anything) they wish to merge there. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seven Friends of Pancho Villa and the Woman with Six Fingers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by author. Article about a film that explicitly claims filming has not yet begun, thereby failing WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. No prejudice to re-addition of this article once notability criteria are met. KuyaBriBri 16:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Aside from the general rule about the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this "otherstuff" argument fails in that there was never any doubt that the Harry Potter film series would be completed, whereas there is still some decent possibility that this particular film project may never get off the ground. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to note that I take no personal offense in this. After all, I am probably dealing with experienced administrators who deal with this kind of thing on a daily basis. However, I want to kindly ask WikiDan61 to substantiate his claims that there is any possibility at all that this film may actually never be made, to elaborate why does he present such an opinion. --7PanchoVilla (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Response I note the possibility that the film may not be made because ANY film is only a possibility until all the players are in place and filming actually starts (and sometimes even THEN the film gets shot but never distributed). This happens to large and small projects all the time. That is why the WP:NFF guidelines suggest waiting until principal shooting has begun. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd have to take some issue with categorizing Kusturica as "super-famous", but I do agree that the new source that have been cited merit consideration. However, as the film is still in the speculative stages, I would suggest merging this article with the Emir Kusturica article for now. The article can be recreated when the project has gelled more. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Kusturica is one of six directors to win two Palme d'Or (and was nominated for it an additional three times), he won a Silver Bear, a Golden Lion, a Silver Lion, countless prizes at the Yugoslavian and Serbian film awards, won awards for best foreign film in France, Japan, Italy, Argentina, nominated for the best foreign film Oscar, nominated for the César Award for Best Supporting Actor, was awarded a European architecture prize, wrote an opera which was presented at the prestigious Opéra Bastille, was involved with the very successful band Zabranjeno Pušenje, was President of the jury in Cannes, is a UNICEF ambassador, a member of the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, the founder and director of the Küstendorf Film Festival. He is super famous. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:40, 5 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember Me (Glenn Lewis album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure this article passes WP:NALBUMS. Although I do realize there is a category for unreleased albums, I cannot find any sources for a track listing or even a list of tracks that were recorded for the album. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:07, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

List of broken election promises (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no sources evident. It is also non-encyclopedic, and lets face it, not even an icecube of the tip of the iceberg. Wikivanda199 (talk) 15:37, 4 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 keep. No consensus to delete, the issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

No opinion here, just creating page for the anonymous user that nominated it. ... discospinster talk 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the anon's rationale posted on the article's talk page: "apparently I can't create the deletion discussion, so here's the reasoning: not enough sourcing, the odd mention of the phrase "pagan metal" here or there doesn't mean anything there needs to be a selection of sources describing a GENRE in detail not just using a phrase. supposed "genre" not supported enough to justify article and it's mostly just original research obviously just something a user made up. users talking all about the genre and so on doesn't add up to anything because it's all original research." Olaf Davis (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for setting this up for my, guys. as I say above, there's no need for the page because it's 90% origial user research and 10% the odd mention of the phrase "pagan metal" (which isn't the same as a genre called "pagan metal") here and there. that's not even enough to justify a section of another page, let alone a whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.192.189 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Should anon IPs have AfD's listed on their behalf? Is it so difficult to register an account? IMO this should be closed now, but a more solid KEEP argument is that AfD is not for cleanup. So what if it's unref'd? That's not justification in itself to delete. Tag it for refs instead of bringing it here. Lugnuts (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's completely up to him as to whether he registers an account or not. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but steps II and III for listing an AfD states that the user must be logged in. Once again, it's one rule for one and one rule for everyone else... ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
actually, if you look at the deletion templete, it says "if you're not registered, lay out your reasons in the talk page and wait for someone else to set it up for you", so nothing wrong there. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
as for the article itself: "so what if it's unref'd?" - it's not about it being "unrefed", it's about the fact that the whole damn article is something someone made up and doesn't have any good sources behind it. there's a difference between something not having enough references and not having any basis at all. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep My search for "pagan metal" and "pagan metal music" came up with this, many of the bands listed here are in that list as well. Could be a legitimate spin-off of the folk/ viking metal genre, but references need a lot of improvement. If nothing can be found, perhaps merging what can be sourced with Folk metal is appropriate. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
metal archives isn't a good source here, it counts for nothing. so there still isn't any solid sourcing for it. merge would suit me just fine, there just doesn't need to be an article on "pagan metal" since there's no such genre. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep--I was ready to go all-out on delete, but to my surprise there are some references, though not many of the "reliable" ones (what's reliable in metal besides Kerrang? and they're not online...) are in English. There are a couple of mentions in German newspapers, and if you cull the "all dates" search in Google News there are a few more somewhat reliable mentions. I do not accept the authority of Metal Archives alone, but together with the references I found in Google News I am swayed toward keep. Oh, the article is full of OR, but it's really not that bad--it just needs User:Blackmetalbaz to come by and fix it--if he believes the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
still not enough. remember that it's not enough to simply find a handful of mentions of the term "pagan metal". you need a good few sources describing the genre in depth. i don't see anything actually talking about the genre, just using it as a term. when do we need a new artlce? when there's enough info (sourced that is) to need a separate page. which "pagan metal" doesn't have. there's no need for a page to itself, because there aren't enough sources actually describing the "genre" and how it's distinct from existing forms. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
First of all, please sign your name so I know who I'm talking to. And you don't have to remind me what WP:GNG says since I have it tattooed on my arm. If you read German, and you had followed my link, you would have quickly found two articles that discuss pagan metal at length. I have since incorporated them into the article; I believe some measure of notability has been established. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
all sigged now, same guy, different comp. please tell me you're just making a bad joke about the tattoo, or else i've found an all-time new low of sadness...
well, i don't read German, nor do i think i can be blamed for that, but i'll take your word on those. however, take another look at it now i've removed everything without a source. not much to this "genre" is there? and what is there? common neo-nazi/pagan views (black metal) and clean vocals. so basically the only thing from a source that makes it different to just another form of black metal is the clean vocals? that's not even close to enough for an article. plus, this is making the assumption that the sources do support the citations AND aren't just using it as a term rather than a genre. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You removed this: "Pagan metal (as distinct from black metal) romanticizes blood, ancestry, and nature, especially in relation to Germanic peoples, though in Eastern Europe, for instance, there are bands influenced by Slavic mythology. This ideology is apparent in outward appearance also--eschewing corpse paint, pagan metal chooses historical costume. The German band Menhir, for instance, dresses in Merovingian costume. Paganism and nationalism unite in pagan metal; according to Heiko, Menhir's lead singer, "only the combination of the mythological with nature and country is the ultimate achievement."" That was sourced content, and I am restoring it. As for those bands you've removed, I looked at one or two and they are listed in their articles as playing this style, so they'll be back--I don't believe there's a requirement that there's a reference for every single one. I added a couple of references because Danzig is unexpected but verified in the Washington Post, and a few more to show you that there are sources. If you can't read German you should be very careful with removing content based on German sources. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
sorry if i removed something that was sourced, without a citation on the end it wasn't clear, and since the source itself is foreign language i can't check myself. so i wasn't knowingly removing sourced content, it just wasn't clear that all that was sourced. all bands would require a source, otherwise any genre added to them is unsourced content, and can be removed. if it's not sourced, it's no different to me adding "brutal death metal" into black sabbath. so the actual band list seems pretty low too.
sure, there are a few more sources now, but there still isn't much discussing the genre in detail, which is the important bit. what does the article currently really say? it has elements of black and folk metal: well this means nothing, as a lot of folk metal already has elements of black metal (finntroll, ensiferum, equilibrium, the list goes on). and that it has lyrics focusing on pagan themes. so basically the only thing that identifies this "genre" is it has pagan lyrics and sounds like folk metal or black metal. so...basically just black or folk metal? there's nothing here to really identify "pagan metal" from folk metal with a pagan theme. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What identifies it as a distinct genre is its description as such in sources. If reliable sources talk about it as if it were distinct we can report it as such, regardless of whether we think the distinction is a useful one or not. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
but the issue isn't whether there exists something that could be called "pagan metal", the issue is whether it justifies it's own article. and the fact is it doesn't, because all you can really say about it is "it's got pagan lyrics". at the very least the opening line should call it a "form" not a "genre", like the article on christian metal. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That's right, verifiability, not truth. We have enough reliable sources in this article that talk about pagan metal as a genre, and that's what matters on Knowledge (XXG). Drmies (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
that's not answering my point. yes, there are sources to talk about pagan metal, but is there enough CONTENT to justify an article? we could have an article on every single little variation of heavy metal music. but we don't, we combine ones that only have a handful of minor sources. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep While fairly new, it does have some recognition as a a distinct entity: , .

oh and another issue: can anyone outline the validity of some of the sources? first one, for example, what makes netzeitung a reliable source? the third one too: why is the culture section writer of "freitag" an authority on heavy metal subgenres? numbers 5, 7, 8 and 10 also all need explanation as to why they're good sources. remember that a source needs to be authoritative on the subject at hand to be used. i'm not saying they can't, i'd just be happier knowing what makes these reliable. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

okay, so that one looks fine. what about the rest? 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If you believe they fail WP:RS, please say on what grounds.—S Marshall /Cont 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
And please don't think something is not notable because it doesn't have a Knowledge (XXG) article. That doesn't work for bands and it doesn't work for newspapers and magazines. If everything on WP were automatically notable, we wouldn't have AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
never said they weren't notable because they didn't have articles. never said they weren't reliable either. in fact, i made it very clear from the off that i WASN'T outright doubting them, just asking for some clarification on why they can be considered authoritative on this subject. which you still haven't provided. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you said it looked fine right after I wrote the article on Netzeitung, and your comment was below mine. I'm not going to explain for every individual publication why I think they are more or less reliable. You, perhaps, should answer S Marshall's valid question. After all, you seem to be the only one who doubts a majority of these sources and what they say (see your comment below). I don't feel that every individual "style" of music deserves its own article, but this one is here, and it's well-sourced, and it's supported by a great majority in this AfD, some of whom, I might add, are well-seasoned, with Bacon salt or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Question I can't read German. Does any of the sources identify pagan metal as a distinct genre from folk metal? This review from Allmusic explicitly identifies the two things as being the same: Pagan or folk-metal, in which pummeling drums and roaring guitars match up with keening flutes and acoustic instruments from various folk cultures, has become one of the fastest-growing subgenres in metal. Emphasis mine. This issue of Revolver identifies Skyclad as the pioneers of pagan metal at p. 44. Etc. The passing mention of Danzig as pagan metal by Washington Post is just that: a passing mention with no elaboration of what pagan metal is supposed to be in that context. I note that the same source describes Danzig's former band as "pagan-punk" too so it certainly seems to be nothing more than an exercise in neologism. Other sources mentioned in the article are for bands that are also known as folk metal: Eluveitie, Equilibrium, Obtest; while Black Messiah as a Viking metal act isn't far removed. Given that people do evidently use the terms folk metal and pagan metal interchangeably, are we simply creating two articles on the same subject? --Bardin (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The German sources do talk specifically about "pagan metal." The article from Freitag, for instance, talks about the folk elements in pagan metal, but never mentions "folk metal." The article in Netzeitung discusses pagan metal quite specifically, and doesn't mention the word "folk" or the term "folk metal." That Allmusic would equate them, sure--it remains a small distinction (compared to the difference between string quartet and orchestra, but apparently it is one with a difference, esp. in the European sources.

      As for Danzig, that's a different matter and, as I mentioned on the talk page (I think that's where it is...), should probably be addressed with a sentence or two. Maybe it should be taken out--but since the guy writing for the Post mentions the term in three different articles, it's not that easily discarded, in my opinion, and I am unwilling to do so at this time.

      Your questions are valid--and if you'll look above, you'll see that I was skeptical too, esp. given the state of the article earlier on. But these very valid German sources convince me, even though I feel silly writing a serious article on grown men who dress up in Merovingian costume to play deafening music. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

      • If the Freitag article talks about folk elements in pagan metal, then is it not reasonable to conclude that they are actually using the term pagan metal as a substitute for folk metal? People writing articles do not necessarily list out all the different terms by which something might be known as. There are articles about "melodic death metal" and there are articles about "that gothenburg sound" but we do not create different articles for the two because they obviously are the same thing. The review on Allmusic that I provided is quite clear about folk metal and pagan metal being the same thing; there's no distinction there whatsoever, not even a small one. Perhaps the German press simply prefers to use the term "pagan metal" to refer to that which the English press refers to as "folk metal". Would the meaning of these article actually change if we substitute the folk metal for every instance of pagan metal? Given that the bands identified as pagan metal are generally also folk or viking metal acts, is there any evidence from these German articles that they are actually referring to something distinct from folk metal? There is a reason, after all, why pagan metal was a redirect to folk metal before this article was re-created.
      • As for Danzig, the repeated usage of the same term by the same journalist across three articles does not alter the probability that the usage is nothing more than a neologism, given the entire absence of any explanation of what "pagan metal" or "pagan punk" is supposed to be, as well as the absence of any relationship being drawn up between Danzig and other so-called pagan metal acts. Neologisms are not uncommon in newspapers. Danzig has also been identified as a Satanic metal act too by several mainstream publications but we aren't going to create a wikipedia article on Satanic metal, are we? At least Danzig has been referred to as Satanic metal by several different publications while the pagan metal term has only been used by one journalist in the same publication. Danzig has also been identified as gothic metal, death metal, doom metal, industrial metal, extreme metal, dark metal, etc. There certainly does not appear to be any sort of consensus as to what sort of music Danzig performs so one lonely journalist describing Danzig as pagan metal is far from convincing here. --Bardin (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thank you Bardin, all quite right. there's nothing given to really distinguish "pagan metal" from folk or viking metal (both of which have strong ties to black metal and one another anyway). what this article would really seem to say is simply "some metal bands, mainly folk ones (which connects with black metal and viking metal) have pagan lyrics". and that's not a genre, nor do we need an article to say that. what would be wrong with simply have a small sub-section of the folk metal article mentioning how some journalists use the term "pagan metal", describing those folk metal bands with explictly pagan lyrical themes? in other words, as i've repeatedly said: why do we need this article? why do we need an article on every single little "-metal" term the media uses? 86.138.90.54 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The folk metal article already does mention that some bands prefer to be known as pagan metal instead of folk metal. With the review from Allmusic, I can probably go further than that and starts the article with "folk metal or pagan metal", though I think I'd rather wait for this AFD to be resolved first. --Bardin (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Not my style of music, but the article seems well written, and plenty of references. Many are in German (and Swiss-German), but Google Translation makes a reasonable job, so one can verify the references are appropiate.  Ronhjones  18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
bardin's point is a large part of what i'm saying: i'm not doubting there are some sources that use the term pagan metal. but the point i've been trying to make is: why does this need it's own article? so far all this article really says is "there are some metal bands that have pagan (sometimes neo-nazi) lyrics, usually folk, viking or black metal". there aren't any other distinct musical characteristics to this "genre", so why is there a need for an article? why not simply note in the folk/viking/black metal pages that there are distinct pagan forms? just like, for example, how we don't have a seperate article for every "progressive metal" form out there. why does this NEED it's own article? 86.138.90.54 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No Knowledge (XXG) article is necessary. Jimbo Wales doesn't need his own article when he could be merged to List of notable Wikipedians. Barack Obama doesn't need his own article when he could be merged to List of US presidents. Dinosaur doesn't need its own article when it could be merged to List of extinct creatures.

