Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was Invalid nomination. Relisted at CfD. Mhiji 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary category for only one article. Categories take into the article. --Nordlicht8 (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Underpilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not cite any sources and Google searches (web and news) don't return any results; absolutely nothing regarding the formation of this band. Possible hoax. Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment If this band had been formed by the people this article claims are the bands members, the radio stations would have made a big deal about it. That this hasn't happened is, IMO, a very strong indication that the band doesn't exist. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Not every rock radio station talk about everything. Saying "every" radio station is a bit generalistic. By saying that, you are saying everything in music has to be mentioned. That's not the way things work. Mr. C.C.I didn't do it! 02:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not trying to say "I haven't heard about this band on the radio, therefore it's not notable", I'm saying "The fact that I haven't heard about this band on the radio is a good indication that they don't exist". As the article claims that this is a supergroup (with Scott Weiland as a member), I would argue that a lack of discussion by radio stations is a very good indication that this article is a hoax. Furthermore, I would not argue that every band that is not discussed on the radio is unworthy of inclusion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, you are being generalistic. There are a great many bands that don't get mentioned on the radio and are quite notable. There are a great many bands who do get mentioned on the radio and are not that notable. Just because they don't get mentioned doesn't mean anything. Mr. C.C.I didn't do it!
I think the consensus is comment, not delete : D – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • CommentI would definitely agree with that, but I think your missing my point in this particular case, which is, If a new band had formed, with Scott Weiland as a member, it would almost certainly have been discussed by most rock stations, as Mr. Weiland is such a high profile figure in rock music. I'm not using this argument to address notability, I'm using it to asses the likelihood that the article is a hoax. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment So you are saying that a band or artist needs to be mentioned on the radio to exist. There are many bands that never get mentioned on the radio and very much exist. You are saying that bands or artists can't be non-radio friendly. That is just asinine. Mr. C.C.I didn't do it! 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • CommentI did not say that at all, and yes this is getting asinine. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - No references, no indication of notability in the article, and at least one "listener" says no, when no, and no references to dispute that, despite a lot of ink spilled. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 No evidence of notability presented for individual as an actress so comes down to WP:1E one event and no real sources to indicate notability presented for this event. Consensus view appears to be delete. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Marian McGuire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's old news, but it's still just news. Subject does not appear to have any notability beyond having filed this lawsuit.  Mbinebri  23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Subject is notable for only one event. Create an article about the event instead. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to the name of the court case or Marian McGuire privacy case Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep At issue here is not whether McGuire is noted for a single event. Instead, it is the deceptiveness of the manner her photos were used. She posed for artistic reasons and yet her photos were exploited for commercial purposes . The article has legal ramifications which are pertinent today, for artist models and anyone who is victimized by agencies, etc., which use their images without discretion. The article may be renamed but its pertinence is evident.--Robert (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply: If the incident had legal ramifications then it would obviously be notable, but in the absence of sources supporting this, it remains only your interpretation. The article doesn't even support that it went to trial, let alone influenced anyone. The act of a model suing a company by itself is non-notable and perusing the G-news items doesn't reveal any mention of this beyond the year it happened. If the incident was notable/influential, surely it would be mentioned beyond 1939 (in fact, it happened in April of that year, but the latest mention of it appears to be only the 1st of that May), but that does not appear to be the case from what I found.  Mbinebri  05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can find nothing, from various searches, on free, public databases, about this lawsuit. Does anyone have a WestLaw, Lexis or Pacific reports citation? Bearian (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I looked up Marian McGuire on IMDb, hoping to find evidence that she was notable as a film actor. There are listings here for some female actors with similar names who were active in the early 1940s, but no exact match. I can't tell whether this is the same person as any of the IMDB hits. A Google search for "Marian McGuire" site:variety.com doesn't turn anything up. It is possible that she brought the lawsuit under her birth name and any records of her film performances use a different stage name.In short, I can't find evidence that this person was notable as an actor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Mbinebri  01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply: No this is not the same Marian McGuire as in the

the IMDB listing. She was likely a model/actress

Of little importance. It's the issue which is pertinent.

No the fact that it was not reported over

And over does not diminish it's significance.

McGuire may have settled out of court without

News reportage. The issue is still important

To legal students and to gender discrimination

As well as photographic rights. If you persist

In discrediting it's merit, it's your right.

Yet it is valid and multifaceted in its impact.

