Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 January 20 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Insurance Companies in Pakistan

Insurance Companies in Pakistan (  | 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)
Moving it will mean it is still a directory. Also, the existence of the category is not a reason for keeping the article. There should be a Insurance in Pakistan article eventually but it should not simply be a directory. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 01:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I can see your point. I am not objecting to deletion, but I will sandbox parts of the article for later creation. Bearian ( talk) 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly fails WP:NSONG. It may be pop-culture, but not encyclopedic on its own. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The Presidents (song)

The Presidents (song) (  | 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 Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. Neelix ( talk) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or redirect to List of Animaniacs episodes#Season Three: 1995-1996. I thought for sure I would find more about this song in reliable sources and I was all ready to vote keep, but really all I could come up with is this brief mention in The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home. There are plenty of hits on lyrics databases, educational websites, and the like, but there just doesn't seem to be "significant coverage" of this particular song "in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" under WP:NSONG.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- this article's presence makes Wikipedia better, and so in keeping with ignoring all rules, I say we be bold and allow it to remain. You're saying that because you couldn't find articles that talk about it, we shouldn't have it? Who do you think is going to write about something like this? It's a famous song, verified by it's having been on TV numerous times as part of a notable cartoon show put out by a notable production company on a notable channel. I'm not trying to chain things along as though we should have an article on Bill Murray's uncle because he's the uncle of a notable person...but give it a break, please! You couldn't find a google hit that doesn't reference the song? What are you expecting? The song definitely exists, it is definitely well known and the fact that google is not a good place to search for information on it doesn't decrease its notability. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Other than sites like YouTube and educational blogs/forums, I failed to find any RS mentioning this song. DRosenbach, WP:IAR does not override WP:5P - Wikipedia is not about The TruthTM, its about verifiability. Anything not supported by RSs does not belong to Wikipedia, unless they are so obvious that virtually every reader either already believe in it("we can't live without food") or can verify it with reasonable ease("cutting your hand with a knife will cause pain"). Same for notablity: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. In order to be worth including, they need to be notable, and notability is established by reliable sources. Blodance the Seeker 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Blodance the Seeker 07:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The reliable source is the television shows that have run on TV. And I find your apparent violate of WP:NPOV laughable in dictating what does and does not fall under the rubric of WP:IAR. Its very essence allows it to run over any policy/guideline obstacle as long as the manifestation of the suggested violation serves Wikipedia for the better. One can hardly assert that a world famous song played as an accompaniment to a well-established TV show numerous times does not demand inclusion in an online encyclopedia claiming to present the vastness of all reliable information. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry, did you even read WP:5P? "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here." it states very clearly that WP:IAR shall not override the basic policies. Fame and notability is not based on claims. It is based on reliable sources. And reliable sources are defined here, not based on your claims. Further, according to your own logic, how can you accuse people of violating rules if you cite WP:IAR for your own defense and claim that it overrides every rule on WP? Please stop this nonsense. Blodance the Seeker 01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. It doesn't make Wikipedia better. It just reinforces the impression that WP is a repository for cruft and pop culture trivia. Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not appear to be significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Polargeo ( talk) 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A9. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Try To

Try To (  | 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)

Completing nom for anon. His/Her rationale was, The single hasn't even been released yet. Fails notability for songs (bolding mine). It should also be noted that the artist's page is currently up for speedy deletion under criterion A7. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)| (talk to me)| (What I've done) 23:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

No Cussing Club

AfDs for this article:
No Cussing Club (  | 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)

Essentially a WP:ONEEVENT group that got e-mail-bombed and featured in various News of the Weird segments last heard from in a puff-piece by ABC News in early 2009. Per WP:NOT#NEWS, I submit that this organization fails our notability test of WP:ORG since we are tasked by that guideline to consider the "organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization...." I submit that considering these factors makes it very dubious that this parochial organization is notable enough for this encyclopedia. Past AfDs were probably blindsided by the recentism of the news-coverage. Current consensus on the talk page of the article seems to indicate that the article should be deleted. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Allstar Weekend

Allstar Weekend (  | 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)

Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC — Ocatecir T 05:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Murder of Brianna Denison. Clear consensus that this fails to establish the subject's notability beyond the one specific event. ~ mazca talk 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

James Michael Biela

James Michael Biela (  | 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:BLP1E / WP:NOTNEWS violation. A redirect may be appropriate but the history should be deleted. Guy ( Help!) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree that this is unlikely to be an appropriate subject for a biographical article, but could you please expand on why the history ought to be deleted? I see only one problematic edit; the rest seems responsibly sourced.  Skomorokh  23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
For the record, this (now deleted) revision is the problematic edit I allude to above. If there are no objections, I'll redirect the article to Murder of Brianna Denison.  Skomorokh  23:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Because it fails WP:BLP1E so we don't want or need any history. History can be used for direct linking, "suppression" conspiracy theories, capricious reversion and so on. Guy ( Help!) 16:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two relists have failed to stimulate any real discussion or conclusion: this individual appears to satisfy the general notability guideline but fails the specific guideline for politicians. Ultimately, there is no consensus as to whether one does, or should, trump the other, and hence no consensus to delete. ~ mazca talk 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Jon Powers

Jon Powers (  | 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)

Failed congressional candidate who is not otherwise notable. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Delete.