The question for us to decide isn't whether the article is necessary, but whether it meets core policies (the usual ones at AfD are WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:V and WP:RS) and important guidelines (at AfD, WP:N is often cited).

This does. QED.—S Marshall /Cont 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

i feel you're missing my point. ask the question: why DOES Obama have his own article? because there's too much information on him to contain within the list of presidents. if we included all that info there, the page would just be unmanagable. yes, the basic term "pagan metal" meets the criteria for noting, because it gets mentioned in sources. but the question is does it meet the criteria for having it's own article, i.e. being distinct from existing genres, or having sufficiently detailed info within said sources to justify separating it out from other things. something like, say, thrash metal has a lot of sources that talk about it as something distinct, and talk about it in a lot of detail, so it needs it's own article. something like canadian thrash metal doesn't need an article because there wouldn't be much content. as is the case here. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The following is a later reply, but inserted here since I am directly addressing 86.138.90.54's last remark.

Well, we don't merge or redirect an article just because it's short. Knowledge (XXG) has stubs for a reason.

We might merge an article if it was short and it could never be expanded. But in this case, I think that encyclopaedic content could be added.

What distinguishes pagan metal from other forms are certain lyrical themes and theatrical motifs concerned with these bands' (perhaps rather inaccurate) conception of what it means to be pagan, and I think there could be room to expand the article on this basis.

I'm totally uninterested in writing such an article myself, but I think the key point is that someone could write a longer article out of this.—S Marshall /Cont 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, leave dinosaur out of it. My daughter just got a dinosaur, and if I tell her it's to be merged there'll be hell to pay. Besides that, S Marshall is right, of course. I may add that while Bardin's comments in general may be valid, they are predicated on the interchangeability in the references cited in the articles of folk and pagan metal, and I don't believe that they are discussed, even used, in those articles as synonyms. Bardin, you said, "is it not reasonable to conclude that they are actually using the term pagan metal as a substitute for folk metal?" I say no--I will give them that much credit, given the sophistication and knowledge displayed in the article. Since you don't read German, you can take my word for it or not, but that's how I read the article. Again, as a disclaimer, I came here ready to delete and I actually found that source and added it. I do note that the biggest nay-saying IP here does not read German, and I must doubt their capability of evaluating sources that are written in a language they can't read, and that IP has been deleting content referenced to German sources. Is that diplomatic enough? Now, dear S Marshall, stay away from this since you have bigger fish to fry--there's a Had had had had had had had had had had had article waiting to be merged somewhere! ;) Drmies (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you have not quite understood my point. I'm not questioning the reliability, sophistication or knowledge of Freitag. I'm questioning your interpretation of their use of pagan metal as something distinct from folk metal. We have evidence that people uses the term pagan metal and folk metal to refer to the same thing. I have not seen evidence that these German articles use the term pagan metal as anything distinct from folk metal. All you're telling me here, drmies, is "trust me". I'm sorry but that's not good enough. Bear in mind that I have yet to actually voice my opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. My mind is still open here. I've taken a look at each of those German articles with the help of google translation and I could not find anything that distinguishes pagan metal from folk metal. The wiki article does not help either: the bands play at the same festival, attract the same criticism of neo-nazi symbolism, use folk instruments and sing about mythology, history and paganism. Where's the distinction between pagan and folk metal here? I can list out the unique pieces of information in the pagan metal article that is not already in the folk metal article. 1. the uncited info about In The Woods being one of the first bands to be classied as pagan metal, which is unlikely given that Terrorizer and Allmusic both describes Skyclad as pagan metal and Skyclad predates In The Woods by half a decade; 2. the dubious mention of Danzig which I've already addressed above; 3. the vocals are mainly clean, which is a bit odd given that most of the bands on the article's list uses unclean vocals (In The Woods, Eluveitie, Arkona, Haggard, Trollfest, etc.) Some of them, like Trollfest, hardly uses anything else but unclean vocals. 4. the use of historical costumes, which unmentioned in the folk metal article, is not uncommon among folk metal bands too; 5. sharing a "völkisch" view of history associated with hatecore, a piece of information that is supported by an article about hatecore that only contains a trivial passing mention of pagan metal.
That's all the distinction that I could find between this pagan metal article and the folk metal article. However, I am aware that pagan metal is sometimes used to refer to some black metal bands that are not distinct from any other black metal bands other than their use of pagan lyrics instead of satanic lyrics. Such usage are common among online forums, for instance. I do not think that there are reliable sources to support an article about pagan black metal. Given that the list in this wiki article includes non-black metal acts like Eluveitie and Haggard, I do not think that's what you are trying to go for either. --Bardin (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Folk metal. My German isn't really good enough to comment very reliably on some of these sources, but from what I can tell from the discussion above none of those sources specifically distinguish "pagan metal" from "folk metal"; none use both terms in their articles and they may well be (and I feel probably are) using a synonymous term. The Washington Post comment about Danzig is really neither here nor there; it doesn't discuss the genre and you'd hardly expect a national newspaper to be a reliable source on niche heavy metal subgenres. The only source provided that does seem to mention both terms appears to be Allmusic, which explicitly states that they are the same thing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • In all honesty, Baz, I hadn't looked for a merge yet, in part because IP 86.etc had been running rampant calling for deletion and effectively deleting sourced content; their arguments don't impress me much. You and Bardin make a pretty decent argument in regarding to those sources, though I can't say I'm totally convinced. This one, for instance, does in fact distinguish them, and organized the bands into at least three genres which the author deems distinct enough. BTW, if a source like that, or the Post for that matter, are not reliable sources in niche genres, then we are putting the cart of WP:RS before the horse, since then we have to argue that a lot of the sites and zines that we don't deem to be reliable are in fact more knowledgeable than the "real" reliable sources. But that's best left for another time. Certainly a merger would clean up that list of bands, and if Danzig falls by the wayside, that's fine, I guess, though odd.

      In case of a merger, though, I would insist that someone knowledgeable work it in, not some random IP ; if it simply gets erased after merger that would be a sad thing. Bardin, you have done a lot of work on the folk metal, medieval metal, and celtic metal (speaking of esoteric genres, by the way!) articles and they look really good, well done--perhaps you could spend a little time on that. I know some of the Moonsorrow and Tyr stuff is in there, and I would like the SO36 criticism to find a place also, in some narrative detail. Most of all, I want the references in notes 1 and 3 to remain, since I think these are really interesting (and reliable) articles, and they're not mentioned in folk metal.

      I'm going to wait and see how this AfD turns out, since other editors have spoken out in favor of a keep, but if it turns out that a merger is decided on (and frankly, delete looks unlikely, despite the IP's best efforts to gut the article), then I'll be perfectly happy to help with for instance the German sources. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

please don't bad-mouth me behind my back, thank you. and don't talk down to/about me just because i'm an IP user. i'm not attempting to "gut" the article or anything of the sort. i just know an unnecessary article when i see one. baz and bardin are saying what i have been saying all along: that this article is unnecessary as it doesn't have sufficient different content. so also, please don't just dismiss my arguments because i'm an IP, and then immediately start acting all friendly when a user comes along. i've said from the off i'm happy with merge, because i simply don't see any need for this article, nor enough detailed info/sources to justify it. so, to reiterate: i'd appreciate it if you not dismiss or ignore my points simply because i'm an IP, not call me a vandal, and not undo my removal of unsourced content (which i have explained to you repeatedly on the talk page). 86.138.90.54 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

as Baz and Bardin say, there's not much to distinguish them. see groove metal and post-thrash for example: both are terms that get used in sources, but both redirect to the same article because there's not really much to distinguish the two. same here. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 11:35, 9 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

non-referenced, non-notable, non-encyclopedic content from blog; violates WP:NOT (Knowledge (XXG) is not for things made up one day) mhking (talk) 15:18, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable language that violates WP:NOT (Knowledge (XXG) is not for something made up one day) mhking (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Passportguy (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not quite A7, it's not a person, organization or web content. It's a language. - Mgm| 11:48, 5 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Six Sigma Pricing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

previously speedily deleted, editor has a conflict of interest and lists only references authored by him/her including their book. RadioFan (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please advise as I am new to Knowledge (XXG): how do I provide other references if someone keeps deleting them? Am happy to work on the talk page but even that has been deleted. Talk about an infinite loop! I would be grateful for any help at this stage: what seemed like adding an encyclopediac entry from material in the public domain is now being portrayed as self-promotion with someone having fun deleting what I enter to respond to queries.Mohansodhi (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi

  • The materials are publicly available and I refer to three internal links on Knowledge (XXG) and two external links. The process of publication in Harvard Business Review is quite thorough in checking any "conflicts of interest". If I refer only to articles that I have co-authored, does it mean the information is not of benefit to others? The references are peer-reviwed by business practitioners and by other academics (I am an academic myself) in both cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohansodhi (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment please dont misunderstand, no one is questioning the impartiality of Harvard Business Review. The COI questions are Knowledge (XXG) specific here. It is not appropriate to edit an article on a subject that you are closely associated with, especially one that you've written a book on. Its hard not to see this as promotional in nature. Harvard Business Review is a well respective publication but in this case it's still leaning towards being primary source. This could be resolved if there significant coverage could be located in some other 3rd party verifiable references. Can you provide some pointers to such references?--RadioFan (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See the review on the American Society for Quality website by S. Shahbazi: http://www4.asq.org/blogs/financial-services-six-sigma/2007/10/book_review_six_sigma_pricing.html Another review is by a pricing blogger, Reuben Swartz http://blog.mimiran.com/2007/10/six-sigma-pricing-improving-pricing.html Mohansodhi (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi

Am including Özalp Özer and Robert Phillips (editors),. Oxford Handbook of Pricing Management, Oxford University Press, to appear later this year. Google Scholar lists five citations, a few of them dissertations -- should I list these? I am still unclear on "promotional" or "advertising" -- this is academic material available in the public domain. What do I as an academic gain from promoting this?

Comment: The publication in Harvard Business Review indicates that the peer-reviewers felt the idea might have some merit. However, since the only other sources that can be found for this concept are self-published websites and blogs, it appears that the idea has not yet caught on in the business world. This is not to say it WON'T catch on, but that it has not yet. Until it does, the concept is not notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article. I must note that I do NOT agree with Permethius that this user should be banned. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment while I'm a bit troubled by the recreation of the article after speedy deletion and COI warnings of the author, I also agree that banning is a bit extreme at this point.--RadioFan (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it was the same material as on Knoll -- so I recreated it with new material, resulting in new objections from you.Mohansodhi (talk)@Mohansodhi

  • Delete If sufficient reliable independent resources exist to demonstrate notability and provide verification, let the author show them. Otherwise this is WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:COI. Basically Knowledge (XXG) is not to be used for publicity. I agree banning is overly harsh now but if the article is reposted again without sufficient references it could be considered repeated vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All the references that I provided have been deleted by someone -- I don't know why. The version of the entry now does look promotional with the references deleted. I genuinely hope this is not someone's idea of having fun.Mohansodhi (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi

I am providing a new source to appear in Oxford University Press (Özalp Özer and Robert Phillips (editors),. Oxford Handbook of Pricing Management, Oxford University Press, 2009).
Comment given your conflict of interest here with this subject, it would be best if you avoided editing this article. Please add any suggestions for improvements to the article's talk page instead.--RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to do that and then the talk page was deleted. Also, all the additions I made to respond to the questions have also been deleted, leaving only one sentence that does seem like a promotion. I am too new to understand what is going on and don't know why someone would delete material that I am trying to provide to respond to your comments. Mohansodhi (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)MohanSodhi

Comment the talk page was likely deleted by an admin following up on the previous speedy deletion of the article. You can either readd you comments or request that the deleting admin restore the page, its up to you.--RadioFan (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, I can find no reference to said book either in Google Books or on Oxford University Press' own page (even in their "upcoming" category. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I do see it on Google Scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohansodhi (talk • contribs)

Please provide a link, as I can't find this book on Google Scholar. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried the following link for a few references to the book http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=Handook+Pricing+Ozalp Mohansodhi (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi

Comment: How can anyone refer to the concept without referring to the book or article? If a concept is new, the author will have to cite the original source, but you are suggesting this is not valid. I am quite surprised by this. Mohansodhi (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi There are at least five citations on Google Scholar, but are you suggesting that these would not allowed? Mohansodhi (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mohansodhi

I think the problem you're running into here is that the concept is TOO new to have gotten any foothold yet. It may well be a perfectly viable theory of business operation, but it has not yet received the reliable third-party coverage to demonstrate that. Continuing to cite your own publications does not verify its notability -- a third party will need to report on the theory and its efficacy (or lack thereof) before it can be considered notable. Third party review does not mean a publication of YOUR article in another journal or book, it means an unrelated author looking at your theory and its practice in industry and writing about THAT. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak about the newness of the concept, but the core problem is that it appears the only source on the subject is this book (and I think another) by the editor. This amounts to original research and can't be included here. Mohansodhi, I understand your frustration here, but there needs to be more third-party, independent sources that write about the subject, not just point to the book. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The "seminal" paper in HBR has been cited only 4 times since then, according to Scopus, (5 according to Google Scholar) . It might of course have had a greater influence outside the academic world, but even Google shows very few independent references of any sort. I see there's an article in Knol, and that seems a appropriate place for the topic. DGG (talk) 00:25, 5 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 Speedy Keep - merges don't require deletion debates (see WP:Speedy Keep). Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This topic is already covered already in Yale#Sustainability. Further coverage (at this length) seems a bit excessive and adverty. Suggest merge with Yale#Sustainability per consensus at Talk:Yale_Sustainability. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge per Toddstl. If there were sufficient independent references to support the article I would argue that it should be kept as it is being used as a model and inspiration by other schools. Unfortunately, most of the references are from Yale. Drawn Some (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The article seems like it expands on something that deserves more attention than it receives in the article suggested for merging. As Drawn Some says, it could use some references outside of Yale, but those can be added rather than deleting it.(Jhinkrun (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
  • Merge as insufficiently notable and unsupported by independent sources. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:21, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Secure-24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of how this article might meet WP:CORP RadioFan (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It actually doesn't satisfy WP:CORP. The reference you added might constitute significant coverage, but I'm personally not convinced that it isn't a press release. Multiple references are generally required, minimum 2-3. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 17:55, 6 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 Delete. Alexf 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Would not appear to meet the WP:ATHLETE notability guidelines. Note that the Bathurst 24 hour race is not the same as the much more famous Bathurst 1000 race, and the article is slightly misleading as Shearman was only one driver on the team that came third - he did not do so all by himself. Lankiveil 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason to say that the Bathurst 24 Hour was not a fully professional competition at the top level of the sport? If not then keep as satisfying WP:ATHLETE. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, the race was only run twice before being cancelled due to the collapse of the organising body. While there were some professional drivers involved, many of the entrants were weekend drivers from local racing competitions. I don't believe that you could qualify it as a "fully professional" competition for these reasons. Lankiveil 02:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  14:00, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Article creator added a lot of sources from the subject, but none about the subject. Fails WP:ORG, since there are not enough reliable independent sources giving significant coverage to this organisation. MAny different things are called Brit-Am, so I tried searching with logical related search terms added, which gave some 195 distinct Google hits( (3 Google news hits, with the first a press release, and the second returning no results). In the end, the only potential independent reliable source I could find was possibly the Skeptical Enquirer, but i could not access this article not judge its reliability or depth. Fram (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Even if this was to meet our notability requirements (which I don't think it does) then the article should be started from scratch using multiple WP:RS, after this one has been deleted. Verbal chat 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete OR -- no sources except self-published books and a personal web page. Highly non-encyclopedic. Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: no third party sources means WP:Notability not established. Sole reliance on WP:SELFPUB sources is against that policy. Use of bare ISBN of (apparently self-published) books is especially problematical, as these ISBNs do not appear to be listed in WorldCat & similar, to render details (or even existence) of these books verifiable. HrafnStalk 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment on the above remark: Perhaps the books do not exist? It could be that the thousands that we think were sold and which we received money for were just a product of our imagination? The ISBN numbers that were paid for and registered in the ISBN authority in the State of Israel may also be imaginary?? The books were published by Russell-Davis Publishers and copies deposited with the National Library in Jerusalem. Or at least we thought so. Perhaps it was all a day-dream? And the hundreds of members and subsidiary branches that at one stage were set up throughout the world and from which correspondence and activity reports were supplied could also have been non-existent? Who knows? Wonders will never cease. What about the 1000 to 2000 visits per day that the Web Site had been receiving for the last few years? And that is only the beginning of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yairbritam (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment As they are self-published, they are pretty much invisible here. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't exist to promote your books. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment As for some reason you (Doug Weller) have a recorded history of active prejudice against myself it would have been proper for you to refrain from comment at present. There is a difference between promoting publications and recognizing that published works exist and are read. Self-published or not they do exert some influence. Yair Davidiy.
        • Comment Funny guy. 'Anyone who has disagreed with me in the past shouldn't comment on me here'. Sure, that'll work. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth". The question is therefore whether the existence of these books can be verified (and thereafter whether they are a reliable source & whether their contents verify the statements cited to them). Yairbritam's lengthy & incivil screed is therefore irrelevant. HrafnStalk 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: They don't have to be reliable sources to be used to explain the beliefs of the group, as long as it is clear that that is how they are being used. But that is all they can be used for. The issue is the notability of the group. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment from Yair: The books do have ISBN numbers. They are registered in the Israeli National Library and available for international inter-library loaning. They also have US Copyrights. They are advertised on the web and not only sold by Brit-Am but also by major book-sellers such as Amazon, etc. Reviews have been written about them and are available on the web. The reactions of readers with verifiable names and addresses have also been published. All this is in the public domain. If all this is not sufficient evidence then how can one accept the existence of anything?
  • Comment: this is a whole bunch of assertions, not backed up by any source (and therefore of no evidentiary value). But it is also largely beside the point -- even if their mere existence can be established, there is no compelling evidence that they are reliable sources. The fact that 'Russell-Davis Publishers' appears to have published nothing other than these Brit-Am books would appear to indicate that this publisher has no substantive existence and is merely a vehicle for Brit-Am's self-published works. HrafnStalk 07:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by Yair: The above comment (by "Hrafn) said: "there is no compelling evidence that they are reliable sources". Whether or not they are reliable should not be what is under discussion here. Nevertheless the remark in question apparently reveals the motivation of some of our present critics. Disagreement with the subject matter appears to be a motivating factor in denying the existence of active market support for it. You would rather it not be so: Therefore you declare it non-existent! Typical.
Not that it will change anything, but Russell-Davis is the name of the father of the creator of Brit-Am. See for evidence. As that page states: "Brit-Am is associated with Russell-Davis Publishers, Jerusalem. This company publishes all Brit-Am publications. It is a part of Brit-Am." Fram (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No significant coverage in third party sources, systematic POV and COI issues. If eligible sources are eventually located, this would need to be completely rewritten. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete OR and no RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No RS, COI (both the Yair accounts), etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Wandering Comments It's news to me that the Khazars were closely related to the Angles and Saxons. I, and more importantly most scholars on the subject, thought they were a Turkic people. Also, the existence of an ISBN number is no indication that a book has been published. It merely reflects that a title has been registered. It is interesting to examine the publications of Russell-Davis Publishers. Well, it would have been if I could find any other than 'Brit-Am' stuff. An unusual name for an Israeli firm. Not that that's relevant to this discussion. Self-publication? Maybe. There doesn't seem to be a Russell-Davies website, which is unusual for a publisher. A distinct concern to me is the lack of reliable third party sources. Blogs, zines, forums, in plenty. Solid stuff - not much. Peridon (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment on above "Wandering Comments": Whether or not you or others thought the Khazars were what they were not is besides the point. The degree of Israelite Ancestry amongst the Khazars and their relationship to Anglo-Saxons and others is not supposed to be under discussion here. The article describes the beliefs of Brit-Am and not of yourself. Yair Davidiy.
  • Merge and redirect with British Israelism. It's a fairly non-notable organisation, but it develops well established BI ideas, so should really constitute no more than a sentence or two in the main BI article. Paul B (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete lacks 3rd party sources, appears self promotional. Artw (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a NN. Even if the books existed, NN books do not confer notability on the organisation.YobMod 09:28, 7 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Al Saheel Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not seeing much in reliable 3rd party references for this show, a few mentions in city guide type publications. RadioFan (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reads like a press-release (IMO). Although not blatant enough to be a copyright violation, I'm fairly sure its a thinly veiled version of this. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 18:20, 4 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 no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton |  00:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

another random combination. the statement about the businessman in the article ...well I'll let others judge. Google news search shows only a relationship on the football field. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep: The article may have been poorly written, true particularly the second paragraph. But we can always use the chance to improve it rather than deleting the article based on text we don't approve. Country to country relations are a regular feature in all country pages and we have very similar articles like this between all countries that basically contains the established diplomatic relations and status of the ambassadors etc. Usually Armenian - other country relations would also contain whether there is official recognition by that country of the Armenian Genocide... This page contains very relevant information about the establishment of diplomatic relations. It is even more relevant because of the mention of Calouste Gulbenkian. The "businessman" concerned, Calouste Gulbenkian, he is certainly a prominent international Armenian figure with ramifications throughout the world. For Armenians worldwide, mere mention of Calouste Gulbenkian brings associations to Portugal as thousands of Armenians apply for university scholarship at the headquarters of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Thus the writer of that paragraph must have been over-zealous in the way he descrbed impact of Gulbenkian on Portugal and the Armenians. He has also established the Museu Calouste Gulbenkian in Lisbon thius contributing hugely to the Armenian Portuguese relations. So mention of Calouste Gulbenkian is spot on and the article would have been deficient without mentioning him contrary to opinions expressed above. Anyway I have rephrased the article making further additions to Gulbenkian's notability and suggest keeping the article werldwayd (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If the shoe fits... and a lot of people wear size 10. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep By werldwayd's well made argument. I'd also like to note, that whether a country establishes an embassy in a country directly or not, is not relevant at all. They both already have an embassy someplace, and their people can meet there for things. In the era of modern communications, the only reason to have an embassy in a nation is to handle cases with troublesome tourist from your country, and to house your spies. Dream Focus 03:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
regardless of your embassy arguement, there needs to be significant third party coverage as per WP:GNG of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
No, they don't. The guidelines are just suggestions, not policy. They change far too often, and are determined by far too few people, to be taken seriously. Basically whoever hangs around and argues the longest, gets to determine what's in a guideline. You have to use WP:COMMON SENSE in these issues. Dream Focus 03:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
the relations don't meet WP:N in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • delete Of all the slew of "bilateral relations" articles, this is one of the weakest indeed. Perhaos we would be better off with a cross-reference 200 by 200 table or so with "x" for each case where countries have some relations? That would cut out a good 4000 or so unlikely-to-ever-be-used articles at least. When stats show essentially zero views in its existence, I think that the article has been shown to be of no use. Collect (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable intersection of countries. Nothing more to state than the location of embassies, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Most of the article is in fact about an Armenian who happened to live in Portugal, which is irrelevant to the topic. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep until there has been some evidence that it is in fact unsourceable, which means examining print as well as online sources for each country involved. DGG (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is still oddly written, but it just needs repair and the usual everyday sourcing, not deletion. Portugal appears recognize the Armenian genocide, which is itself notable. Please see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC) However, I can't seem to find anything about that assertion in a quick search. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article makes no effort to assert notability. That countries exchange representation is a commonplace, and is not, in itself, notable. The only other fact in the article concerns a wealthy Armenian who lives in Portugal, but no connection between the choice of residence of this private citizen and the diplomatic relations of these two countries is even hinted at. With that irrelevant fact removed, there go the only two refs in the article, so there's no RS supporting. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:22, 8 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 Delete Marasmusine (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fight or Flight (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Appears to just be another iPhone game. But I'm not certain of its worth and I'd like to see other contributors' opinions. Greg Tyler 13:07, 4 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.