It is a diamond in the rust so to speak. -- Robertg9

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Robson Rocha Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Brazilian futsal player recently died in a tragic freak accident. While this is horrifying and sad, and while it did inspire some coverage in the news (e.g. this), Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. Because Costa did not meet WP:ATHLETE (the aforementioned source described him as a "local player"), I recommend deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to List of teams in The 39 Clues. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Kabra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction). Fictional character with no indication of why a dedicated article is required. Could be adequately covered in the article on the book series. Contested redirect. RadioFan (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • @Airplaneman- Amy Cahill is a protagonist in the series.--mono 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment per Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction)#Derivative articles, "articles about fictional works should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail". This can be adequately covered in the main article. There is nothing in this 2 sentence article that indicates that it warrants its own article. The fact that she is a protagonist does not gauntness notability. The only references provided are to tbe book series itself and not to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. There is nothing here that indicates that a dedicated article is necessary.--RadioFan (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Docpath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company. Apart from having some bold text highlighting some words and expressions in a quite promotional way (which is easy to solve), the article fails to assert notability. PROD was added, but removed by another user. A Google search returned several mentions but very few pages on the subject. There is a portuguese-language link from a not-so-well-known website with information about the company making a deal or something with InfoPrint Solutions Company, but I'm unsure if that's enough to assert the notability of the subject, so I though bringing the article to AfD would be helpful. Victão Lopes 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Midnight Radio and Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Talk:Myanmar_Radio_and_Television#Some_research. IP editor repeatedly changed a number of articles about Myanmar TV stations to claim they were Thai, with no sources. There is lots of evidence for the existence of the Myanmar channels, but no evidence other than one blog entry to support the existence of Midnight Radio and Television, and nothing at all that I can find to support the existence of any Thai channels called MRTV, MRTV-3, or MRTV-4. -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote for deletion. This was created without any sources or references. The creator continues to vandalize the Myanmar Radio and Television article. The sole reference in the Wiki page points to a post on some Thai message board, definitely not a credible source. I can't find anything on Google except for the Wiki article. I happen to think it's a hoax as well. The user at that IP was modifying some of the facts in the Myanmar Radio and Television article for days without any citations before he/she moved the entire article to Midnight Radio and Television. (He's done the same to Myanmar International article as well. He's made so many little changes under the radar. Just saw in that article that he's changed the channel names to MTV from MRTV.) Hybernator (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On Thorns I Lay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability? even band website is dead Eqbj-mqas (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy Crofts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of individual notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Graeme Bartlett. Smashville 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Never Back Down 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of sources for a film that is not in development FrankRizzo2006 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg 17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

World Fashion Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

prod removed; no claim to notability and minimal google hits. . . Rcawsey (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

— Kirovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oops! Please don't "vote" more than once. There's no limit to the number of comments that we can make in a discussion, but after a person has labelled their first comment "keep" or "delete", everything they say afterward is labelled "comment". No harm done, and it's a mistake that all of us have made at one time, but it makes it easier for the administrator to see how many different people have registered an opinion. Thank you. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 01:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Latino Presence in Hudson County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Djflem (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Reason: While the subject may be of merit, the article itself makes unverified claims, is incorrect, is casually written, and cites not one reference. The original author has not done any work on the piece to clarify these issues since its publication in December.Djflem (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Anakin Lars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by WP:SPA anon ... NN character from NN (unpublished?) novel that utterly fails WP:FICT ... see also: An Ancient Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Spirit Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created by same editor. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Antoine Bagwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

An Ancient Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by WP:SPA anon ... NN (unpublished?) novel that utterly fails WP:FICT ... see also: Anakin Lars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Spirit Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created by same editor. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Narcoleptic Aluminum Powerbook Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete For so many reasons. Neologism. Sourced only by anonymous forums and personal blogs. Not notable. Not encyclopedic. Etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Immigration to Canada. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Business immigration canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT#MANUAL; Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for play-by-plays of immigration. In any case, I fail to see the use of having an independent article on business immigration. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg 17:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, failing wikipedia policy at WP:BAND. The only "independent" references are from a Christian website which rather bizarrely describes itself as having a "mandate is to be strong and piercing into situations in our locality of North Staffordshire" - scarcely the kind of scope envisaged at WP:RS - and promotional material on an internet radio service based in the same town of Stoke-on-Trent. andy (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep Andy you are incorrect in your statements about independent references. Cross Rhythms is a completely independent website that reviews gospel music from around the world and has 4 Radio Stations in Stoke, Coventry, Plymouth and Teeside. You only partially quoted Cross Rhythms "vision" above, leaving out the words Nationally and Globally. If you want an independent authority on christian/gospel music in the United Kingdom, you will struggle to find any more influential than Cross Rhythms. United Christian Broadcasters broadcasts across Europe on Satellite and DAB digital radio and operates 5 radio stations. You are wrong to call them an "internet radio service". The fact that both independent sources are based in Stoke-On -Trent is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Particularly as Steve Parsons is from Cornwall and resides in Cheshire. Within the scope of Christian Music in the UK, Steve Parsons is a notable musician and is worthy of inclusion here. PatStrumer (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Then let's see some reliable sources please. It doesn't look like the two sources you quote can be seen as properly independent either of the subject of the article or indeed of each other - they both originate from the same town, are in the same genre and work in partnership with each other. andy (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The article has been written using reliable sources. In terms of the sources being independent of the subject of the article I quote independent which states "for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release." You are basing your argument for deletion on the opinion that Cross Rhythms and UCB are not reliable sources and I do not agree with you on this. Once again I contend that the fact that 2 sources originate from the same town is irrelevant, even if they do "work in partnership" at times. They are still independent organisations, United Christian Broadcasters being "the largest Christian Media Company in the UK." PatStrumer (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Favonian about the lack of independent references. I've just waded into Google, but not found anything much. Admittedly, there is a plethora of Steve Parsonses and I'm very hungry... Also, that a 'radio' station plays something doesn't necessarily confer notability - especially in specialist musics. If he got played on Radio 1, maybe. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg 17:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Family2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's lead suggests two possible meanings. A google search for the term shows relatively low adoption by non-bloggers, in which circumstance it refers to various sites which focus on family development and such (child-rearing sites for new moms, family counseling forums, etc.) The article, by contrast, implies this term refers to a growing online genealogy community, and/or a neologism. It further comprises a table of purportedly notable sites, without foundation, or substantiation, and whose selective nature represents WP:OR/SYNTH issues. ThuranX (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge
    parts with List of genealogy databases or List of genealogy portals if needed and redirect/delete page. Term not used as far as I can see.. gioto (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Foundation for Microprojects in Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