Prod tag removed by User:Cjs56 on the grounds that "his contributions [...] extend to his charity and his role in a notable film". Neither makes him notable, in my opinion:

  • The charity he founded may have been featured on a few news programs but is undeniably minor
  • He was merely a member of the battalion featured in a niche documentary. So were several hundred other people. They are not notable as a result

Lincolnite ( talk) 22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens ( talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep coverage in RS satisfies GNG, but we must be careful to maintain NPOV. Werner Heisenberg ( talk) 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - not enough significant coverage to justify this article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons ( talk) 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, coverage satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete - Only coverage that exists is as a result of his failed political run. This sets a bad precident for any number of non-notable people getting articles since the press usually covers everyone on the ballot no matter how notable they are as a matter of practice to prevent accusations of Bias. I can find numerous references of the dozens of people that filed to run for the Governer of California after the recall who were otherwise unknown but are mentioned in dozens of news articles for their failed bid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no notability shown apart from his candidacy. I do not agree that the GNG trumps WP:POLITICIAN. If that were so, POLITICIAN would be a dead letter, because every political candidate can show press cuttings based on his candidacy. If you read the WP:GNG in full, you will see that it says that sufficient coverage means a subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria, and a bullet point below says that this is "a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." I say that WP:POLITICIAN constitutes such a consensus that, in order to prevent Wikipedia being used as an election soapbox, references concerned with a political candidacy do not constitute notability. JohnCD ( talk) 20:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sounds like a fine young man, but non-notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ENT if you want to claim he was an actor. Niteshift36 ( talk) 08:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that the GNG is obsolete. It was adopted as a screening device long before G News archive and G Books had the wide-reaching coverage they do today, under the assumption that only the most notable things would have conveniently accessible sources. This is no longer the case, and we need to decide what will replace the GNG. The question then would be whether we wish to regard major party candidates as notable regardless of whether they are successful. My view is, as usual, that we should compromise: the candidates for the major offices are notable, and I would include certainly all national legislatures and all state or provincial chief executives. I would not include candidates for seats in state or provincial legislatures--here we should include only the winners--so for about 90% or more of the political offices we think confers notability, only the actually successful candidates would count--giving us only a ten percent expansion on coverage. I consider that a very conservative extension--I am not a radical inclusionist. (This person, therefore, falls in the notable group.)
I could equally well have given a completely different argument: that the GNG is relevant, even though it shows that more people & things are notable than some of us thought earlier. It is particularly relevant to politics-- it applies with special force here. Politics is the prime example of general notability, and that is why every major party candidate gets press coverage, because the public considers them important. And so they should, for politics is the central function of civilized society.
For years we've been deleting those without apparent press coverage. Now we are asked to delete the ones who do have it. This is perhaps a little ridiculous. But what is truly ridiculous is the confusion implicit in the current notability guidelines.
  • Basic keep The GNG guideline overrides speciality N guidelines, (lowering the bar when 3rd party independent coverage could reasonably be expected to exist), it was always meant so, and has always been so. Turning this upside down is flawed reasoning. It also raises basic difficulties for our processes, for how are we normal editors going to keep track of the undergrowth of speciality guidelines, in which there may be very limited participation. The worst example I have seen is seven editors and a 4:3 vote that was succesfully presented as "community consensus" for a change to WP:PORN. As long as the GNG guideline overrides the speciality guidelines, major harm to the project is unlikely, and I do prefer that we spend our time actually contributing with content etc, not monitoring all this bureaucracy. Power.corrupts ( talk) 16:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ultimately, it seems that enough reliable-source coverage has been found to demonstrate the subject's notability. The neutrality of the article going forward is clearly a valid concern, but it's a concern that must be solved by diligent editing rather than deletion in this instance. ~ mazca talk 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Indaba Music