Marasmusine (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

White Dragon (England) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article meets three of the reasons for deletion: 1) It fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. The subject has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources. It has received no coverage in secondary sources and no published work has support the assertion that this is an English emblem. It is also appears to be masquerading as a self-publicity article for some “English Nationalists” wishing to promote a new nationalist emblem and self-published material by the English Flag Society selling related material on their website. 2) Efforts to find reliable sources, and to verify them, to substantiate the claim have failed. No supporting evidence from any authoritative sources (such as the Flag Institute have been found. No vexillology source supports the claim. 3) References used are not “Independent of the subject" but are promotion websites selling related items (like the EFS and WeAreTheEnglish). Most of this article states that there is no evidence that the White Dragon was never an emblem of Anglo-Saxon England. The contemporary section in unsupportable. WFPeters (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC) i want to use this info!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 |  14:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dominique d'Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Articles reads like an advertisement. No trace of her on the internet, except one art sales site. Without proper sources which prove notablity, this articles should probably be deleted. Passportguy (talk) 12:54, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  14:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Neologism; violates WP:NOR mhking (talk) 11:59, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable actor mhking (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep: I had adequately put note on my first ever edit of the Kristyan Ferrer page about notablity as follows: "Created page for the actor who had a majour role in "Sin Nombre" after countless roles in Mexican TV and in feature films". This note was completely dsregarded by coleague User:Mhking. Knowledge (XXG)’s criteria for speedy deletion is "an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". But I did mention important notability... Knowledge (XXG) has allowed tens of articles of child actors from Mexico with similar achievements, yet they stay. Refer to child actors already featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Mexican_child_actors ... So why make Kristyan Ferrer probably equally deserving to be deleted on a rush comment put on a carefully drafted and properly referenced article? The note for deletion was put exactly one minute after my detailed page was published which was not adequate time to review content let alone notability. On a personal note, you should actually decide to attend the movie before assessing that this individual is not notable at all... To avoid deletion, on the premise that Kristyan is a "non-notable actor", I can mention these facts for notability of the actor:
  • Kristyan Ferrer has an IMDb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2946712/ that indicates he had a major role in a major movie entitled Sin Nombre (2009 film) directed by the US director Cary Joji Fukunaga, an award winning director at 2009 Sundance Film Festival for the film.
  • IMDb also mentions as well he had a role in Nick Lyon’s "Species: The Awakening" in 2007. This is an MGM movie with Frank Mancuso Jr. producing. Here is the IMDb page of Species: The Awakening clearly mentioning Kristyan Ferrer in 2007 role: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844894/ This role was included in the page to assert notability in an MGM production no less.
  • He is now being featured in yet another important director's project called Inhale directed by Baltasar Kormákur, an Icelandic director no less!!
  • His role is highlighted in many important articles. Most notably the official 2009 Sundance Film Festival website ranks him on the list of actors as the third in importance in the movie as follows: CAST: Paulina Gaitan, Edgar Flores, Kristyan Ferrer, Tenoch Huerta Mejía, Diana García, Héctor Jiménez. This means he is a prinicipal actor and not a "non-notable actor" as claimed above. The film went on to win top prizes at Sundance. Refer to http://festival.sundance.org/2009/film_events/films/sin_nombre
  • Take for example The "Chicago Tribune" film review. A newspaper renowned for its film reviews, it highlights names of three actors in the movie review in big All-capital letters as an intro: These are Paulina Gaitan, Edgar Flores and very significantly this actor Kristyan Ferrer. Refer to the "Chicago Tribune" article and prominent title mentioning Ferrer http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/chi-tc-mov-sin-nombre-0401-0403apr03,0,2757047.story.
  • Roger Ebert in the rogerebert.com and in "Chicago Sun-Times" and mind you he is a critic of great impact doesn't mince his words about Smiley the character played by Kristyan Ferrer. Roger Ebert not only took note of his act in the movie as "the most frightening character", that's how impactful this so-called "non-notable actor" was on Roger Ebert: Quote: "Smiley, so young, with a winning smile, is perhaps the most frightening character, because he demonstrates how powerful an effect, even hypnotic, gang culture can have on unshielded kids." Refer to Roger Ebert comments: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090401/REVIEWS/904019992/1023
  • The "Holywood Reporter" reviews Kristyan Ferrer's role in flying colours: "An extended opening sequence set in the southern Mexican city of Tapachula tracks young gangbanger Casper (Edgar Flores) as he introduces preteen recruit Smiley (Kristyan Ferrer) to the hardcore Mara Salvatrucha syndicate with an initiation beating ordered by jefe Lil' Mago (Tenoch Huerta Mejia). After Lil' Mago inadvertently kills Casper's girlfriend in a botched rape attempt, he decides to test Casper's loyalty at the Tapachula train yard. With Smiley in tow, the gangsters begin robbing the migrants precariously riding atop the train. When Lil' Mago tries to assault Sayra, Casper's repressed rage boils over, and he fatally attacks his boss with a machete. Throwing the body from the train, Casper unthinkingly sends Smiley (Kristyan Ferrer) back to the gang, a decision that soon has his former compatriots hard on his trail, with Smiley himself resolving to avenge Lil' Mago's murder. Refer to the article: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/film-review-sin-nombre-1003935238.story
  • The "Las Vegas Weekly" highlights the picture of Kristyan Ferrer on top of the movie review. Refer to: http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2009/apr/23/sin-nombre/. The other character appearing is Gaitan. Again the paper mentions three actors in its highlighted "Details" of the movie: Flores, Gaitan and Kristyan Ferrer
  • AZ NightBuzz highlights the brutality of Kristyan Ferrer's role on the viewer: "It's one thing to watch older teens or grown men live through hyper-violent squalor, but the imagery hits harder when we see the atrocities through the eyes of Smiley (Kristian Ferrer), a boy who follows Casper, eager to do anything he can to please his sorry role models." Refer to http://www.aznightbuzz.com/stories/289718.php
  • It is obvious by now how majour titles assess the signifucance and notability of the role played by Kristyan Ferrer....
  • In addition, note that this is not a one-time occurence for notability. Kristyan Ferrer had the LEAD role in the Latino telefilm Milagros on TV Azteca as indicated in the article
  • In addition Kristyan Ferrer had roles in "Lo que callamos las mujeres", in "Puro loco", in "Qué buena onda", in "Ya cayó", in plays Rescate del Tiempo (role of Beto) and appearing in commercials not only in his native Mexico but also in the United States. In fact he has started in these in 2001 when he was just 6 and has been going on todate with this major role in Sin Nombre in 2009. So eight years and a very popular actor in his country to be entrusted such a major role in "Sin Nombre"
  • Plot of Sin Nombre (2009 film) indicates the key role of Kristyan Ferrer (nicknamed El Smiley in the movie). Here are excerpts from the plot: "El Casper (Edgar Flores) is a gang member initiating a young adolescent into the gang he follows. The latter is given the nickname "El Smiley" (Kristyan Ferrer) following a violent initiation... Lil' Mago brings Smiley (meaning Kristyan Ferrer) and Casper to La Bombilla, a location along the train tracks where immigrants stowaway on passing trains for travel to the United States... Lil' Mago, Casper, and Smiley rob the passengers for any money they have until Lil' Mago spots Sayra and attempts to rape her. El Casper, still grief-stricken kills Lil' Mago and urges Smiley off the train... Smiley goes back to the gang, telling what occurred. Furious, the gang leader accuses Smiley of "collusion". Smiley timidly protests, begging to be sent to kill Casper to prove his loyalty... Half way across the border, Smiley and the gang find Casper, and Smiley shoots him... This is the denouement finale, of the award winning movie.
  • Thus Ferrer, faced with a life-and-death decision at the end of the film, is the role that was entrusted to the long-established actor Kristyan Ferrer in this award winning movie "Sin Nombre" that got the Dramatic Directing Award (for director Cary Joji Fukunaga) and the Excellence in Cinematography Award: Dramatic (for Adriano Goldman) in the 2009 Sundance Film Festival, a film in which Kristyan Ferrer had a significant input from the opening scene of his brutal gang initiation he passes through, and appearance throughout until his act of murder of main character El Casper and his final initiation as a reward.
  • He would have been deserving a listing in Knowledge (XXG) on this single role had it not been to the so many roles (including lead roles) that he has played elsewhere making him a very popular actor and deserving of his own page in Wikpedia. Again I suggest watching the movie and checking his vast body of work in entertainment before suggesting blocking and speedy deletion of a very legitimate actor from Knowledge (XXG) as a "non-notable" actor as claimed werldwayd (talk) 13:53, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  14:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Joanne Lorraine Bennett Devlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable academic. Article reads much like an autobiography. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 12:05, 4 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 merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players. –Juliancolton |  14:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A minor league baseball player who plays for a AA team, two levels short of a major league team. There is nothing significant of his career yet and isn't notable for anything else. As such, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Tavix |  Talk  11:41, 4 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  21:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

BLP failing wp:bio: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". Prod removed without adding significant coverage by user who doesn't seem to understand encyclopedic notability (see User talk:Paolina rosa). -- Jeandré, 2009-05-04t11:37z 11:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What effort did you make to determine if such sources existed? = Mgm| 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- J 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- J 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. WP:ENTERTAINER requires (rather ungrammaticaly) "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Do multiple episodes of _one_ TV series count as "multiple notable television"? If so, she passes the guideline. Tevildo (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER and significant role in notable television program. Significant coverage is not required since the assertion of a significant role in notable television is easily WP:Verified. Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to be one of leads of Sewende Laan is the claim to notability here and is easily verified.... and significant appearance in a notable series speaks for itself. Schmidt, 09:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. WP:ENTERTAINER requires _multiple_ roles. It's not clear from the existing guideline that this includes appearing as the same character in multiple episodes of the same series. Certainly, one _film_ appearance isn't enough; an example that comes to mind is Donna Lee Hickey - one major role (May Wynn) in one major film (The Caine Mutiny), and we don't have an article on her. (I wouldn't put money on Robert Francis surviving AfD, either, but I'm not nominating his article myself.) This is by no means a clear-cut case, unless the guidelines are made more explicit. Tevildo (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      Reasonable worry, but multiple appearances as a major in a notable television series count. She was not background. She was not a walk-on. She was not an uncredited extra. Guideline allows and encourages looking at all factors... not just one thing. Those performance are verified, and she is being covered in the news . If I could read Afrikaner, I might be able to offer more. Hey, she even made the South African Top Ten Best Dressed for 2008...didn't even know it existed. And I have no idea that SA takes their sausage so seriously, but she was on-stage presenting awards, . Schmidt, 02:54, 6 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non notable sportsman- a google search throws up blogs and stats sites but nothing reliable. Falls foulf of WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NPOV. HJMitchell You rang? 11:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should not delete the article because of him not being a non notable sportsman. Ive seen articles that who wasn't a notable sportsman and had been around for a few years just; just add infomation to it. I think the article will be re-done again and deleting it would be a waste of time.

GuineaPigWarrior No I didn't ring 21:49, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  14:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Small Road with no meaningful claim to fame. Basically this small cul-de-sac hasn't received enough coverage independent of the subject to warrant an article. ∗ \ / (⁂) 11:18, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This article was tagged as a PROD, but I don't believe deletion would be uncontroversial, since there was a clear claim of notability. Either someone is notable or they're not. The reason "Not enough notability" provided in the PROD is misguided. The article claims the player was the higest-rated player in their country. That's something worth a wider discussion. Mgm| 11:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete I was the one who tagged the article with the PROD template. I do not think having been Taiwan's highest rated player is enough to be worth an article in WikiPedia, because Taiwan is a very weak country when it comes to chess. The subject has a low Elo-rating, has not won any notable chess tournament, and has not even achieved one of the FIDE titles (like Grandmaster, International Master or FIDE Master), although tens of thousands of chess players have. He is currently rated as 39350th in the world, so if he is notable we should create about 39349 articles for the other players ;-) SyG (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, he may have been first in Taiwan on the July 2008 list. FIDE shows him as the second-highest rated player in Tiawan, first under 18 in Taiwan. Bubba73 (talk), 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find that he is the champion of Taiwan. In fact, as far as I can tell, Taiwan doesn't have a chess championship. Bubba73 (talk), 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional information When he was the highest-rated FIDE player in Taiwan, his rating was based on only 12 games, which isn't enough for an accurate rating. Now his rating is based on 25 games and has dropped somewhat. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bubba73's analysis of the rating seems right, and I cannot find evidence of him being champion of Taiwan or elsewhere. A rating in the 2100s is a strong player (I was mightily pleased when I got a draw in a time scramble against a player of that level a month ago, even though I missed that I had a mate in three), but it is not an outstanding level which gives you a title, or independent recognition as a chess player. In general, I think Grandmasters and national champions have usually gained the notability as a chess player to deserve an article, while International Masters are somewhat borderline, and Mr. Hung is some 200-300 rating points below that level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 6 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 speedy delete as hoax by blocked user. — Gwalla | Talk 06:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The subject of the article fails WP:MUSIC because they have one album on a non-notable label, and an upcoming one on what appears to be a more notable label. Also fails verifiability requirements because none of it can be independently referenced. Also nominating the upcoming album Straight Up (Mr. Jackpot album) for which basically the same applies. - Mgm| 10:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Also adding:

Also add Mr.Jackpot discography to this afd. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Jalik has been here before, closed as A7, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jalik Rashad Perry. Was he also here as Future (musician), Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Future (musician)? Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete all. I've blocked the original author for a username violation on top of the multiple hoaxes and the semi-literate comment on the talk page was left by a school IP with long history of vandalism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the fact that the original "Jalik" article was created by a blocked user, it's safe to assume this user is a sockpuppet. I've invoked WP:SNOW and I'm deleting this garbage. Plausible-sounding hoaxes are the worst form of vandalism IMO. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, User:Potatoe don created the original "Jalik" and was blocked long ago. User:Jizztube and User:Colonies2 were the socks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious and as I'm not an admin I can't check, was Future (musician) Jalik? Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the fellow's real name was given as Jalik Rashaad Perry. ... discospinster talk 21:08, 8 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  14:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Princess Catherine Daxenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I suspect this is an elaborate hoax. Google only finds one hit on the subject (Knowledge (XXG)). LexisNexis and my local library came up empty. Am I missing something? If I didn't we should also take a closer look at related articles. (The given freewebs page is unreliable, though the pictures it shows make me doubt myself)- Mgm| 10:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 7 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A nonnotable student sosiety - 7-bubёn >t 16:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

*Merge exactly as Chzz has indicated and for the same reason. Delete as non-notable, merge target was also deemed non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note The article Students Supporting Street Kids has been deleted as a result of Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Students Supporting Street Kids. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 08:54, 4 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 Delete. Alexf 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Disputed (endorsed) PROD. Nominally a non-notable neologism, but actually a WP:Coatrack which comes down to a bio of a non-notable academic. And a possible hoax; Google has seemingly never heard of the Bui Theorem or Bui Institute and no refs are provided. Earlier versions are more clearly hoaxy. 9Nak (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty clearly a hoax article. Age Happens (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It falls under vandalism, obvious hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - definitely a hoax. The so-called 'Bui theorem' is actually just two fairly trivial integrals which certainly did not originate in 2008. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:14, 4 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 media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Non admin closure - nomination withdrawn because of agreement that the articles will be cleaned and merge andy (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ETA index in QSAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is clearly original research - the author even supplies all his own references! andy (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: as far as I can tell the term "extended topochemical atom index" which is the subject of ETA index in QSAR was invented by the article's author. This search shows only 14 hits that don't mention his name... and they all link to papers that were written by him. As for Validation of QSAR models, the first version of the article is clearly lifted directly from a paper published by the author here and has subsequently been extended by him. So I'd now support the proposals to cleanup and merge provided a subject expert can be found to do it - the articles should not stand on their own for the reasons given and I don't think that the author is an appropriate person to merge the material for reasons of COI. andy (talk) 07:42, 5 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton |  00:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comoros – United States relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Google news search doesn't reveal much.