an unreferenced article that makes lot of claims but I can't find third party references to back it up. fails WP:ORG. one hit in gnews . LibStar (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Silk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to establish notability of the subject. Mentions of the magazine in Google Books seem rather trivial. EuroPride (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep while the magazine never got a truly wide circulation, it set some standards for erotic literature (real literature, not a euphemism), along with the "best american erotica" series of books. ive added the book anthologies derived from the mag, all of which were published by major trade publishers. the authors can all be shown to have published in this magazine, as the mags website lists all the issues contents. i can tell you this was a classy magazine, with excellent production values for a smaller publication. of course, as with many notable books and magazines, third party mentions are often hard to find online, except for the big guns. publishers weekly will have reviewed many of the books, and local bookstores will have written about them. the magazine and the editor are highly notable in the san francisco bay area, where a renaissance of such types of writing has flourished for a couple of decades.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Here are some newspaper articles that I could find in just a couple of minutes: . Each of those has this publication as its main subject, and there are plenty more such sources availiable here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes, NAC Umbralcorax (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Remidus E. Kissassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no trace of this person in google (other than wikipedia) or google news. I would expect to find a mention somewhere if he's part of the pan-African parliament. Creator has stated here that he doesn't expect there to be any sources. Given the potentially comedic surname, I assume and very much hope this isn't a hoax; the creator is a long-term contributor here. At any rate, this appears to be unverifiable unless someone can find something to back up his existence. BelovedFreak 13:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. JForget 01:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Netwatan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking through a google search for Netwatan, I can definitely verify that Netwatan exists. That is all I have been able to do, I can not establish that there is anything notable about this social network. As far as I can tell no reliable sources have ever discussed it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 creatine. JForget 01:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dicreatine Malate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. Principal claims are unsourced. Note: The first deletion discussion for this article is at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/L-Arginine Malate where multiple articles were nominated. Result was "Each article should be judged on its own merit". ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The differences between this chemical compound and creatine itself are not important in the context of effects on people because the active ingredient is the same regardless of salt form. Any notable information about this specific salt can be mentioned at the article for creatine, if necessary. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've got no problem with this suggestion. &dorno rocks. (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Australia's gentlemen's clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD - This is a list of mainly non-notable "clubs" - fails WP:V as the majority are un-sourced. Also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg 17:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Padrino (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable software, Google search returns only false positive and not the software. Narutolovehinata5 09:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also adding Padrino Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Narutolovehinata5 09:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment I have searched for "Padrino Framework" on Google, and while there are ghits, they are mostly only sites that simply mention them and the article has a page in them with information that likely isn't from a NPOV. Narutolovehinata5 02:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Padrino is a legitimate web framework but was only just announced. We have 300 followers on Github (http://github.com/padrino/padrino-framework) and if you search twitter for "Padrino Framework" there has been a fair amount of buzz. I am not sure the rules for having a page but I would argue we have enough results on Google and Twitter that it isn't outrageous for us to have a page. Please explain to me if I have simply misunderstood the rules or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.132.58 (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Even if the article's subject does have gHits, there is not enough independent coverage out there for this program. The only independent coverage seems to be mere pages on article websites. Even if those are reliable and can be on external links, those do not qualify as sources. And even if there is independent coverage, I doubt if this framework is notable enough for a page on Knowledge (XXG). Narutolovehinata5 05:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETED by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rajkumarbarathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author removed prod, original prod said "No references to establish notability". Narutolovehinata5 09:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete: No references to establish notability, google news search does not help. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete In fact I think it should really be a speedy delete. There is no credible claim of importance. "The music composer of the year from the APAC" might at a glance look like a claim of significance, but what is "the APAC"? A Google search for APAC gives as its first hit APAC Packaging Ltd Gifts and Sundries, Trade only website, as its second APAC - Play Therapy Training Programme, as its third the Knowledge (XXG) article for Asia-Pacific, as its fourth the Knowledge (XXG) article for a town in Uganda called "Apac", and so it goes on. Nowhere do I find anything that could be the "APAC" referred to in this article, so if it is true it does not look very notable. A Google search for Rajkumarbarathi APAC gives this Knowledge (XXG) article and nothing else. Various other searches for Rajkumarbarathi plus other selected relevant words (eg Rajkumarbarathi Trichy or Rajkumarbarathi Tiruchirapalli) also produce nothing but this Knowledge (XXG) article. The article looks to me like a hoax, and if it isn't then it is about a totally non-notable subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category'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. JForget 01:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Akhzivland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonsense, self-described non-existent and unrecognized country. Gimmick for vacation resort. Shuki (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli Ministry of Tourism makes an off hand remark and does not promote it. In fact, the self-described king has been to court many years. He does not issue passports, or stamp those of visitors. --Shuki (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not unique within micronations - in fact, the last sentence is true of most of them. The citations of the micronation's "existence" are there (thus meeting WP:V, WP:RS, and even WP:CORP). B.Wind (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
But that source does not prove at all the the Israeli Ministry of Tourism is promoting the site. Their is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, which until a source can be verified is false. The claims in this article fails WP:V. The source that is brought in fact relays information that the State of Israel has prosecuted the owner of the resort a few times over many years. Claiming that the Ministry of Tourism promotes this micronation is a lie. Removing this information from the article is not edit warring. This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied, directly supporting any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is merely a seaside resort with a colourful owner. If --Shuki (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The ministry owns the copyright and the www.goisrael.com site itself (the bottom of each page of the site shows "Copyright © Israel
Ministry of Tourism - The State of Israel. All rights reserved 2005". So you have a site owned by the State of Israel, whose Ministry of Tourism owns the copyright - this is, by Knowledge (XXG)'s definition of WP:RS is a reliable site. Assuming the contrary almost borders on nonsense, saying that the site owned and copywritten by the State (and thus has editorial control by the State), is not part of the State. I have noticed that Shuki has not offered one reliable citation refuting this except his claims that it is "a lie." 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Angelos Tsiaklis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CSD G4 rejected, because administrator got confused between FC United of Manchester and Manchester United. Fails the same as what he did in the previous AfD (now playing at a lower level too). He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of siginificant media coverage past the odd WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo 08:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opting for AFD was a good idea, though I agree with Naru's assessment. This was in CSD territory, and Google searches certainly didn't turn up anything to the contrary. JamieS93 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Trade in console (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a band with no published sources. I was about to go for the speedy deletion, but I was hesitant to do so because of the last sentence. Even though they recorded this track, is it notable enough to escape deletion? Minimac (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete I myself am Filipino but I have never heard of this band and from the looks of it, it seems to be so non-notable that even here no one knows it. Also, I have tagged it as A7 as non-notable band. Narutolovehinata5 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Namma Metro. Arbitrarily0  04:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Purple Line (Namma Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory entry (WP:WINAD) sourced form one random website of unknown reliability that doesn't actually use the name "purple line" as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 01:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Carlos canteri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Salem comic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product-placement comic strip. I cannot find any reliable sources. Clubmarx (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agga Maha Pandita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a type of title with no references and lacking context. I cannot find any reliable sources about the history of the title. Clubmarx (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