Indaba Music (  | 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 WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Article was created by an WP:SPA account( Talkin bout chicken ( talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than to promote indabamusic.com. Was speedied previously as spam under WP:CSD#G11. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to press releases that do not count as reliable sources. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article (complete with linkfarm) and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 ( talk) 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Am I speaking with the Editor or not? Is this the correct forum to discuss this issue? I will edit the page to include reliable and prominent news sources. Recently I have been trying to include information throughout Wikipedia concerning a larger issue, the changes to copyright law and content creation that are undergoing in the music business. Indaba Music has been noted by the Press (look at their page - http://www.indabamusic.com/corporate/press) as the leader in this area of collaboration and content creation using Creative Commons. Like the profiles of any other related business such as Apple, this one is valid and does not warrant deletion. It has been re-created in an attempt to allow the world to access information, like any other posts. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines and feel that I have meet them. Please explain any specific concern. Talkin bout chicken ( talk) 15:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Indaba Music has been edited appropriately. Please confirm that the changes are acceptable. I have tried very carefully to adhere to all Wikipedia policies. Thank you, Talkin bout chicken ( talk) 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens ( talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Are there any objections to the revised version of the article? Talkin bout chicken ( talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep. On the right track here. NPOV issues are minor, if any. Further third-party coverage in the future will hopefully allow for greater article expansion. – ArmadniGeneral ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the vote. When will the deletion notices be taken down? Talkin bout chicken ( talk) 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as this article fails WP:SPAM; the article subject (the company) is playing second fiddle to the promotion of its products. None of the sources cited are reliable; they all orginate from own press releases or self-published sources, and it appears that nothing has actually been published about this company. Self-promotion is not the route to establishing notability in accordance with WP:CORP. Notability to come, perhaps. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
There have been many unbiased, new articles and mentions that include the topic of the article. The major news corporations listed as press sources are reliable and HAVE published verifiable articles. I will list these articles and link directly to the original news sources for clarity. 208.105.67.138 ( talk) 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The news sources have been listed and linked directly to the original, unbiased source. The sources include highly reputable publications and websites. They do not qualify as self-promotion as these news companies are not part of the business which is the topic of the article. Talkin bout chicken ( talk) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The problem I have with this article is that its subject matter (the company) is not the subject of any significant coverage, and news sources, whilst they may be reliable sources, are little more than routine announcements in the form of content provided by the company itself (they all seem to feature comments from Daniel Zaccagnino, a director) that are not evidence of notability in accordance with WP:SPAM. It seems to me that this article that should be about a company is merely being used to promote the company's website and provide some publicity for its directors. Self-promotion does not to provide evidence that the company is notable in accordanc with WP:CORP; there has to be evidence that the company has been "noted" by sources outside the company. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Clearly fails WP:CORP. References given are to splogs that do not confer notability; and to self-published press releases that do not count as reliable sources. Others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Additionaly this is one part in a long history of spam and promotion on wikipedia by Indaba Media, LLC.;
Articles
Indaba Music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indaba music (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Accounts
Talkin bout chicken ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Mattbow268 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Manu887 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Awl626 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Fahjeenpenos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Albobcanada ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Acestewart ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Calimack ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
71.188.39.41 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
208.105.67.138 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
* 24.34.72.114 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Nothing more than Self-promotional Advertisement masquerading as an article-- Hu12 ( talk) 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It looks like Hu12 added back previously edited sections to make the article look worse before writing the comment above this one. I fixed the language and content so that it is far less self-promotional-if at all. There are some notable and very interesting news items that I pulled to try to illustrate the company. It looks like there is reasonable news and sources but that some interviews were perhaps mixed in. Also, it makes sense that when news sources cover a company, they try to get an interview or at least a quote from one of its leaders. Of course, I also found articles that just talk about the company and compare it to other similar companies. I also compared it to Amiestreet which I think is similar in terms of size, industry, and the rest. What do you think? If I may, I say Keep 24.34.72.114 ( talk) 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)— 24.34.72.114 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment. Clearly an attempt to Mask the lack of notability thru bombardment of press releases, self-generated sources as it is clear that no significant coverage in secondary sources has "actually" been published about this company.-- Hu12 ( talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I will review your concerns and see what is crux of the issue. Talkin bout chicken ( talk) 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is lengthy simply because I believe we are talking past each other and are ignoring the facts of the situation. Hopefully this clears it up:

I see your point about the content of the news sources, some were not relevant to the article. I included the ones that are, which do not seem to be derived from press releases and are also from notable sources. My intentions as the guidelines state have always been to follow the rules set forth. It seems to me that when a business has significant use of its products as well as traffic and also has reliable new coverage that appears (granted neither of us can determine why the authors wrote their articles) to be simply because the business is notable, than an article is deserved. Specifically, please consider these articles.

The LA Times wrote this in 2007, so although dated, it is an evaluation of the business again another competing business, illustrating the key players in the small but growing market of online music collaboration. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/newmedia/la-ca-webscout19aug19,1,5973343.story?coll=la-entnews-newmedia&ctrack=3&cset=true

Business Week included Indaba in a similar, but much more extensive article. This is without quotes or press release as far as I can tell. Note that although competitors are listed, Indaba was chosen as the focus of the piece (slide 6 of 6). Again, at the time the site was far less used, but a niche has never precluded relevancy of a topic in any other encyclopedia that I've seen. And note that today, the user base has grown to a much larger number, and I'm sure we could find traffic numbers to also support this distinct part of relevancy. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/07/0727_mozes/index_01.htm

The Washington Post wrote about Indaba the same here and similarly compared it to other online music sites. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072100099.html?sub=new

I am also aware that Wikipedia:Notability means impact and that Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of opinion.