any useful information can be put into Foreign relations of Comoros. LibStar (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

An entire US government page devoted to the nation US State department has entire pages on all nations!! LibStar (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That the US closed its consulate in the comoros and that the US recognized comoros in 1977 is already in the Foreign Relations article (was about to do it, someone beat me to it). This is just a fork now for that rather meager content.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 6 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 delete. Most agree that this is a non-notable fringe theory. This does not preclude an article about the theory, mentioned by John Carter, about the arrival of the people of North America, bout that would have to be at Malay theory.  Sandstein  05:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The article is about a theory which does not meet the general notability guideline, the policy on reliable sources, or the policy on verifiability. There are various sources given throughout the article using paranthetical citations, but none of them cite anything that is actually about the theory. Among the remaining sources are no reliable, independent sources and the only secondary sources which have any chance of being considered reliable are first-party, namely the theory itself and the author's website and blog. The article is also a content fork of Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, and Limited geography model. In effect, the article is nothing but a restatement of the theory it discusses, disguised as an encyclopedic article. I'd like to note that my lack of familiarity with the subject area prevents me from judging whether the article violates the fundamental Wikimedia principle of neutral point of view, Knowledge (XXG)'s policy of not being a soapbox, and whether there is a possible conflict of interest, but seeing as the article is about just a single point of view and because of the lack of independent sources, I find that a distinct possibility. Goodraise 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I acknowledge that this article's subject is not particularly, if at all, notable. However, there is an alternate theory, which is notable if discredited, of how the people of North America arrived which is also called the Malay theory. Propose that the article be kept, but that substantial content regarding the other theory be added. Material regarding the other "Malay theory" can be found here and here. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm having trouble following your logic here. Imagine there was an article about a non-notable person A at AfD. During that AfD, someone finds out that there is a notable person B with the same name as person A. Would you suggest expanding the article on person A to include person B? Granted, this article isn't about a person. Also, I'm all for merging non-notable topics to create combination articles which meet the guidelines, but as I pointed out in the nomination, this theory is already covered in not one but three other articles. If your suggestion is followed, we'll end up with four articles discussing a non-notable theory as one of their secondary topics. Is that really what you want? Goodraise 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • No, and I'm all for merging the content regarding the nonnotable theory primarily to one article. But there does seem to be clear evidence that there is just cause for an article by this name, and that, in all likelihood, that article should contain at least a quick refernce to the new "theory", and maybe a link to wherever the content regarding that theory is placed. I might try to add the material regarding the discredited theory myself in the next few days, depending on time constraints. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the theory is not footnoted as well as it needs to be. However, most of the information, while not properly cited, is directly quoted from the author. I vote to keep, and I will be more diligent at citing page #'s from the theory, and improving the author's point of view.

While I can understand why you think it is a content fork, it is so radically different from the American theories, that I believe it does merit its own article. Reds0xfan (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also understand that to be kept it will also need to indicate that it has been discussed in reliable sources independent of the book itself, and that it should give substantial space to the opinions of the theory from those sources. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss merging this theory on the discussion pages of Limited geography model, and have been completely ignored. Perhaps one of you can spur some comment there, as my attempts have been completely unsuccessful. Reds0xfan (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this discussion? The Malay Theory isn't even mentioned there. Goodraise 06:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I approached it differently in wanting to split the article, rather than merge it. I now see that some info was added regarding Hemispheric models, rather than anyone responded to me. Really I was talking about this discussion Reds0xfan (talk) 15:53, 8 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Not notable. No significant coverage in independent sources. Google search gives 6 results. DonaldDuck (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

":My apologies, Digwuren. I placed the wrong tag on the article you wrote. It is still my intention to propose the article for deletion, but, clearly, the article is about a fictional character, and not a real person. In any case, though, there needs to be a greater showing of notability than a statement that the character occurs in two books. You will need to have references which refer to the character, and which are not connected to the author. Tim Ross (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not showing that the character occurs, actually. These sources are publications of these libraries, discussing the intercharacter relations. One of them is a test of understanding read text for children. Robert Vaidlo's books are somewhat of children's classic; even forty years later, they're still widely read, and considered a standard part of a well-read child's experience. This is what these sources are supposed to demonstrate. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:55, 2 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton |  00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

no evidence of significant relationship. many of the relations predate the establishment of independent state of Serbia. only 1 minor agreement in force http://www.mfa.gov.rs/Policy/Bilaterala/Mexico/agreements_e.html LibStar (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico–Yugoslavia relations redirects to Mexico–Serbia relations. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete After 6 months, it is still a pathetic stub with no references showing notability. How many books or journal article have been written on the topic of "Relations between Mexico and Serbia?" Seems like a mere directory listing, which violates WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added some content to the article. Head of state meetings tend to be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I am unpersuaded by all the primary sources and general puff that have been added to the article. Notability for a topic, in this case this relationship, needs to be established by multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This subject, this relationship does not get past that hurdle.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we have a different understanding of the topic. To me, "relations" means senior-level meetings, agreements, investments, trade etc. - connections and dealings between the two countries. "Relationship" is a more abstract concept, about general feelings and perceptions. As an example, USA-Cuba relations have been virtually non-existent for some time. The relationship has been profound for over a century. This Mexico/Yugoslavia article does not cover the relationship, only the specific relations. In this article, the head of state meetings are well supported by reliable independent sources. As one would expect, the meetings are discussed in books and presumably were well reported in the papers at the time: "Tito Visits Mexico". They are clearly notable. The descriptions of treaties and agreements unfortunately rely on primary government sources in this version. Presumably there is no reasonable doubt of their authenticity, but it might be better to find books or news articles that reported on them. It seems likely that these sources exist, but I have no easy way to find Mexican or Yugoslavian news reports from 20 or 30 years ago. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just added the United Nations as source for the treaties. Not as good as news articles, maybe, but fairly convincing to me. Also a few other sources, still not great. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:38, 8 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 keep content. No consensus on merge. Flowerparty 06:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Unnotable element of a greater work of fiction, browing google books and google news turns up nothing, any material turned up at all might be better off as part of a legacy or reception section of the parent work. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong keep: The subject is serious even if it is a stub, and is not covered in any other Knowledge (XXG) article. I could find no reference to it on "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea". The concept is ancillary to "Leyden jars, which should not be deleted either. --HarryZilber (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete A Leyden jar is a real device that stores static electricity. The Leyden ball is a minor trivial element in a work of fiction. Its not crucial to understanding the book. See WP:FICT - Mgm| 09:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • FWIW: although a science fiction element, Leyden ball bullets represent a future possible law enforcement device similar to Tasers or beanbag shells; it would be beneficial to researchers to view the concept. Although only two sentences, the concept is novel and notable in its own right unlike some other fictional science-fiction weapons such as Shrink ray rifles. --HarryZilber (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 7 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Games seems to fail notability. A search on the three main game sites of IGN, GameSpot and allgame returns nothing. A google search finds this which doesnt appear to provide evidence of notability and it also isnt listed at Amazon. Salavat (talk) 04:34, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Games seems to fail notability if it even exists. A search on the three main game sites of IGN, GameSpot and allgame return nothing. A google search also fails to find any relavent hits on both the game title and the game creater, Opus and it also isnt listed at Amazon. Salavat (talk) 04:31, 4 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 Delete Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Another game guide for a non-notable Pokemon level. Would not be a likely redirect. Greedyhalibut (talk) 04:30, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. No reliable references. Drawn Some (talk) 04:12, 4 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. No clear consensus here but the redirect seems sensible. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Flowerparty 06:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Embassy of Benin in Ottawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually would like to nominate all articles in http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Diplomatic_missions_in_Ottawa . vast majority of these fail WP:ORG and WP:NOTDIR. surely this is already covered in List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I might support the deletion of all that, but the overlap between the list and category is not a good reason for deletion of either. Gigs (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
the articles do not satisfy WP:ORG individually. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Should we be applying WP:ORG to an embassy? Gigs (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
We could apply WP:GNG and it would still fail. I've only found one case when the embassy was actually is an architectually notable building. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 4 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 Speedy Delete per G6 by Kimchi.sg. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jheri-Kurl Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No clear assertion of notability, only reference is a single article on a single event (the arrests of members). - Vianello (Talk) 04:03, 4 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  00:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

another random combination. non resident embassies. Google news search reveals hardly anything LibStar (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete since i find no discussions of any weight about this bilateral relationship in any reliable sources. That some alleged provos were once arrested in in colombia might belong in one of our many articles on FARC or the IRA (i bet that incident is already mentioned). Unsourced anyways.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The editor has apologised for this canvassing as it was directed to specific editors, editor has promised to send such notifications to a wider range of editors. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The canvassing was to bring more references to the article, not more votes to this page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of the added sources; I do not see that the content of these articles need by about formal diplomatic relations: these articles is not "diplomatic relations between ... " -- though that was the only content added at first. (yes, I was canvassed, but it was appropriate, as I do not always say keep for these articles. And interested as I am, I can not keep up with the flood of AfDs without some help.DGG (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enough information there now to warrant an article. Dream Focus 00:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable and would be just as well served by a 200 by 200 matrix for bilateral relations. And suggest that canvassing of a substantial number of ARS members may have muddied this review. Collect (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As the article currently exists, it's clear that the articles from reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. This should be the norm, allowing an opportunity for articles like these to be expanded, rather than a string of drive by AfDs. Alansohn (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename. The material included is notable, but not for the formal relations between Ireland and Columbia. So I suggest we rename the article as Irish involvement in Columbia, as the relationship seems one-sided, and we can avoid deleting this interesting and notable material. Fences and windows (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am a bit schizophrenic on this. To me, "relations" are formal diplomatic meetings, treaties, investments, trade deals and so on - direct ties or dealings between the countries. A "relationship" is a more complex and subtle subject, involving migrations, perceptions, emotions and informal ties. I have tried to salvage other articles like this, just listing the diplomatic / trade relations, and got criticism that they did not discuss the relationship. This one is mostly about the relationship, and as you point out says little about the formal relations. I am inclined to leave the title and expand the article to cover the other aspects, which should be easy enough to source - the meetings and treaties get press coverage. Usually, relations and relationships are connected. But yes, they are not the same at all. An article on USA/Cuba relations from 1970 to 2000 would have very little in it, while an article on the relationship in this period could be huge. An article on USA/Nepal relations could record many meeting and agreements, while there would be very little to say about the relationship. On renaming this one, my vote is "dunno". Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The mass of stubs created by Groubani generally had no useful content, and have rightly been nominated for deletion. Some were expanded during AfD and kept, others were not, perhaps could not be expanded and were deleted. A bi-lateral relationship is only notable if the article has significant content backed up by reliable independent sources. My guess is that some of the articles that were deleted could have been expanded, maybe will be recreated some day, but with many there really is no significant or notable relations or relationship. This one caught my attention because I once visited the site of the Battle of Boyacá, extremely important in the history of Colombia, and noticed the monument to the British Legions. An unexpected bit of Irish involvement that I knew nothing about. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
yes many of the stubs were not notable. but I would say that admins generally err on the side of caution and won't delete unless there is clear consensus. some of those I have nominated have ended up "no consensus". Of course, anyone is welcome to recreate articles if they have notable content. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The material added by Aymatth2 is interesting, but covers only the actions of Irish people working independently of the Irish government (at least, I hope the IRA works independently of the Irish government!) and not of a relationship between the two countries themselves. The actions of Irish volunteers in Colombia's war of independence probably merits its won article, but not under the title of Colombia–Ireland relations; it simply doesn't apply. I'm afraid my earlier delete !vote stands. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
    PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is better to have a general discussion of how these topics should be treated than to have ad hoc discussions on each article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:43, 11 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 keep. Flowerparty 06:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A little too soon for an article, methinks. Yes, the single's in the Top 10, but there's absolutely nothing else to say about the album. No tracklist, cover art, or any other verifiable info is confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, but shouldn't we give it some time? There'll be more information on the album eventually. There are pages of upcoming movies and music that exist, and they don't have much information yet either. I don't really see a reason to delete this article. The information will come eventually. Just give it some time. Ryanbstevens (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, what's the point of deleting this article if it's just gonna come back with the same name when there's more info on it anyway? Think about that. Ryanbstevens (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What's the point of having an article with no verifiable information, only speculation? Same difference. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 14:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • there's no point in reinventing the wheel. new articles are being published all the time. I know wikipedia isn't a crystal ball but there is no speculation I can see in this article. We all know what's coming. Publichall (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You act like deleting this album page means you can't re-create it when you have enough info ... just wait, most album articles don't get created until a week or two ahead of time at most - this is why, 6 weeks before the album's release offers little to put an article together. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete At the moment it does not exist and any information about it is little more than speculation and publisher hype, so as it is at the moment it is non-encyclopedic and falls on the wrong side of WP:CRYSTAL. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What exactly will deleting this article do? Is the point here to convince people to not create articles like this one too soon? The album exists, it's just not in the light of day yet, or to be exact it's under construction, basically. Ryanbstevens (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply That's a major part of the value of deleting crystalline articles. Most Knowledge (XXG) editors learn by copying what they see, and the more articles that shouldn't have been created are left laying around, the more they get copied, and the more the problem grows.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • People creating articles full of speculation and gossip, which is the normal consequence of an article being created before there are enough reliable sources to create a complete article. That's wahy WP:CRYSTAL is a policy.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please don't write articles like this. No track listing. No certain release date (only the fake certainty of the word will). No charts (for the album itself). There are plenty of notable albums that actually exist that we need articles on, but instead you choose to write about an album that doesn't exist. Why? --Zundark (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No offense, but you're acting like the album doesn't exist when it will eventually. Try telling me this in July, when the album does exist. Speculation and gossip is not the worst thing to have in an article, although i do agree that as long as it's sourced by something, it should be okay, shouldn't it? I know about new albums that are to be released, and some of them might wind up being unreleased, and you won't really see me create articles on albums that are to be released or unreleased unless there's a release date. This album does at least have a release date, and i know very well that this album will be released no matter what. Brad Paisley is riding on hills of success right now, with 13 number-one hits, and 9 of them consecutively. I think that the album exists, or in this case, will exist. I still think that deleting this article is pointless, and will just come back up eventually anyway when there's more information about it. Ryanbstevens (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OFF SUBJECT RESPONSE: At least i'm not really stupid enough to create an article on David Nail's I'm About To Come Alive album, or Lonestar's The Future album, which neither of them have a confirmed release date, and if their singles chart low like they have been doing so far, those albums won't be released. I know one Knowledge (XXG) rule, and that's to not create articles on unreleased albums. As for Brad Paisley's new album, i don't think that it'll wind up being unreleased. Ryanbstevens (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • What Zundark said makes no point at all. This user thinks that the album doesn't exist. IT EXISTS. It's just not out yet. If there's a source on it, it should be created. Personally, i think that any source is reliable. No source is perfect. The info and track listing will come. And again, the album exists (or will exist), and i personally think that a release date, a name, and at least one track is good enough to warrant an article. I have one question: Are we trying to discourage people from creating album articles too soon? Ryanbstevens (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point: even if it does exist, it may as well not exist as far as we are concerned, since we don't even have basic information about it (such as the track listing), nor do we have any reviews of it, nor do we have any evidence that it is notable (since, in fact, it isn't notable, even if it may eventually be). As for your question: I certainly am (though I can't speak for anyone else). I am fed up with seeing articles that say things like "It will be released on 11 March 2009" - apparently the writer was so excited about it that they couldn't wait for the release before writing the article, yet after it was released (or failed to be released - who knows which?) they couldn't be bothered to update the article to tell us about it. If, unlike so many other people, you are still going to be interested in the article after the album has been released, then why not simply wait until then to write the article? --Zundark (talk) 12:27, 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 keep. Flowerparty 06:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