  • Strong KeepThere is non-sense that no references or lacking context about this famous Title if without properly search it for exist.


  • This is under knowledge of Asian and Buddhism affairs about this famous Monk's Title so accusing for delete nomination is void.
  • Also just because someone can't find the knowledge, it doesn't mean to that thing doesn't real exist in the world and since we will be sharing humans knowledgeable in wiki here to get to know each other knowledge.
  • Reshaped also had been done so no need to delete for just to reshape again and since as you know editing properly by staff or someone can do proper reshaping without deleting.


  • Note: The Article absolute comply with WP:MOS. Not reasonable enough to delete the article without necessary to disturb contribute and effort work.

Add1: now article had been reshaped to be better looking again and request the staff that NOT TO DELETE the article and that's the reliable source and Title reward that really exist in the world.

  • Conclusion: Article had met under Guidelines of Wiki project and had been useful tips for learners and researcher so it should keep and can get further update from contributors.

The page will now continue to keep grow when after other Buddhist monks or knowledgeable persons who related to this get involved in this contributing. Thanks for keeping and not deleting, Thanks to user &dorno rocks. and userMmlwin, greatly appreciated Myo007 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Myo007 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

*Neutral - the current article would need a lot of reshaping, but I think the title meets notability guidelines see: here, here (scholarly publication) and here &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • KEEP this article as it is about the top religious title in Myanmar being awarded to the top Buddhist Monks in Myanmar as well as other countries where Theravada Buddhism is followed.

The article needs to be edited, I agree. Deleting would not serve the objective of Knowledge (XXG). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmlwin (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation of a coherent replacement. The article is in such poor shape that this is one of those rare cases where it would be better to just start again. I42 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep article needs reshaping and more contribution but definitely not to be deleted. This topic has strong religious and cultural significance of its own. Redirection to pandit would be seriously inappropriate. Dhilung (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The quality of the English in this article is fairly poor, and it does not treat the matter in an encyclopaedic manner. I'm tending towards siding with I42 that we should either delete the article and start again or completely re-write. &dorno rocks. (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Then any Buddhists with Good English may improve the article with by Editing but no need to delete it , delete isn't the only way to the change the article with either better English nor to reshape but editing can do too it all too. As everyone know articles will be better and relevant by people involved in Editing and updating with reliable sources. There are millions Buddhist in the world then someone will see the article and improve it by editing , if simply deleting who gonna guarantee to restart again who log? Plant may need the seed or source before start to get bigger grow. I suggest any Buddhists that who have good English and good at reshaping may involve in Editing to follow all their Pleased. But Delete is not recommended. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myo007 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If language is the problem, then improve it and donot delete unless it is so bad that nobody understands. Otherwise information on the content is encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.8.224 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

— 134.197.8.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clubmarx (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a wikipedia account and have made some contributions before in Buddhist articles and others. I posted above message from my office computer without logging into my account, so the IP address is different. Sameer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
  • Please take a 2nd look, I took the liberty of making a quick pass at improving the language of the article. I also moved the external links and wikilinks just listed to the talk page. The article still needs expansion and references. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
That looks much better. I'm for keeping the article in its current state. &dorno rocks. (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added some other sources that mention the title in a bit more detail. It appears to be a religiously significant title and should be documented with an article. Silverseren 20:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:NSONG. Jayjg 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
I'm On It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable single, fails WP:NSONG. Two sources provided. First does not mention the song in question, second is essentially a blog. SummerPhD (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep The song is a radio-only single at the moment and has an accompanying music video. It has not charted yet but when a physical release is given then i am more than certain it will chart. Str8cash (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
"I'm more than certain it will chart"? Please read WP:CRYSTAL. As it exists now, I'm thinking it should be redirected, except its album doesn't have an article; so redirect back to the artist's page until specific notability of this song is established, if it ever is. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The song surely exists. It's its notability what's in question. --uKER (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

David Lewis (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Alternative Find sources "David Lewis" and NGO) )

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. My requests for evidence of notability and for further sourcing keep getting removed. No more edit warring, let's decide this. Using his page at London School of Economics is not a reliable source, as it's a primary source. Woogee (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