Therefore, we should be able to use facts to resolve this issue. Since those articles were written, the site has grown from 5,000 (see Business Week) to 350,000 (see site. On Feb 3, 2009, as a testament to the growth and notability of Indaba Music, Wired Magazine (an industry news source) wrote an article describing the company's recent interview on the Colbert Report. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/02/indaba-music-go/ I am certain we can agree that Colbert is not a legitimate news source. However, the show's profitability relies on connecting with as many people as possible, so therefore it is in Colbert's best interest to invite notable and unique people. The point demonstrates how Indaba Music's growth has led it to become more prominent in it's industry.

From a neutral point of view, we could also discuss the level of musicians who have chosen to work with Indaba Music or simply to be part of the site. I deleted a list of famous musicians who use Indaba because I did not know if it was appropriate for the article. However, consider that popular artists across genres - people who have Wikipedia entries that are already deemed notable have worked with Indaba Music or use the website of their own fruition. For example Mariah Carey, Yo-Yo Ma, T-Pain, Rivers Cuomo, and others. The original list is much longer, though I doubt all of them already have articles - these are merely highlights that I have read about.

I believe that it is important to Wikipedia:Give an article a chance because it seems that this conversation began when I was a) still editing the article b) still learning what information is important and necessary and c) still learning what information is not relevant. To me, the company has been noted and evaluated by relevant sources, has a large and proven growing group of users, and works with the highest level of talented musicians. I am happy to continue this conversation, but let's please focus on the facts because Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of opinion. I believe that anyone reading the article now for the first time as it currently stands would find it reasonable and perhaps only in need of minor edits.

Thank you Talkin bout chicken ( talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn as criterion 3 of WP:PROF met. . LibStar ( talk) 05:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Diogenes Angelakos

Diogenes Angelakos (  | 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)

nominating for WP:ONEVENT, he is not really known for his academic career as google scholar reveals [2]. gnews proves one event coverage [3]. LibStar ( talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. I was ready to !vote "delete per nom: but then I decided to do a bit more google-searching, just in case. There is an obituary about him at the UC Berkeley website [4]. It mentions that he was a Fellow and later a Life Fellow of IEEE (which would likely make him academically notable per WP:PROF). However, when I attempted to verify this fact directly at the IEEE website, his name does not appear in the list of Fellows: [5]. I am not sure how to explain it, but this case probably deserves more digging to see if he is academically notable. The scarcity of GoogleScholar hits might be due to the fact that most of his active research would have been done in the 1960s and 70s, and GScholar would not be very good at tracking citability for publications which are that old. Nsk92 ( talk) 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A commons gallery is already being developed, as per User:Bwmoll3. Inappropriate for en-Wikipedia ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery (  | 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 per Category:Wikipedia image galleries, this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. The appropriate replacement gallery has been established at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Air_Command_Emblems . Thus this page has been listed for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

-Delete- This type of gallery is discouraged under the WP:Gallery rules. A gallery on Wikimedia Commons is being developed to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwmoll3 ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 January 2010

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Trademarkia

Trademarkia (  | 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 non-notable website. The information about the company is sourced entirely to two websites, one of which comes from a press release from trademarkia itself.

In addition, I would seriously question the motive for creating this article in the first place WP:SPAM. The article purports the company to be a free database, yet the purpose of the company is to sell its trademarking services. The article creator has also spammed wikipedia with links to the website. Martin451 ( talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I have edited the article to address your concerns. This site is notable, as there is nowhere else on the web to find stuff like the original Eli Lilly trademark, the original Coca Cola trademark, etc. I am biased, as I used to be a contractor to this company and am new to Wikipedia. I created the original post. However, I strongly feel that this site is worthy of mention on Wikipedia, if for nothing more than because it has so much great historical trademarks on it. It's database of trademarks is larger than the USPTO's own public search. I apologize for my previous posts, I will make sure my future posts on Wikipedia fully comply with policies as well, ( talk) 11:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily kept (snowing). – xeno talk 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Barton Bridge

Barton Road Swing Bridge (  | 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 iBen discuss/ contribs 22:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Do I need to say Keep? Peridon ( talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

A Christmas Carol - As told by Jacob Marley (deceased)

A Christmas Carol - As told by Jacob Marley (deceased) (  | 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 appears to be a non notable version of A Christmas Carol, and I'm unable to find anything reliable to suggest otherwise. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)| (talk to me)| (What I've done) 22:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The page, as I created it, used non-primary sources. Agree that puffery happened along the way, mainly using changes not made by myself.-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 13:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A lack of reliable sources outweighs any other arguments. Kevin ( talk) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

James Hyland

James Hyland (  | 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 independant 3rd party reliable sources. Not verified. Does not meet BIO. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The page, as I created it, used non-primary sources. Agree that puffery happened along the way, mainly using changes not made by myself.-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 13:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was withdrawn by nom 2 says you, says two 15:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't Move Here