430 West Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found, so I'm putting it out to the community.  Esradekan Gibb  02:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:27, 4 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 merge to Skunk Records. –Juliancolton |  14:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  02:55, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Slightly weak keep. A well-known label with a substantial roster and history, and there is some coverage around of Skunk Records and its Cornerstone RAS offshoot: , , , , , , , . Could be merged to the Sublime (band) article, I suppose.--Michig (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:29, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

File Thirteen Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  02:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  02:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  02:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some coverage of the label's releases found but no coverage of the label itself.--Michig (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:34, 4 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 keep. Flowerparty 06:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  03:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. That is the standard for this encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ask any "wikipedian" and they'll want it deleted due to "a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications." Ask any person that knows two shits about music and they'll want it kept due to the cultural significance of the label and many of the bands. (just to name a few: Eat Skull, Sebadoh, Bardo Pond, Times New Viking, Sic Alps, Psychedelic Horeseshit) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.87 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources found by Chubbles (which I obviously didn't dig deep enough for) are more than adequate. Nice one.--Michig (talk) 19:08, 6 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  03:04, 4 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  03:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  03:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  03:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, but should probably be merged to Chad Kroeger for now. Coverage is around to confirm that Kroeger started the label with his lawyer and signed various acts to it (, , , ), but there isn't enough to be said about the label to warrant a separate article.--Michig (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:32, 4 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant coverage here, and more: , .--Michig (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:32, 4 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  14:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  03:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  03:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb  03:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant coverage of the label here, and here, with plenty of other sources to back up details, e.g. and .--Michig (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator seems to be asking for a referendum on the notability of record labels, having nominated a dozen or so, nearly all of which I believe are worth keeping. WP:CORP is a silly straitjacket to be judging independent record labels by. Let's think about what makes record labels noteworthy (in the real world). Well, what they do is put out records; people know and care about them because of the music they put out into the world. The story, then, is the artists much more often than the label, and news agencies know this, which is why they very rarely write full articles about labels; in fact, they almost never do this in comparison with how much they write about musicians. They generally do this only for major labels (whose business is large enough to make the financial papers) and labels which become so venerable and storied as to be iconic (Blue Note, Sun, etc.) such that they begin to acquire book-length treatments.

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:33, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found.  Esradekan Gibb  03:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What is really needed is for WP:MUSIC to come up with a standard of worth for labels which have a clear cultural importance based upon the music they release. Which it actually does, buried in the artists' section - a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians. This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels. Maybe not for one or two notable bands, but if a label has or had a roster of half a dozen or a dozen notable acts, this is evidence of cultural importance. The actual number and length of time to "pass muster" can be decided on case-by-case bases, but it's thoroughly destructive to go about deleting plainly important things based upon a Procrustean yardstick. Chubbles (talk) 11:33, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:CRYSTAL WP:HAMMER WP:MYSPACE DELETE. JBsupreme (talk) 02:51, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Violates WP:OR and is spam. Drawn Some (talk) 02:42, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The T-Wayne Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. The article itself makes an argument for non-notability here. Sheeeeeeesh. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regional Building Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability of a functionary body within local Jehovah's Witness management structure; not worthy of mentioning at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses; no sources for information LTSally (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not for lack of references, but because these RBC committees are almost entirely about Kingdom Halls. I created a new section there and copied the information from this article to there. See Kingdom_Hall_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Regional_Building_Committee. Suggest this title now just redirect there.--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:10, 6 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Silence (2010 horror film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and as yet nonexistent Youtube film with no third party sources readily available. MrZaius 01:58, 4 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This article asserts only a tiny amount of notability, and is 99% plot repetition. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep very notable, as per arguments above. Ikip (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Star Wars is one of the very few contemporary works in which all major plot elements will be notable. i would not extend this very far beyond that. DGG (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per above. Granite thump (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Real world notability not established. The only real world content is a bit of unsourced trivia. An association with Star Wars is absolutely meaningless in determining notability. "We don't have the proper sourcing or details to meet the inclusion criteria, but it's Star Wars so keep." is an unacceptable argument. Jay32183 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge: Appeared in one of the films for 5 minutes, only notable amongst in-universe works from then on. Not notable enough for own article on Knowledge (XXG), merge to "races of..." Ryan4314 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge The exception that proves the rule. DGG is right that the Star Wars movies are on of the very few cultural phenomena in which almost any element is notable. I still remember getting the action figure when I was 11, there was quite a stir about this new race being introduced in this movie, and they have been in numerous Star Wars video games etc since then. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The significance of Star Wars is irrelevant when determining the notability of any aspect within it. Notability is not established by association, the topic must be independently notable to get an independent article. Jay32183 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
      • And it meets a common sense measure of notability due to its appearances in so many different works of fiction across multiple mediums as covered in multiple reliable sources. Best, --A Nobody 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • For once I thought we saw something in the same light...Beeblebrox (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
          • A common sense measure of notability would be that there are proper sources and details. Your argument for notability has nothing to do with WP:N. Appearing in multiple works of fiction doesn't mean there are proper sources, and it certainly doesn't mean there is proper detail to satisfy WP:PLOT. The argument you guys are making is basically "I like Star Wars and everything associated with it." Linking to a Google search is not the same as finding sources. The results include the word, that doesn't mean they include the coverage necessary for a stand alone article. Jay32183 (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Reading the sources in the results demonstrates that they include coverage necessary for a stand alone article. Best, --A Nobody 16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
              • No it doesn't. I'm not sorting through your Google search, that's your job. If you found sources start rewriting the article. Until then, your Google search is meaningless. WP:PROVEIT, people who want to add, retain, or restore content must supply the sources. "There are sources, look for yourself" doesn't count as providing sources. Jay32183 (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                • If you are not willing to help look for sources, why bother to comment at all? None of us has a "job" here. We're volunteers, after all, but don't expect everyone else to do work that you are not interested in doing. It is a team effort after all. And for the record, I have added references (see and ). Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                  • I'm not willing to look for sources, but I don't want to keep the content. If an article is not sourced properly, including this article after your changes, my stance is to delete it aggressively. People who want to keep the article have to find and add sources, people who wish to delete the article do not look for sources. Deletion of improperly sourced articles is supposed to be easy. No one should want to keep the content. Unsourced content does nothing but hurt Knowledge (XXG). Jay32183 (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                    • That doesn't make any sense here, because this article contains sourced content from published books that obviously improves the quality of Knowledge (XXG) by expanding our coverage of a subject of tremendous interest to our readers. DGG is correct. I mean Star Wars is one of the few works of fiction for which multiple print encyclopedias have been devoted specifically to it. Given our First pillar about being a specialized encyclopedia as well, surely we are worthy of multiple print encyclopedias. Thus, there's simply no reason to delete content that is verified through reliable sources per WP:PRESERVE, when it concerns something you can even see and hold in your hands. Best, --A Nobody 22:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
                      • This article is not properly sourced and only contains plot summary. Being from Star Wars is absolutely meaningless with regards to getting a Knowledge (XXG) article.Stop linking to Google searches, they are meaningless. You're making arguments that aren't based on policy. WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply because WP:V isn't met. None of the policies or guidelines mention Star Wars as an inclusion criterion. Jay32183 (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
                        • This article is sufficiently sourced with enough out of universe context that it meets WP:V with flying colors. As a recent RfC has demonstrated, a majority of editors oppose Not#Plot, which is not liste as disputed, because it lacks community support. Being from Star Wars is of prime relevance, because unlike say some random fictional universe I just made up, being from Star Wars means being showcased in multiple notable works of fiction of a variety of media. The Google Searches are meaningful because they demonstrate the shear remarkable number of hits the subject gets. best, --A Nobody 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
                          • First off, every editor opposing WP:PLOT should not be an editor at Wikpedia, because that means they think primary sources establish notability and that a recap is an article. Both are patently false regardless of what the community thinks. WP:GOOGLEHITS shows that your Google argument is absolute bunk, and WP:PROVEIT always trumps WP:PRESERVE. There's only plot so the article can't pass WP:V or WP:N, it is impossible because there are no secondary sources. Even if completely independent of the original publisher, a source with no new information is a primary source. There aren't sources analyzing this subject. We should be more aggressive in deletion. There is no such thing as notability by association. A fictional race from a random universe with significant coverage in reliable sources is more deserving of an article than a fictional race from Star Wars without the sources. Trivia, like the Howard Sterns comment, does not count as real world coverage. Real world coverage remains mandatory even if WP:PLOT is not specifically stated because that's what secondary sources have. Jay32183 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
                            • "...should not be an editor at Wikipedi"!? Please be serious! Because this article contains more than plot and because its contents can be be verified through multiple reliable sources it is notable by any stretch of the imagination. Anything that appears in million dollar films, games, comics, books, toys, etc. is notable, and doubly so when it is covered in published books and reviews, i.e. secondary sources, to boot. You have yet to present any legitimate reason for deletion, as the article is obviously notable and obviously verifiable. Best, --A Nobody 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
                            • Indeed. Closing one's eyes does not make the sources current and potential simply vanish. Schmidt, 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plot summary and in-universe details for a non-notable fictional species which has not received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep When a fictional element crosses over into real universe, and is then found in multiple media sources such as novels, games, comics, and toys, it meets the inclusion criteria per guideline. Were this not so, a merge might serve, however, it is now in the real world, and had been so for some time. Schmidt, 06:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Appearing in multiple fictional works is not appearing in the real world. Jay32183 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • These replicas exist in the real world... Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I think the point here (which I admit I did not express very well in my previous remarks) is that it is similar to a character that had been in multiple novels and was therefore not just a detail from one story anymore but something larger than that. The sources provided establish at least that much. What would be good would be if we could locate some older sources from around the time Jedi came out to help establish notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
          • A character appearing in multiple novels isn't necessarily notable either. It doesn't matter if the sources are contemporary or modern since notability isn't temporary, but the sources need to do more than point to plot. A toy or statuette representing a fictional character is not real world context. Real world context could involve the toy, but it would be discussion of its development or critism or the object. Confirming the existence of a physical object is not establishing notability. Jay32183 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
            • Depends entirely on the character, as each circumstance must be reviewed on its own merits. And in this case, the novels and toys dp create the real world notability, as I do not expect a Gamorrean to walk up and knock on my door or be itself interviewd by Larry King. Each time one shows up in a book or a store shelf and can be handled and looked at, that is REAL. If the fictional element had no repercussions outside the film where it first appeared, I'd say merge. But that the element has and still continued to have repersussions off the big screen, gives it its real-world notability. And confirming the existance is exacttly what is demanded by WP:V. Its notability is IN its real world repercussions. And note: sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is what is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to have originated in the Star Wars universe is a claim to notability here which is easily verified.... and significant after-film distribution in notable books and on toystore shelves speaks for itself. Schmidt, 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The point about the older sources is not that being older would make them better, but that they are probably not online. Someone would have to go to a library or somewhere else with news archives that go back to 1983. I live in a small town and our library isn't that large so I'm out I'm afraid, or I'd go look myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Stern reference can be expanded. thus some out-of-universe material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The Stern reference is trivia. It is out-of-universe, but trivia. It can't actually be expanded, what else can be said? Jay32183 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Real world is real world. Schmidt, 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, Fiction is notable as fiction. Fictional elements are notable as fictional elements, and are of importance because of that. these beings do not exist in the real world, nor do any of the characters in this or almost all fictions. What exists in the real world are the recorded images of characters portraying them. The images themselves are of interest only for the technology in making them and the money they earn. Everything else that is notable about fiction--everything important-- is within the fictional context. If it weren't for that, nobody would care about fiction in the first place. When people talk about Star Wars, they don't mean the particles of dye in the film, or the bits on the DVD. At a early stage in the development of English law, it was a trivial crime to steal a book, for they were considered as worth only that amount of ink and paper. DGG (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, fiction is not notable as fiction. Knowledge (XXG) is a real world encyclopedia. The importance of a fictional concept within its fictional world is absolutely meaningless. That's not my opinion, that's Knowledge (XXG) policy. There aren't sources discussing this subject from the perspective of the real world. To have an independent article, the subject must be notable beyond the scope of its fictional work, WP:NOTINHERITED. Discussion of a fictional element only from an in-universe perspective means that only primary sources are used, and secondary sources are necessary for notability. Your argument isn't rooted in any policy, you're just saying you like Star Wars. I like Star Wars, this article should be deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually per Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars, we are also specialized encyclopedias. And there are indeed scores of specialized encyclopedias on fiction, including multiple published, print encyclopedias dedicated specifically to Star Wars. Knowledge (XXG) policy clearly and unambiguously supports our including coverage of such items as Gamorreans which have unquestionable importance and notability to people in the real world ranging from fans to students of film history to people interested in toys to people interested in comics to people interested in fictional races. Thus, there's neither policy backed nor common sense reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
            • That part of five pillars prevents deletion based on subjective measures of importance. All articles need to have secondary sources. My argument is not "this comes from Star Wars, so delete". But my argument does not violate the letter or spirit of any part of the five pillars. In fact, the pillar to which you refer specifically says that Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That means that inclusion based on a subjective measure of importance is also not allowed. So the argument "This comes from Star Wars, so it is automatically notable" is out. My argument does not prevent discussion of Star Wars. I treat all topics equally. Sources, which this article does not have even after your addition, are all that matters. Your sources don't count because they verify information that could be verified in the plot of the fictional works alone. That suggests your sources mention but don't cover the subject at hand, which is why Google searches are meaningless, they find everything that mentions the subject, regardless of the depth of coverage. There is no policy that supports your argument for keeping, and there are several policies that support my argument for deletion. If you don't see that, you aren't actually understanding what I say. Let me try to make this really clear: I love Star Wars but this article should be deleted because it is not and cannot be sourced properly. Jay32183 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
              • The article as is is sufficiently sourced to justify inclusion in some capacity per WP:PRESERVE. The Googel Searches demonstrate that it can be improved even further per WP:V and the shear number of results demonstrates that it meets WP:V. There is no policy that supports your "vote" for deleting, whereas pretty much every policy supports everyone else's calls to keep, merge, or redirect. Thus, that is why basically everyone else in the discussion says it should be kept in some manner, i.e. because it is sourced properly and can be sourced even more so. A fictional article that was correctly deleted would be something like in Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), which is a true contrast to what we are discussing here. Best, --A Nobody 20:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
                • The article effectively has zero secondary sources. A Google search is meaningless by itself. It's your Google search, you filter through and find meaningful content. You should not expect any other editor to do that, even others who want to keep the article. Not one person has given a valid argument for keeping, since no one has addressed the issue of zero secondary sources. You don't seem to be paying attention.
                  • Then please help add them. The Google search is meaningful, because it returns a plethora of sources. Do not expect other editors to do all the source finding and article improvement, which is why you have not given a valid argument for deleting, but as I say below, we are just going in circles. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
        • To User:Jay32183, and with respects to the thousands upon thousands who edit here, wikipredia is NOT a real-world encyclopedia until that time someone is actually holding a published hardcopy in their hands, no matter what informations it contains, and no matter how often it is written about (often disparagingly) in real-world sources. It exists in the paperless ether of electronic web. A decent Electromagnetic Pulse directed toward the servers holding this ethereal encyclopedia's database would result in it pretty much disappearing in a wash of static... my contributions included. So... just when will the Foundation publish a hardcopy? Now THAT would be something that would fill up a room and make the real-word Britanica seem a pamphlet by comparison. Oh... and note that in none of my "keep" arguments have I said I either like or dislike Star Wars. Schmidt, 03:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
          • That's not what "real-world encyclopedia" means. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia that presents information from the perspective of the real world. You should also note that none of your keep arguments is valid sourcing supplied. There are zero secondary sources. This is an open shut delete, no need for a discussion. Jay32183 (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
            Ah, then we are speaking about a non-real, electronic encyclopedia trying to present coverage of the real world. Again, sources only need to be in-depth and "non-trivial" when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. And again, that's not the case here, as Gamorrean being a character in the Star Wars film is WP:Verified, and its real-world perspective and in multiple media sources has also been WP:Verfied. Small wonder that myself and others have been reluctant to offer you sources, because you have already been offered links to sources and state you will not look at them: "I'm not sorting through your Google search". That, and your statements "I'm not willing to look for sources," and "People who want to keep the article have to find and add sources, people who wish to delete the article do not look for sources" does not seem quite in line with WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:POTENTIAL, or WP:PRESERVE, specially since WP:V has been met, whether you agree or not. That you do not want to look for anything that would invalidate your opinion is the reason why I am tempted to not to feed that bear... however.... Gamorrean covered or referenced in the so-called "Real-World"... Los Angeles Times 1, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times 2, CNET Reviews, Hollywood Reporter, Animation World Network, Dominion Post: ("...drummer looked like a Gamorrean Guard from Return of the Jedi")... and please don't blame me if you do not wish to use a "real-world" library card to look at Hartford Courant, Los Angeles Times 3, The Gazette, The State, University Wire, Spong, Grand Forks Herald, Springfield News, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Philadelphia Inquirer, et al. Thank you though for your views on the article on this character being non-notable. Guideline does not mandate that I or anyone add these sources, only that the sources exist. Schmidt, 08:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
            • This article presents information from the perspective of the real world, as demonstrated by the valid sources provided above and within the article, which is why if the consensus is clearly for keeping the article. But it is clear that we are just going in circles here. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the major species in the Star Wars universe. Many press mentions (see MichaelQSchmidt, above), and it has entered popular culture. Fences and windows (talk) 00:20, 11 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:CORP. also WP:NOTDIR applies here. should be mentioned in 1 line in Taipei Economic and Cultural Office. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