KEEP Passes WP:ACADEMIC. I started the article at 23:09 March 31st and it got tagged with 3 tags at 23:10 - which I removed as I was editing the article, had a citation in and I disputed the relevance/appropriateness of the tags as the citation was to the LSEs page which I think is a reputable source. Removed tags again 3 minutes later and have added what I think is sufficient evidence to pass our criteria. Full prof at LSE - many articles - published noted and reviewed text books - reviews cited - worked on a noted World Bank report - cited. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
Delete, as fails WP:ACADEMIC. I can't find any notable references to his work to indicate that it is important enough to meet notability criteria. &dorno rocks. (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep, available sourcing/referencing appears to demonstrate satisfaction of the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedilly deleted as WP:CSD G7 by User:Athaenara. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Antunez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotion for non-notable YouTube kid. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Time for someone to close this AFD as the article has already been deleted. Schmidt, 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2001 (album). Stifle (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the Difference (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Low-charting song not released as a single. Poorly referenced and other than a source referring to the song is a linon YouTubek to a concert performance . Str8cash (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May become notable; not yet. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hoboe (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band lacking GNEWS and GHITS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - *no internal links were associated with it from within Knowledge (XXG). several relevant links are now linked to the article: Benjamin Meiklejohn, Oboe (6.3 Rock and Pop), Oboes in Popular Culture, Prtlndgrnlntrn (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep at least two non-trivial articles constitute "multiple." Portland Magazine and Portland Phoenix articles are substantive. There may also be trivial coverage included, but at least two non-tivial published references should qualify (two makes multiple, regardless of the extraneous). These sources are independent of the band. Prtlndgrnlntrn (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment – Unfortunately, none of the references amount to anything "non-trivial" in nature. A quick mention or short reference is not "non-trivial". ttonyb (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree with Ttonyb1. Our inclusion standards require that the article topic be the subject of coverage by reliable sources. Otherwise, it is not possible to write a complete encyclopedia article that meets the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. — Satori Son
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete "• Rock band with an oboe HOBOE have entered the studio for the first time, working on songs with SEAN SLAUGHTER at his V69 STUDIOS. "I'm Your Man" is in the can and as soon as song two is polished, Hoboe promise a single release." is not non-trivial. The Portland Magazine ia a publication where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 01:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Mature Rated Cartoon Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I note that the keep arguments are, to a very great extent, bare assertions not backed up in policy, but there is insufficient consensus to delete this article. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

West Highland Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it stands, this as well as Highland Creek (Toronto) is a collection of satellite coordinates, original research, and synthesis of those two. No prejudice against recreation with ANY reliable sources. These are legitimate places, but not legitimate articles. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

this is the sole source I can find on the subject. I am very busy though, and cannot devote the time to rewriting this. I have no issue cutting the article down to a stub with basic info taken from this source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep No original research conducted: all the course information is based on the Atlas of Canada online topographic maps and other local printed maps. However, the article could use a good clean up, and a paring of the coordinates references. Be happy to undertake. Hadn't looked at it for a long time. Would add references to the Canada Geonames entry for the creek; a reference to a printed MapArt atlas; and a link to other resources discovered in a cursory trawl through the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) external link user Floydian has included helpfully above, for example page 7 of this document showing the watershed. The brief flora and fauna comments were carried over from and earlier article that combined Highland Creek the community with the watercourse. I separated those two into Highland Creek (Toronto) and Highland_Creek,_Toronto, and duplicated over the comments for this major tributary. They might be supported by information revealed via the TRCA link.--papageno (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've now made a number of changes to the article along these lines.--papageno (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
A map, whether online or in atlas form, is valid as a supplementary source for geographic data where the topic's notability has already been established by other sources — but it doesn't demonstrate notability in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's saying every river needs to be. But what rivers (and this isn't even a river, but a creek) do need to be to have articles on here is notable and well-sourced, and there's no evidence that this is either one of those things. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Based on the new information, I'd say a merge is in order. There is not enough information to warrant two separate articles on what is only a single creek (all branches are simply labelled Highland Creek on City of Toronto signs placed at ravine crossings. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 00:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems like the various levels of jurisdiction cannot agree on how to treat the system: while the city (thanks Floydian for tip) and the TRCA (local conservation authority) treat it as one system with branches, the Ontario and Federal levels have three named elements (Highland Creek, West Highland Creek and Southwest Highland Creek. Having spent a lot of time on Atlas of Canada topographic maps, so few waterbody elements in Canada have a name at all that having one — with even a smidgen of additional information — would seem to be notable. That being said, in this case I think a solid, single article is preferable to three, especially for standard elements of a rivers article other than the course (e.g. flora/fauna, geology, etc.), which would otherwise be repeated. User PKT's suggestion of a merge and redirect, supported also by user Floydian, is the best course of action.--papageno (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't buy that, and I don't see anything in WP:Notability that agrees with you. Please reference a policy statement of some kind to support your statement. PKT(alk) 23:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G4 This is the same subject as was deleted by two previous AfD discussions. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