AfDs for this article:
Don't Move Here (  | 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 originally thought this had just enough to satisfy WP:N, but upon closer inspection I discovered all but two of the sources were published months and in some cases years before the documentary series was created. The two that were published after the series premiered are trivial. Great for expanding background information, but not for proving notability. 2 says you, says two 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm going ahead and withdrawing this, didn't realize documentaries are held to a different notability standard. 2 says you, says two 15:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I see. Thanks for being very specific about its conflicted notability. I couldn’t find any article notable enough that has been written since the series premiered, so please feel free to delete that page. — Brampitoyo, 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nowhere in the notability policy does it state that sources must treat a subject within a particular time frame. It only requires significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, and does not state (or even imply) that this coverage be after or during an event. If we had such a rule, books written after a historical event or biographies written after a person's lifetime would not count towards notability. Now that would be silly, wouldn't it? Even if the articles aren't quite as good for verifying what has gone to date now that the series has started, they are significant enough attention from good sources to solidify notability. Steven Walling 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I would agree with your rationale if we were talking about the Portland independent music scene itself. However, the sources given do not discuss the notability of the documentary series "Don't Move Here" with the reason being that they were published long before the series was even produced. Since notability is not inherited, just because of the mere fact a documentary series is made about a notable musical movement does not mean that the documentary series is automatically notable. 2 says you, says two 14:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not talking about the sources that are more focused on the music scene in general. I'm talking about the links like the ones from Willamette Week and The Portland Mercury, which are award-winning media outlets generally considered reliable sources. Both the posts from WW and Mercury are exclusive coverage mentioning Don't Move Here as a noteworthy project. Steven Walling 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
In addition to this, I also made sure that I am citing from nationally recognized media outlets like The Fader, rather than just local or regional ones. — Brampitoyo, 21:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A lack of any reliable sources outweights the other arguments here. Kevin ( talk) 01:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Oschino Vazques

Oschino Vazques (  | 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)

Doesn't appear to satisfy Notability. Freikorp ( talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork * YES! 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Giovanni Adamo

Giovanni Adamo (  | 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 notable musician Off2riorob ( talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

His claim to notability is that he was a ...former concertmaster of the Teatro Comunale di Bologna.. but the article has been uncited for about three years. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep , as nominator has not provided valid rationale for deletion despite request on talk page. No prejudice to re-nomination with a valid deletion rationale. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Daniel Castady

Daniel Castady (  | 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 KellanFabjance ( talk) 03:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Christopher Glen Leigh Fulton

Christopher Glen Leigh Fulton (  | 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 person. Speedy declined because of award of CBE, but this award seems to be relatively common (see this page which indicates that there are currently over 100,000 honorees). WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to "keep". Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Masjid Umar Leicester

Masjid Umar Leicester (  | 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 reason why this mosque is more deserving of an article then any other Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted ( CSD A9) by Jclemens. NAC. Cliff smith talk 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Underestimated Vol.2: Vengeance

Underestimated Vol.2: Vengeance (  | 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. Album fails general notability guidelines, and the article about the artist (Swifty) has already been deleted as the result of a recent AFD. JBsupreme ( talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Additional references found (Non-admin closure) I42 ( talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Jungftak

Jungftak (  | 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)

Supposedly fictitious entry in a 1943 edition of Websters. But the only reference for this provided is a radio DJs blog, and that DJ is reporting something a caller to the radio station told them - so utterly unreliable. No other references found. I42 ( talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I wasn't able to confirm (having no access to that particular dictionary) that it is a fictitious entry - however, the radio broadcast did seem to confirm it so I listed it as a reference. L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I have found another report which has Websters denying this ever happened. I42 ( talk) 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
It appears just to be claiming that it is not a real bird... L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes, I misread it. The article seems to confirm that the word did appear in the dictionary. I will withdraw the AfD. (Fascinating story, too!) I42 ( talk) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the OTRS side of things, I see no sign of notability for inclusion on en-Wikipedia ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Charlie Wiederhold