the article name is an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The article name is a likely search term because that is the name of the diplomatic mission. Therefore a redirect decision could be appropriate, while a delete with no redirect cannot be an appropriate decision. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:CORP clearly states that the subject should be covered outside of the local area, and this is not the case here. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I revisited the article after WhisperToMe's comment, but the sources listed appear only to establish that this place physically exists. That is not in doubt, but WP is not a directory, and the article still fails WP:CORP. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment: The sources aren't saying that it exists. They are saying that it has an economic role in trade relations between the southeastern US and the ROC. When the TECO Houston individuals met with the Louisiana officials it was to negotiate trade between Louisiana and the ROC. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added a source about Louisiana officials meeting with TECO-Houston officials in 2005. Please re-evaluate the notability based on what I am adding. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: I find this diffilct to judge becasue List of diplomatic missions of the Republic of China is a list of cities with missions, not a list of articles on missions. Since PRC took over the China seat at UN, the Republic of China has been unable to have formal diplomatic relations with many countries. Instead it has converted its missions to Economic and Cultural offices, which fulfil the role of consulates (amongst other things). This is the way that ROC has foreign relations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - 1. The subject has been covered by reliable sources that show its significance. 2. This is a de facto consulate of the ROC. It may be under another name, but there is precedent in that consulates are kept in AFD. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Consulate-General_of_Indonesia_in_Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not count as a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFFEXIST indeed counts as a reason when there is a precedent established by AFD. Knowledge (XXG):OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#General_avoidance_principle, an essay, explains this clearly: "However, a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." The thing is that there are times when "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" can be made to make a valid argument. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if you use as an example Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Consulate-General_of_Indonesia_in_Houston, you will note in that discussion one main reason for keeping those articles (including the Russian consulate) was that Indonesia and Russia were large oil producing countries. thus you cannot directly compare this consulate with those ones. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In that discussion, that particular reason was mentioned by Oakshade. The others mostly cited the coverage by reliable sources for notability and verifiability. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:24, 11 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE, didn't play one game in the NFL according to this af2 isn't fully profesional Delete Secret 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:32, 4 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 delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Wholly unreferenced BLP, no hits in Google News, unsupported claims abound, inappropriate tone. He's written for notable publications, but I don't think he's notable himself. لennavecia 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. There is an interview with him, as Nashua says:. Also an article about him taking over as Ed-in-Chief of High Times:. Mentioned in passing about infighting at WBAI:, also here railing against "commie fascists" who replaced him as producer on the ststion:. Brief mention of his coverage of a 1988 NY riot:. Mentioned in story on a 'Yippie' squat:. Fences and windows (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP, without prejudice to recreating a referenced article. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no assertion of notability in the article and, with the greatest respect to Fences and windows, none of those links seem to constitute "substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources"- they're just passing references. HJMitchell You rang? 10:39, 12 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 speedy deleted, CSD G12, as an unequivocal copyright infringement of . --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Punjab Police Security Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

seemingly non notable subject, though it is extremely difficult to work out what the subject actually is and it provides no context to readers unfamiliar with the area or the subject. HJMitchell You rang? 00:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Commment it's two-month technical school that trains "youths" to be security guards. Drawn Some (talk) 01:10, 4 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 Keep. Fram (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to establish WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example, the Radio Free Europe source says they were about 5,000 Macedonians and 5,000 Greeks. Also there's a mention in Majewicz, Alfred F.; Wicherkiewicz, Tomasz (1998), "Minority Rights Abuse in Communist Poland and Inherited Issues", Acta Slavica Iaponica, 16, "it can be noted here that Polish administration supported the Greek refugees in Poland in forcible Hellenization of personal names of Aegean Macedonians, representatives of whom came to Poland together with the Greeks", which seems like an issue worth looking into further. cab (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment; fair enough. There is a section here which discusses the Aegean Macedonian refugees from Greece into Poland after the Civil War. There are many sources about it but at the moment I dont think that it warrants a seperate article. PMK1 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • DeleteKnowledge (XXG) is not a directory listing articles with every bilateral combination of persons from country X who live in country Y. A few incidentals in newspapers does not establish that such article are encyclopedic, and the references do not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The sources covering this topic are hardly "a few incidentals in newspapers"; this article cites seven papers published in academic journals. It seems to me you have simply copy-pasted your above comment onto a bunch of related AfDs without bothering to look closely at the articles in question. cab (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Closing administrator please note that Edison has copy and pasted this argument in 4 AfDs. As I have copy and pasted this notice also. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the article establishes notability with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources cited in the References section (Fleming paper). The refugees weren't just composed of ethnic Macedonians but of ethnic Greeks as well (possible 50-50)--Alexikoua (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep. There is a content of clear historical interest and a comprehensive encyclopedic topic in this article.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Better-than-average article on a clearly notable topic. This is not just "any random bilateral combination of persons from country X who live in county Y", it's a very special historical background with significant interesting historical details. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Logical part of "Greek Diaspora" & article might be expanded with sources for why so few (<3000?) Greecian-born live in Poland. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep notable as per above, well referenced. Ikip (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's notable per above and has is well sourced. Kyriakos (talk) 06:12, 5 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 Delete. Yannismarou (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY PMK1 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Oh dear. I sincerely hope this doesn't kick off another 30k articles about in . We're having enough trouble with the bilateral relations articles. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Fortunately, there's no equivalent to Groubani in this topic area. Occasionally, a nationalist will come along and create articles about his own people in every rich/nearby country. But not every country on earth, and not any nationality but his own. So at worst, there's only a few dozen such articles at a time needing cleanup/deletion, not thousands. cab (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's much simpler to have 20,000 articles like that. You don't actually have to create them, you just create templates for them, and the redlinks will become articles through the work of many hands. Much more efficient that way. Drawn Some (talk) 01:12, 4 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 Maple_Ridge-Mission#Electoral_history_post_2008. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The subject of this article has apparently never won office; he appears not to meet the notability guidelines for politicians. This article does not give evidence of significant coverage of Mr. Dalton in reliable third-party sources. —Bkell (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:24, 4 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 keep.  Sandstein  05:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis German Cajiga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • How do you determine that this is not a recognizable person? What, in your estimation, would be considered recognizable? A man such as Luis German Cajiga has not only made great strides as an artist, but he has inspired many artists. He has plastered the Puerto Rican culture onto his paintings. Your comment that he is not a recognizable person is an insult to many. TRJDupont (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The article does not demonstrate notability as require by the WP:Notability guidelines. The main editor is producing a series of fairly spammy articles with the self-proclaimed aim of bringing PR artists to a wider audience. The tone of the response above is typical with unsourced promotional claims jimfbleak (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be spam for a gallery. No non-trivial references. Note that what appear to be references are not what constitute reliable resources and that the article is basically unreferenced, especially the more important aspects. Drawn Some (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: After a careful review of the sources Jmundo has provided, along with an independent check of Google, GScholar, Amazon, and Yahoo, I consider notability to be VERY narrowly established by the sources availible, but this is more a judgment call than a clear-cut case of established notability. While I am concerned that the article may be asserting more importance than maybe is merited, the subject does appear notable, if only slightly over the line. As such, I weakly support keeping the article, but would hope for significant changes/improvements, and an attempt to find more sources in print media. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He is known outside Puerto Rico, with a scattering of press coverage, e.g. designed a poster for Hispanic Heritage Month in NY in 1997, and a mural for Heineken in 2002. Fences and windows (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good find! That Heineken source is very helpful, as it asserts he is an "internationally acclaimed" artist. In my mind that certainly strengthens my support to the very strongest form of "weak keep" possible without a solid keep. It isn't a slam-dumk, however as it asserts that of several artists at once, and could be mere puffing. Stronger sources would certainly still be helpful in proving notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:31, 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 delete. Wizardman 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree; as this appears to be an article on someone who would be notable if references can verify it, I've undeleted it to set up a procedural discussion. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 21:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete In a possible conflict of interest, the article was created by user "Al Gravelle." If the author was in fact the subject of the article, one would expect that he would have been able to add some references from his newspaper/trade journal clipping file. Absent references, appears to fail WP:BIO. Found nothing at Google News Archive or Google Books. Perhaps Variety or a broadcasting journal would have something.Edison (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. While Al Gravelle has clearly done a lot of voiceover and voice acting work, I can't find any news sources or books that discuss him or his work, and the only websites are either professional voice sites, or listings of roles in passing. Fences and windows (talk) 23:30, 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 delete. Wizardman 00:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Al Farghana Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. A look at the organisation's website suggests to me that this is potentially a notable institution, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain.  – iridescent 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete The one reference is their website. They teach "Islamic courses for youths," apparently in Britain, and seem to have at least three teachers, but the age range or number of students enrolled is not easy to find, nor is any accreditation. They also have political activities, which might have gotten some press, but nothing shows up at Google News archive. Appears to fail the guidelines for general notability WP:N and for organizations WP:ORG unless someone can find reliable and independent sources. Foreign language reliable sources would also be useful. Edison (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:21, 4 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton |  14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Elon Phoenix Basketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet general notability requirements (no verifiable third party sources) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:21, 4 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 keep. I think this has been open long enough (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I closed the last AFD for this article as delete, but it has come to my attention that two or more of the participants were sockpuppets (see ). I am therefore relisting it, with no opinion on whether it should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:20, 4 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 keep. –Juliancolton |  02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in Kyrgyzstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