XpanD 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the {{db-a7}} tag because the topic has received enough media coverage, albeit tangential, not to be a speedy deletion. A Google News Archive search returns a number of results; however, they are passing mentions, such as this article from USA Today and this article from The Business Journal of Milwaukee. If reliable sources that provide significant coverage about XpanD 3D can be found, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep and move to Oklahoma Military Department. JForget 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma Department of the Military (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After checking for significant coverage in reliable sources I have found none. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep I am assuming that the information in this article comes directly from the department itself. A major agency in a United States state seems like it should be notable enough, and its official website a reliable enough source. Borock (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
No need to make assumptions, when I looked there didn't seems to be an actual "Oklahoma department of the military". SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. Jafeluv (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Prem Sewa Shikshan Sangh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant coverage for this group, the article is certainly not NPOV (uses "our" and lists objectives/mission statement as a large part of the text), and is poorly sourced.  fetchcomms☛ 01:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Laws of Illusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The source is credible so its very likely the album will be released with this title. However its obviously not a good idea to second guess matters of this kind. Szzuk (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's straight from Sarah McLachlan's own website, so unless you'd like to dispute the artist, let's keep this article. Zenimpulse (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information in the link given above supports the information in the article. Should not delete. Shakir (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge to Sarah McLachlan discography, and recreate when more details are available. The bottom line rule per WP:MUSIC is that an album should never have a Knowledge (XXG) article until such time as we can write one which includes a title, an exact release date and a complete track listing. If we can't add all three of those, properly sourced, then we don't need an article about the album until we can — we ain't Pitchfork or Rolling Stone, so it's not our job to be the first source out of the gate with every last scrap of information about a forthcoming album. I'll withdraw this if somebody can show up with a properly sourced track listing — but until we actually have one, the album really doesn't need a separate article; a brief mention in the album's discography is all any album is ever entitled to until the track listing shows up too. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but could you quote the part of WP:MUSIC you're referring to? As far as I'm aware the "bottom line" of WP:MUSIC, per its lead paragraph, is WP:N - significant coverage in reliable independent sources - which WP:MUSIC is merely a guide to interpreting. WP:NALBUMS specifically provides: "Unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." You may be thinking of the statement: "Generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label," but if so you're failing to note that (a) that's just a guide to interpreting WP:N, (b) that here we have both the title and release date, and (c) that that statement comes immediately after the sentence "an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it". - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstly, that last criterion ("may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it") is for unreleased projects on the scale of Chinese Democracy, which was getting talked about years before it finally came out and had sources that could already support a very lengthy article as early as 2004, not for run-of-the-mill "artist announces new album, here's the few tidbits we know about it" situations where the available sources can only support a generic four-line stub that tells us nothing besides "artist announces new album". Secondly, I'm not disputing that we have a title and a release date — I'm pointing out that we don't have a track listing; all three of those things are mandatory in combination, and two out of three is not good enough. And finally, there has yet to be one single thing written about this album that actually contains substantial information about the album and isn't just a basic "Sarah McLachlan will have a new album out soon" announcement in the "300-words-or-less tidbits" column. That's not significant coverage; it's just blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Reading and understanding (and respecting) what you say above, my only comment is that WP:ALBUM is STILL subservient to WP:N and clarifies, rather than replaces, that policy. And that you're confusing the meaning of "significant coverage" within WP:N. For coverage to be significant, it need only be that the sources "address the subject directly in detail"; there's no particular quantum of detail necessary so long as it is "more than a trivial mention", which these sources are. There's no requirement that there be content sufficient to found an article of any particular length in that policy or any other, so far as I know. That's what stubs are for. Finally, it's not correct to say that we have nothing here other than "artist announces new album". We have a release date, a title, we have preorder information and info on the preorder bonuses, and we know that it's being done in conjunction with the reboot of the Lilith Fair. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess that's up to an interpretation of "trivial". I'd generally regard an article longer than a paragraph, with the article subject appearing in the headline, as non-trivial. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is one of Knowledge (XXG)'s biggest problems. Here we have an album that you can actually PREORDER from the artist's web site, the article is already made and all we're left with is a bunch of users fighting about semantics. Oh for crying out loud. KEEP. Antti29 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A New Ascension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for 4 years. First AFD in 2006 closed as no consensus pending improvements to the entry, which are still lacking more than 3 years later. The entry itself points out that this band has almost never performed; the only thing resembling a claim to notability is a couple licenensing deals for background music. Hairhorn (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'd say the prior AFD was closed with the hope that the article creator could improve the article and establish notability. There was no real evidence for notability during the first AFD that I can discern. The claim of coverage is press clippings from local papers. My own search does not show that this band has any significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick Doig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A rugby league player, who by the article's own admission, has never played first grade football despite being on the books of a first grade club. He therefore fails WP:ATH as the National Rugby League first grade is the only fully professional league in Australia. His current club, the Newtown Jets are not a NRL club. Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Papers (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is little justification for this page considering that it is only a promotional single. it recieved very little independent coverage and so there is more than reasonable doubt over what makes this page notable. Under guidance for WP:notability (music) it is requested that this page is deleted and the content placed on the album's page Raymond v. Raymond Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect content then delete page Jayy008 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Checking Billboard, as referenced in the article, it made #31 and was 12 weeks in the charts, plus the article claims #1 RnB charts. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The chart positions are not in dispute, it needs chart positions AND independent coverage, this has happened before for The Fame Monster, like every song charted, but you can't have a page for every single song off the album when all the info can be shown on the album page. Jayy008 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep - #1 on the R&B chart, a major Billboard chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.99.6 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why this is considered for deletion. This song has had some radio airplay and has reached #1 on an important chart, and stayed for a number of weeks, and could end up being his most successful single from his current album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunohuayam (talk • contribs) 08:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep article about major hit record (#31 on Billboard Hot 100). High chart placement on the Hot 100 is sufficient to meet the notability standard as Billboard reports are repeated throughout the industry... and not just in North America. B.Wind (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Streetlight Manifesto. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Streetlight Manifesto Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Dont Delete It!!! It was a release before everything went numb why should it be removed.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.147.127 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Summiyah malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Imperion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party, published sources. Of the few references I can find, none come close to meeting WikiProject Video games list of sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the link you're talking about. I did check browser1.de, though, and the "Browsergames" link on the left leads to browsergames.de, which is basically MySpace for browser games: trivial mentions of games (many of them press releases), no editorial control, fan-submitted content, and voting. Nothing that we can build an encyclopedia around. I'd be okay with merging if we could find any reliable sources, but until we do it's still just OR. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the browser1.de link . There are some more google news hits but mostly in German. Polarpanda (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The review is okay (a little on the short side, not exactly trivial, but not exactly thorough game journalism either), but the site itself doesn't seem reliable. We know nothing about the author(s), editorial oversight, etc. All of the ads for downloading Firefox from browser1.de (which isn't the German Firefox page) makes me even more suspicious about their intentions. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Healthy Living (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Free magazine distributed at grocery stores. Meets none of the 5 criteria for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books). Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yoshi (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't seem to have any credible sources, both the NME and Sunday Mail links redirect to their home pages, also a google search doesn't provide any results from reliable sources. The article looks as if it was written by the band, i think it should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Under the extension stairs (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Punggol#Schools. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Punggol Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school, no claims of notability. Woogee (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not just say keep, since a redirect accomplishes the same thing? I'll confess that I have no knowledge of relative server load usages, although it sounds similar to the "you use more electricity turning on a light than you do if you leave it on". What I do know is that a redirect takes up the same amount of space as a keep, as is evident when looking at the history of a redirect, so it would make just as much sense to keep all articles about primary schools. The only differences between a redirect and a keep are that (a) it takes slightly more effort for the person to find the text in a redirect and (b) Punggolian youngsters won't be able to make a class project out of updating the article. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Simply because the Community distinguishes between standalone pages and incorporation in a larger article. Notability guidelines apply to the former but not the latter. A curious anomaly, I know, but there you are :-) As a matter of routine, location articles mention places - libraries, parks, buildings etc that are not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ashlie Brillault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this biography of a living person meets our general notability guideline (see also WP:BIO). I was looking for some solid third party, reliable sources and couldn't find any. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tied My Hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Saron Gas 2 Track Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Mourning Sickness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BAND. I can't find any significant coverage for this band in third-party, reliable sources. This article is also unreferenced except for first-party sources. Going back in the article's history shows a few third-party sources, but I don't consider them reliable (blogs, etc.). This article has been in a poor shape for a while and doesn't seem to be able to improve. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable band, comprised of non-notable musicians (the blue linked Matthew Maher loops back to this article and the drummer is mis-linked to an English footballer), producing non-notable music all referenced to their own website with no credible indication of notability from any other sources. Lame Name (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United Kingdom Independence Party leadership election, 2006. The target article contains enough information to make a merge unnecessary. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Suchorzewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN –– Jezhotwells (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I created this article at the time he was standing in the UKIP leadership election and was potentially going to become leader. Since he failed to be elected and resigned I agree that he has done nothing particularly notable and I have no objections to this article being deleted. Phil 15:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

100% Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD template was placed on page, but rest of AfD process was not completed, so I am helping out. The editor placing the template had, in an edit summary, written "Fails notability for albums". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete 1) WP:OR the article is original research, there are no references. 2) why is this album notable? Fails WP:NOT not notable as an album. Fails WP:POKEMON just because necrodeath has an album, does not make it notable. Knowledge (XXG) is not a catalog of non-notable CDs.  kgrr 00:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep album of a notable band. Dew Kane (talk) 05:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Necrodeath. Notable band, but I couldn't find significant coverage of this album.--Michig (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The only reasons given for "keep" are "band may be notable" and "album of a notable band". However, nobody has produced any evidence of this notability (the band's Knowledge (XXG) article has been tagged since March 2008 for independent sources). The onus is on anyone wishing to keep an article to produce evidence of notability, not just to say that it is notable without any evidence. Also note that one of the "keep" comments only says that the band may be notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added sources to the Necrodeath article and removed your PROD, which I don't believe was in any way appropriate (PROD is for articles that are "uncontestably deletable", which that article clearly isn't). It could still use more but I believe the band is sufficiently notable. I found sources indicating notability before I stated above that the band was notable. The onus is on all editors to look for sources to determine whether the subject is notable (and ideally cite them in the article). --Michig (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, we now have some sources given for Necrodeath, which is better than just a statement that they are notable without evidence. However, all but one of the references are to sources which are not independent (the band's own site) not reliable (www.allmusic.com, where anyone can submit contributions) or does not mention Necrodeath (http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=136826). The evidence of notability is not by any means convincing. Also, even if this were accepted as evidence of notability of the band, it would still be a step short of showing that the album has enough notability to deserve its own article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken regarding the Allmusic bios and reviews - all are written by professional staff. They are not user-editable. The Blabbermouth article mentions Necrodeath on the second line and verifies Flegias' membership of other notable bands and his real name, which is what it's there for. They also had a review from Italian site Kronic.it , which is on one of the album articles - again this looks like a reliable source. Given the general lack of sources on the album articles, it may be better to combine them all into a discography article - album titles, tracklistings, labels etc. are all verifiable.--Michig (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additionally, on a point of order, the three co-nominated pages were not tagged for AFD and thus could not be deleted anyway. Merging may be appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DreDDup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely nothing on Google News. Only sources are interviews which are not enough per WP:BAND. A couple other albums are already listed at AFD, so here are the rest.