Charlie Wiederhold (  | 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 am the person this is about, and I'm not very encyclopedic. The person who original wrote it seems to be long gone. It's not well written (or accurate) and there is definitely not much interest in making it better. -- Charlie Wiederhold ( talk) 16:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This article was initially nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and the collapsed discussion above contains discussion that took place while the nomination was listed at MfD. – Black Falcon ( talk) 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable. With all due respect to Charlie, Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. Yoninah ( talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    He is the one requesting deletion of the article, not the one who created the article. – Black Falcon ( talk) 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In addition to the notability question, if Charlie himself would like the article to be deleted, then let's think about the reasoning behind the WP: BLP requirements. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 23:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, while OTRS would be necessary to prove that User:Charlie really is Charlie, we have ample evidence to suggest that he isn't notable; when all but one of the sources are forums, there's no way that you qualify under WP:BIO. Assuming that User:Charlie really is Charlie — thank you for making sure that WP:BIO is being followed instead of simply editing it to make you look better despite a lack of sources. Nyttend ( talk) 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    No problem. I care about Wikipedia more than my ego and it had plenty of time to be improved without it happening. I have a personal website, that should be sufficient for anyone who wants to know what I'm up to. :) Charlie Wiederhold ( talk) 07:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 ( talk) 14:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Ordinarily I would suggest OTRS as an avenue for a person requesting deletion of an article on himself to prove his identity, but I believe that even if we were to disregard the subject's wishes, he clearly fails notability guidelines. The article is sourced only to forums and an article that is potentially an RS but is not about Mr. Wiederhold, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything else that leads me to believe he meets notability guidelines. — KuyaBriBri Talk 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    Ok this will probably come off as strange since I requested the deletion, but figured I'd put it out there cause I'd like to learn. If this sort of stuff would improve Notability it will at least let me understand better what matters and what doesn't. I've generally avoided live people pages specifically because they are so quirky. Not asking the article to be kept, just clearing up notability conditions. [20], [21], [22]. There is more like that (Search for "chair story wiederhold" and what happened with it when 3D Realms shut down), etc. In terms of creativity did just work on a major product Modern Warfare 2, and was involved very visibly with another Duke Nukem Forever, but there are 100 people on MW2 here so that alone isn't enough and I'm not a lead designer on it or anything, and I just don't get the self promotion side of creative person as it relates to my involvement with DNF. I'm also currently mentioned on the Duke 3D and Shadow Warrior pages here. So dunno. Charlie Wiederhold ( talk) 22:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are tens or hundred of thousands of people in the games industry, many of whom draw the attentions of fans from time to time, because of their community involvement, their personality or just by accident. This does not make them notable. Notability perhaps is indicated when the name of a developer is widely known even away from fans of the game or franchise. Jeff Minter or John Carmack for example. It certainly should require significant coverage of the individual - profiles, personal interviews, analysis of that person's impact, in print magazines or the online equivalent (not just fan sites, blogs and forums). By that this article's subject is nowhere near notable enough.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 16:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    That clarifies a bit my question above to KuyaBriBri. Danke. -- Charlie Wiederhold ( talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Inclusion in game credits is not enough in my view. I would expect individual coverage of him, e.g. interviews. Pcap ping 07:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

GTS plc

GTS plc (  | 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)

Doesn't seem to be an influential organization as per WP:CORP. News searches don't turn up anything; web searches only result in quotations from press releases, and they all sound like advertising. Article has been here for a couple of years and tagged for half a year, and no improvements have been made. Zero articles link to this one. Schmloof ( talk) 20:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Je Suis Une Dolly

Je Suis Une Dolly (  | 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)

Unreferenced, and with no supporting evidence found at reliable sources from google, this appears to be either WP:CRYSTAL or even a hoax. I42 ( talk) 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criteria A7. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Brennan Saillezmotte

Brennan Saillezmotte (  | 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, it is unnotable and although it qualifies for speedy seletion, it has been contested meaning the Afd is the only way to settle this. ToxicWasteGrounds ( talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Black Ski Mask

Black Ski Mask (  | 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 WP:NOTFILM, this film is not widely distributed, has no notable awards or coverage. Helios Creed guest appearance doesn't establish notability; per NOTFILM, to have the film be notable due to involvement by a notable person it must "...[feature] significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." A guest appearance is not "one of the most important roles in the making of the film". — ShadowRanger ( talk| stalk) 19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - concur with nominator, there's no evidence this really passes the film notability criteria. I originally concurred with the prod placed on the page, which was removed with the comment that Helios' participation made this a notable film. As the nominator states, this would only be true if he was a major character in the film. If I make a film about my puppy, it would likely be non-notable. Even if I was able to convince Toni Morrison to make a 5 second guest appearance in the film (she lives a few blocks away), it wouldn't make the film notable. -- Bfigura ( talk) 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Intermark Group. Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Vazda Studios

Vazda Studios (  | 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)

Orphan article created by Alexandra.routhier ( talk · contribs), an editor who only edited Wikipedia from June 30 to August 15, 2008 to create the above article as well as MSP Intermark. The article reads like an advert and a resume, listing "clients and experience", the company president's prior experience, the specific services the company offers as well as what tools are used to provide these services. Extensive searches to locate reliable sources that mention the company in a non-trivial manner turn up empty, leaving me unable to verify that the company meets WP:CORP. I'll gladly withdraw my nomination if sources can be found showing notability and providing info that can be used to populate the article with encyclopedic information rather than its current advertisment-type information. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Concerns about lack of discussion in reliable secondary sources seem valid, but there is definitely not a consensus for deletion. Article is still fairly new but does eventually need to be properly sourced with inline citations which will help with establishing notability. If that does not happen in the future and notability is still questionable a second trip to AfD would not be unwarranted. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Blechreiz