besides the source listed in the article I've found no other sources relating to this topic. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • DeleteKnowledge (XXG) is not a directory listing articles with every bilateral combination of persons from country X who live in country Y. A few incidentals in newspapers does not establish that such article are encyclopedic, and the references do not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 4 AfDs. As I have copy and pasted this notice also. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete it seems like another article created for the sake of it. Fails to establish notability. PMK1 (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable statistic. This is not a directory, or the white pages. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I'm really starting to get angry! I don't understand this hasty delete nominations of the Greeks in x or z country nominations! People nominate articles without conducting any prior research; people vote without conducting a simple google search or without getting acquainted with the topic! I don't understand that! I really don't understand that!!! The article is clearly notable, since the Greek community of Kyrgyzstan is linked to the merchant community of imperial Russia (some of them deportated to Siberia during World War II, and then settled to Kyrgyzstan), and to the Pontian Greeks who settled to the country. I started expanding the article, and I'll keep doing it, and I declare that I am determined to keep it. There are many deletes votes, but I don't know if the people who voted had any idea of what I now state, or if they were interested in learning about this important community. And, of course, PMK1 this article was not created for the sake of it! And an important and historical community, BlueSquadronRaven is not mere statistics!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment I think you are overexaggerating the case here. Stalin's "special settlers"—deported nationalities including Koreans, Germans, Greeks, etc.—mostly ended up in Kazakhstan (with the exception of some groups from the Caucasus who were settled in Kyrgyzstan). Even after their freedom of movement was restored, Kyrgyzstan was not a popular destination. Writing an article full of generic citations about Greeks in Central Asia and assuming the content applies equally to Greeks in Kyrgyzstan (when many of these studies are written on the basis of Greeks in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) is not really a good structure ... an overview article of "Greeks in Central Asia" may be more appropriate (see e.g. Koryo-saram which I created some years ago; up to now I haven't broken these off into separate by-country articles, simply because there's lots of shared history and details, but little content which differs by country). cab (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not using "generic citations about Greeks in Central Asia and assuming the content applies equally to Greeks in Kyrgyzstan". Yes, the communities in Kazakhstand and Uzbekistan were larger, but this does not mean that there is not a story worth telling for the community of Kyrgyzstan as well! Deportation, migration back to Greece, current status are issues good enough for a short but interesting and notable article. I know that the general context of the sources is not focused on Kyrgyzstan, but there is data, info, statistics etc. for this community as well. And this is what I use. And sources do say that in early 1990s there was a community in Kyrgyzstan with a past, a history, a present, and a story to tell the world!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Update. Further sources and info are added, always focused on Kyrgyzstan (no "generic citations" as it was inaccurately told). I think that the article comprehensively informs us now when, how, and where these people settled there.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, If you can provide Reliable Sources then there should be no objection to its deletion. However the artice failed to meet notability and maybe your edits will create notability. I wouldn't get angry over it ;-). PMK1 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I noticed some improvement since the article was nominated (there are some wording issues that should be addressed) and I think it has enough substantial sourced info now for it to be kept. I found it pretty interesting and I'm sure others will as well. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep "besides the source listed in the article I've found no other sources relating to this topic" is not a valid argument for deletion. It is just nonsensical. There are already enough sources listed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
    • At the time of the nomination, there were almost no sources cited and the ones cited were quite trivial, so the nominator's argument is not "nonsensical". He may not have reviewed this nomination since that time. cab (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
True, but at this point, he should withdraw his nomination, or retract his statement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:01, 8 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 Keep. Fram (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Without references, this is about as blatant a WP:BLP violation as it's possible to get. Even if it is referenced, I'd question whether there is anything notable about this particular case.  – iridescent 22:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be a notable criminal, top of a most wanted list is a pretty exclusive club. Gigs (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm inclined to agree with Gigs here. Enough sources have been included to solve the egregious WP:BLP problems originally noted; and being number one on a country's most-wanted list is one of the better indicators of notability I can think of. ~ mazca 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree, #1 on the most wanted list is pretty big. The sources issue can be fixed by, say, adding sources?--Unionhawk 13:43, 4 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dreamgirl (Tay Dizm song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Beam Me Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable single that only appeared on the Bubbling Under chart (the chart which shows songs that are close to appearing on the actual chart). Fails WP:NSONGS. I'm including another song by the same artist that scraped the bottom of the chart but is "unlikely ever to grow beyond stub" status (per WP:NSONGS). Redirects of both articles have been reverted. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:18, 4 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 Delete Marasmusine (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This is a tower defense map for Warcraft III that is a contested prod. I found one in-depth mention of it in media from a brief search, but that was it. I however cannot be certain of the reliability, and especially, it is not a source of the highest quality (something like Gamasutra for the gaming industry). I am therefore listing this for the primary reason of its lack of notability. --Izno (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One source? I'm sorry, simply google "Tropical Towerwars" and you can find all sorts of external sources and references, ranging from Softpedia, EpicWar, Garena (a reputable gaming community site), wc3edit, boredAussie, gameserver, warcraft.org, mapgnome, all of which are relevant and refer to the in question TTW. Google for something slightly different like "Tropical Tower Wars" and again you find very similar search results, including highly reputable gaming community sites such as gamerzplanet, DotaStrategy, w3hacked, and more. I could go on. Google "TTW" and again relevant results high up in googles search results, such as war3.co.za, and so on (all of which where I'm not duplicating by listing cross similarities).

The official site has over 400 active members in the forum (a subsection of the website), of which many have expressed their willingness to buff out the wikipedia article, by properly referencing/citing all these sites mentioned above that have posted reviews on it, etc. The only reason I havent done this all myself already, is due to the 'conflict of interest' wikipedia rules, as well as (FYI): Official TTW site spam-blacklist issues TeBBuTT85 (talk) 12:14, 2 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  00:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lives of workers during the industrial revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is very unencyclopedic, and there are many fragments. Logan | Talk 20:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep The article is awful, but I don't see what's unencyclopedic about the topic (which has been the subject of large numbers of books , academic papers, TV shows, museums, etc) and the nomination doesn't identify any guidelines which it breaches. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:17, 4 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 Keep. Fram (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Without references, this is about as blatant a WP:BLP violation as it's possible to get (the sole reference is to Black Flag, which I'd venture isn't a reliable source). Even if it is referenced, I'd question whether there is anything notable about this particular case.  – iridescent 22:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I added a reference to the Guardian, that took me all of 30 seconds to find in Google News Archive. from it's nature, there are clearly more. Probably will pass BLP as a major national story in the UK. DGG (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, a friendly IP address now seems to have quietly added masses of reliable-source references to the article. Notability and verifiability no longer appear to be in question; the article is now quite well sourced. ~ mazca 11:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep per Mazca. The source added by DGG wasn't enough to convince me (proof that something happened isn't necessarily proof that it warrants coverage) but the sources just added persuade me that this was a significant case. I still think the negative BLP statements sourced solely to Black Flag need to go, though. – iridescent 12:17, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Declined speedy, don't think this passes WP:MUSIC. A Google News archive search comes up a few articles from Punknews.org, which is the only website appearing to have any non-trivial coverage of the band. The problem is that Punknews.org is all user-submitted - not sure how WP:RS this website is. Any thoughts? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:16, 4 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 delete. Wizardman 15:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable tour, no sources, consists only of a setlist and tour dates. Rwiggum (/Contrib) 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:16, 4 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 delete. Wizardman 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Find My Keys and We'll Drive Out! (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication of the notability of this article. No content besides a track listing and infoboxes. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:15, 4 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 delete. The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Declined prod. Musician of questionable notability and no third-party sources. Only refs in the article are from MySpace. Attempts to find additional notable coverage turned up a few Google news hits, but these were trivial and/or local. The only Google hits seemed to be self-created content (i.e. MySpace, Reverbnation, etc.). The article's also got a promotional feel to it, which doesn't help its case. Graymornings(talk) 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:14, 4 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton |  14:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Article fails to meet WP:MUSIC, WP:V or WP:GNG. Nothing that is particularly notable about this tour compared to any other. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what merging is for. The title is still a likely search term and putting the information in another article, requires attribution from the article's edit history to be kept. - Mgm| 09:17, 4 May 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) 00:09, 4 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 keep. keep and rename Nja 08:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ninilchik Lady Wolverines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. A high school girls basketball team, generally not something considered notable on it's own, pretty thin on the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what you mean about "guessing" the nom clearly states they are a high school basketball team, and I knew that anyway because I live in the area. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 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 delete. The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable artist, no sources —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I propose merging this into an as-yet-unidentified article about Go competitions.
Background: This page was a dated prod. The article does not cite any true third-party sources to indicate notability, although it does have links to listings on the websites of other Go clubs. I removed the prod and brought this here because I think that basic information from the article should be incorporated into some other article about Go competitions, but I can't figure out where that would be. Also, there is an ongoing AfD regarding the related page Boston Open, which would be complicated by the deletion of this article. Orlady (talk) 00:01, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A Very Christmas Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A film whose director is non notable: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Dariusz Zawiślak. Cross-wiki spam based on primary sources (Original research) (Also created by MARTHA WARTA 2000 (talk · contribs)). Not notable per WP:NF. AntiCross (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman

(talk) 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment People, this was released in an English version in English-speaking countries. The popularity is up 95% on IMDB this week no doubt because people are checking it for this discussion. ZERO assertion of notability, importance, significance, etc. On what basis are you saying that it should be kept? Drawn Some (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    With respects, I can find no evidence that it was released in the US, or in English. Before I asked for input from a Polish laguage reading wikipedian, I had done a deep search. To what English speaking countries do yoy refer? If you can provide a link, it may help in finding further English sources. Schmidt, 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm a Polish-reading Wikipedian, such as Michael has been looking for. Most of the sources found by the Google News search linked above are simply listings of where the film is being shown, but this article in Gazeta Wyborcza is about the production of the film, this one is about film's music and its composer and this interview with the screenwriter and lead actor focuses on this film. Not much, but I think that three articles in Poland's equivalent of The New York Times is enough for notability. There's also a section in this publication but I'm not sure if that really counts towards notability - it looks more like a print equivalent of IMDb. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you Phil. I knew somebody in these pages must be able to read Polish. Might you be so inclined as to add the sources? And perhaps that Polish film base for WP:V? Schmidt, 06:23, 5 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 Delete. Yannismarou (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Greeks in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating this article for deletion as per WP:NOTABILITY. PMK1 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC) PMK1 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • DeleteKnowledge (XXG) is not a directory listing articles with every bilateral combination of persons from country X who live in country Y. A few incidentals in newspapers does not establish that such article are encyclopedic, and the references do not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 4 AfDs. As I have copy and pasted this notice also. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Note that the articles are cookie-cutter stubs which fail the same guidelines. Why spend time rewording the same objections to articles which read like they were spewed out by a robot? Edison (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • When you pasted your comment onto four different AfDs, it looks to me like you didn't even read Greeks in Poland, which explained the history of the community and listed multiple journal articles in its "References" and "Further reading" sections --- this lack of attention is what likely provoked Ikip to copy-paste his own comment across all these debates. cab (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep While the numbers of Greeks have fallen to a low level, there appears to have been a more substantial historical community pre-1959. If more on that were included it would seem to pass notabillity. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:00, 4 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 delete. –Juliancolton |  00:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation page with one internal link to a prodded page, and two external links. Delete. -- Blanchardb -- timed 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 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 delete. The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject means that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Students Supporting Street Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotion of a nonnotable charity - 7-bubёn >t 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete That light scattering of news really doesn't impress me much. Gigs (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delete very little third party coverage LibStar (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Not spectacurally notable, but it does work with some pretty big schools. This has potential to be notable, but it needs some work first.--Unionhawk 01:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - by a read of the assertions the article makes, it certainly sounds notable, but I really can't find any substantial third-party coverage to either demonstrate notability or comply with the verifiability policy. This is strange given the purported extent of this charity, but it certainly seems to be the case. ~ mazca 02:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete G-hits alone cannot establish notability. Until there are the references required for notability an verifiablity it needs to go. Who's to say it's not a scam? Drawn Some (talk) 03:06, 4 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.

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

↑