Future Porn Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
El Conquistadors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DreDDup discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. There are more sources than just some interviews. There are reviews and articles about the band. Suite yourself, but this is currently the only living industrial rock band in Serbia and therefore very important article for Knowledge (XXG) Online Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. http://www.terapija.net/mjuzik.asp?ID=6307
  2. http://www.dreddup.com/biography/index.html
  3. http://www.tvorac-grada.com/hczin/Broj83/rcz.html
  4. http://www.fabryka.darknation.eu/php-files_en/readarticle.php?article_id=222
  5. http://www.fabryka.darknation.eu/php-files_en/readarticle.php?article_id=242 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.168.104 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the reliability of these sources (apart from the artist website bio which is not independent) needs to be established in order for them to count. I realize this could be difficult because these pages are of Serbian origin, but I think there is a need for clarity in that respect. fabryka.darknation.eu is an English language site so I checked it out and the "stats" page shows that the most read items have below 500 views. Hekerui (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Since this band is cult in the underground of Serbia it is obvious that the English and Amercians don't read that much about them. All the valid texts are on Serbian or Croatian. If you would like, I can easily scan some texts about this band from the well-known Serbian magazines such as Politika, Dnevnik, Blic, Gradjanski List, Alo!, Urban Bug etc... just to verify all the texts shown in Knowledge (XXG)? Or we can send you some divx of the interviews from all sort of television stations including MTV Adria? Here are the two year 2009 top-lists from Croatian magazines "Terapija" and Macedonian magazine "Okno" where you can verify that this band is well-known in Ex Yugoslavian region:

http://www.okno.mk/node/3951 http://www.terapija.net/topliste.asp?ID=7764 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If the bands were in notable magazines and had newspaper articles, then cite them with author, date, name of the article, name of the newspaper/magazine (see Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources and Template:cite news) and add some info from these sources to the article (no need to scan per se). It would be important to make sure that the newspapers/magazines are notable themselves. Hekerui (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. I've added the magazine and newspaper references in the bottom of the page all with the names of the authors and the exact name of the article. I hope this is enough. I can really add more. I've also inserted an external links to some articles in the information text above which had their online edition also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think additional info on why these sources are realiable per WP:RS is needed. Are any of these articles posted online on source websites so one can could whether the newspaper is notable? Is there some other evidence? It's difficult for non-Serbians. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Sadly I think not. These magazines are in paper format. I never found any of the articles in their Website editions because they only put important headline articles on their sites. But I can scan every article to verify this information. You can easily contact any of these journalists over the magazine websites and ask them to verify the articles. I don't know what else I can do to prove that this band is really well-known in the underground culture of Serbia and region and that the information presented here is correct. I can upload television interviews or something else somewhere and pass you the links but the problem is that it's all in Serbian. All the references and information about the magazine articles and journalists is correct, it's really no bother for me to scan the articles and pass them to you just to verify this content here. Magazines that I've listed are in the top 10 of the Serbian well-known magazines. Dnevnik exists for more than 50 years. All the others exist for more than 20 years. They are notable and magazines with a very big numbers of printed copies. I think every one of these is printed in more than 2 million copies every day. Nocturne Magazine is sold in small amounts. I've found the front cover and information about the issue here, you can see that dreddup is listed on the front page and in the interview information: http://www.nocturnemagazine.net/izdanja/10.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It is understandably difficult to find English sources for groups that are Serbia-centric. I think we should assume good faith now that reliable sources are there and keep the main article, provided the articles are actually about the group and you can add the page numbers for the articles. The album articles should be treated independent from the main article in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. I added the correct page numbers for the articles. I'll see to contact these newspapers and find out if it is possible that they have some online archive to where the link should lead people to read the whole article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihajlo219 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sam and Steve Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local radio show lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete 1) fails WP:NOT one radio show on one radio station does not make notability. 2) fails WP:OR where are the references?

 kgrr 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Gary McIlroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable presenter on a low-power community radio station which itself fails notability. No reliable sources found. Deleted via Prod and recreated the same day. Brining it to AFD in order that future recreations can be speedied. Finally, I think there's a reasonable likelihood that user:Radioman1967 is the subject of the article. dramatic (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your speedy got removed in someone's edit. I think we should let the AFD proceed, since then we can use speedy G4 if the article raises its head again. dramatic (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Blade (Marvel animated universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and synthisis based on two or three single episode appearances of the character in two separate seasons of the same series. Ireally this information for the character the article is named for should be covered at Blade (comics)#Television and Characters_in_Spider-Man_(1994_TV_series)#Blade. And in fact it looks like the lead - all of the Blade information in the article - was copped from the Blade IoM section. The remainder of the article is not information about the character, nor is it about an actual TV show that was part of the "Marvel animated universe" named for and featuring Blade. J Greb (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fair City. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Geraldine Fahey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, no real world info. I can't confirm that the plot is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Borndeads Feast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NALBUMS, can't find coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bor-Bor Zan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable game. DimaG (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Droll humor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is fundamentally a dictdef; belongs in wictionary, not here. Article has been a stub for five years and is still essentially identical to the original version. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg 17:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hub Surfing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism. DimaG (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2010 (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 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Klaus Armstrong-Braun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable environmental campaigner, fails WP:POLITICIAN –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz 20:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Filament fade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete It's not a term used by people in the business of theatre production. . We have an article Fade (lighting), and although I wouldn't be surprised if there are terms for the process of using different types of lights to achieve a quick or slow dimming of the lights to close a scene, it's not called "filament fade". Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz 20:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Appbox Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not noticeable application, just a set of toolbox for the iPhone. No one single reference to back it up, all of them pointing to submission web sites. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • KEEP - stub article with two independent sources. nominator has recently afd and attempted speedy (declined) a handful of iphone application articles conviently after his application article was deleted 16x9 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Elvis – from Memphis to Hollywood: Memories from My Eleven Years with Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable book DimaG (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
I'm Not Mad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. Fails WP:NSONG - merge to Alex Gardner. GregJackP (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2010 (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 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that the sources say little or nothing about the single other than its release date. It didn't make the top 40 yesterday, so all the hype didn't pay off.--Michig (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Entry into the top 40 doesn't decide notability. Some of those songs by much more established artists wont have their own page. Szzuk (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Making #44 is a good claim to notability. Unfortunately nobody seems to have written anything about the song yet, which is the biggest problem here.--Michig (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.

↑