Blechreiz (  | 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. If it were one of the "most important German ska bands of the 1990s", its reformation in 2008 should have produced some notice in reliable sources, but none can be found. Article created by a member of the band. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment But none of those search results is significant. Basically, they are all either sites maintained by the band themself, or are mere music listing services where practically any and every band in the world can get their music listed. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment on comment More sources, not done by anybody in the band:

1. the films quoted in the Filmography, esp. “Ska in Berlin” – ORB (Ostdeutscher Rundfunk Brandenburg television station) – Report on Blechreiz’s 10th anniversary, „Berlin-Warzawa“ – Live video of the Friendship Concert in Warsaw, Poland filmed by Polish TV 1 television station, „Which Side Are You On?“ – Television documentary (Arte/Yildiz Film)

2. http://www.skalovers.de/loves/videos/Blechreiz/28-Blechreiz+Potsdamer+Ska+Festival.html (and other mentionings on that site)

3. http://festivals-2009.festivalticker.de/festivals/potsdamer_skafestival/, http://www.jazzclub-leipzig.de/nc/jazzkalender/jazzkalender-detail/article/ut-connewitz-blechreiz-the-rudementaries.html?tx_ttnews[backPid]=29 and many more mentionings in festival-announcements in 2008 and 2009.

4. A new dvd from the biggest Punk-festival of Germany: "Force Attack 2009 - die beste Punker-Party der Welt" (The best punk party of the world), dröönland production, Rostock 2009

5. Infos about releases etc. on http://www.myspace.com/porkpieska (the biggest ska-label in Germany and all neighbouring countries), http://www.skarorecords.de/shop/CD_SKA_HAUPTSTADTSKA2/index.html...

6. Various mentionings in forums of ska-lovers like http://www.allska-forum.de/showtopic.php?threadid=3300, www.skatime.de, www.ska-talk.org...

7. Various music-download and sales offers on ebay, www.musicload.at, mp3.soundquake.com... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruediger.rossig ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment While the ORB mention might indicate notability, without a viable link to indicate that this band was mentioned significantly in the ORB broadcast, this reference is not verifiable.
The other "filmography" listings also do not indicate that the band was featured prominently in the films, or whether it was instead just one of a group of bands that happened to be at a festival when the festival was being covered.
The "ska lovers" reference is a user forum, and as such is not considered a reliable source.
The FestivalTicker piece is a single-line mention of the band, not significant coverage. The JazzClub Leipzig piece is merely a calendar listing of their appearance.
Appearance in a punk-festival is not, in itself, significant.
Releases noted at myspace, forums, etc, are not considered indications of notability.
In sum, none of the arguments made by Ruediger.rossig ( talk · contribs) above meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

KEEP Not yet mentioned above were Audio CDs and MP3 downloads listed on amazon.com/amazon.de. -- 92.229.252.33 ( talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC) — 92.229.252.33 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment The availability of CDs for sale does not make a band notable. Please refer to WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep The dates of the above mentioned emissions ORB and arte need to appended - which in the case of the ORB emission is no trivial task as this radio station no longer exists and has no representing website. Blechreiz has been and still is a noted and notable band in Germany, it is mentionend in various publications like those of de:Klaus Farin and de:Eberhard Seidel-Pielen (e.g. Klaus Farin, Eberhard Seidel Pielen: Skinheads, Klaus Farin: Die Skins: Mythos und Realität, Markus Messics: Skinheads: Antirassisten oder "rechte Schläger"?) and have found their way into various Rocklexika (encyclopedias of rock music), like Michael Graf: Rocklexikon Deutschland. Entries for Blechreiz are found in online encyclopedias like Lexikon der Pop- & Rock-Musik and laut.de. -- Burkhard ( talk) 09:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per User:Drahkrub. Also, the article was created less then a week ago. Perhaps more time should be given for development prior to nomination for deletion.-- Pink Bull 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 It would be easy to look at this through purely sympathetic eyes at a time like this and just give this article a pass because of the recent tragedy in Haiti, so I want to assure all of you that I have tried my upmost to look at this objectively. The argument that "he's only famous because he's dead" has an obvious logical flaw in it, in that 20,000 or more people died in a matter of moments, no one death in and of itself is more notable than any other, unless the person who dies was already notable. Why would anyone bother reporting on this particular mans death when the streets are literally piled with rotting corpses unless there was something special about him? The argument that "someone in Haiti would have done it by now" also has some rather large flaws. One, most Haitians do not speak English as their first language, so they are less likely to be contributing here in the first place. Secondly, I could see not knowing before the earthquake that Haiti is a wretchedly poor nation where millions of people struggle to get food every day, but in the time since the quake I think I must have heard the term "poorest country in the Western hemisphere" about 500 times. Most Haitians don't have a computer at all, much less high speed internet access. Lastly, from a pure WP policy standpoint, there do seem to be adequate sources from both before and after his death to establish his notability, and I would bet that there are significantly more sources in French or Creole that could be used to beef up this article, although as I said, Haiti wasn't too "plugged in" even before. Beeblebrox ( talk) 07:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Jimmy O

Jimmy O (  | 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 notable per WP guidelines Erroneuz1 ( talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I need someone to explain what makes him notable in Haiti...he's never released an album and was not even listed on this site until he died. If he was such a huge notable musician, wouldn't an article have been created way before the earthquake? I'm failing to see anything notable about his career as a musician whatsoever. -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

When an article got created is irrelevant to the process of determining their notability — people from smaller and non-English-speaking countries are especially likely to not have articles on here until a US or UK newspaper reports on their death, simply because most Wikipedia editors aren't familiar with the topic. Bearcat ( talk) 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
If he's such a huge national figure, someone in Haiti with internet access would have created it already. He's a big celebrity superstar apparently. The article would have been here if this was true. -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 03:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Erroneuz1, your arguement is getting pretty old. Many wiki articles are written after someone dies. The Laura Chapman Hruska and Edward H. Linde articles were just created this week, shortly after appearring in the New York Times obituary section!!! David Straub ( talk) 04:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
It's an argument no one can seem to refute Dave. There's a difference between being ranked in Forbes and having no album. -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. One of those cases where an non-notable (by our standards) person gets pumped up only because of their death in a prominent event by the media looking to find "notable" casualties to keep the news cycle flowing. In my view, this guy is not notable for his career - if he was there would have been sources while he was alive. He never released an album so it doesn't appear he ever met WP:MUSIC. The sources only seem to indicate he was "well-respected in the local rap scene". Well-respected does not mean notable. He's therefore notable only for his death and thus does not warrant an article per WP:BIO1E. If any sources can be presented to show that he was notable for anything other than his death, happy to reconsider. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Source of Notability: - A 2006 Christian Science Monitor article has the following "Jean recently emceed a hip-hop contest in the Bel Air slum as part of the USAID-funded Clean Streets project. From 50 contestants in three different slums, Haitian rap star "Jimmy O" Alexandre and Jean selected four from each neighborhood to perform in Bel Air." All this talk about him not having an album in the US is irrelevant. He was obviously well known in Haiti, which is why he has an article. And by the way Erroneuz1, if you want to address me by my first name, why don't you provide your real name and some contact info on your user page and stop talking trash behind a wiki-moniker. Or are you a bit too afraid some Haitians might track you down and give you a lesson in Port-au-Prince style street violence. David Straub ( talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm addressing you by your chosen username if that also happens to be your real name, I have no idea. I wasn't talking album in the US, I was talking album in any country, of which he has none. I'm failing to see what exactly he accomplished that makes him a star and thus article worthy. So he knew Wyclef, that gets him an article? -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: Implied threats of violence are over the line. Please strike those comments and stay WP:CIVIL. — Gwalla | Talk 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
There are more than one [25], [26].— Sandahl ( ♀) 03:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I don't think either one of those are the subject of this article, huh? -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 03:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Again, we are losing geographical focus here. Jimmy O was a Haitian rapper who was well known in Haiti, but he also worked in the US, where he was not well known. CNN mentions that " Jimmy O, a well-known singer and songwriter in Haiti who also was active in hip-hop artist and philanthropist Wyclef Jean's charity, is dead." He sang his songs in Creole, not English ( see video). It should not be surprising that he is not well known in the US, but that is not what's important. David Straub ( talk) 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sufficient coverage in reliable sources. CNN describes him as a " a well-known singer and songwriter in Haiti". The reason that few English newspapers have covered him is systemic bias. Cunard ( talk) 06:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Its only systemic bias if there is a reasonable amount of coverage from non-English newspapers prior to his death. Is there? If so, where is it? This is likely going to be closed as "keep" and if so I will be challenging it again later on down the road if said coverage cannot be found. JBsupreme ( talk) 06:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • In cases such as this, I err on the side of caution. If as CNN said, Jimmy O was well-known in Haiti, Haiti newspapers have likely written articles about him. Because these newspapers don't keep long-term online archives of all their articles, searches for sources prior to his death return no results. The only reason I am voting "keep" is due the assertion made by the CNN article. Otherwise, I would agree with deletion. Cunard ( talk) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Slimelight

Slimelight (  | 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 night club. Has some vague claims (eg, "oldest") but does not substantiate them with references. Mikeblas ( talk) 18:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Denton (A Touch of Frost)

Denton (A Touch of Frost) (  | 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 PROD refusal. The article is a two-sentence stub which has been tagged as an orphan since last February. Nothing is known about the fictional town, and except as the name of the fictional setting it does not feature in R. D. Wingfield's Frost stories or the television series based on them. TS 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's no apparent reason to keep this as a search term, and there's no good reason this content shouldn't already be covered in the show's article. No prejudice against keeping or re-creating it if there are sufficient RS that document anything particularly special about the fictional town. Jclemens ( talk) 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable. The article was only an orphan because the nominator removed all incoming links to it. Quite a shady tactic in my opinion, stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Further proof lies in the fact that the nominator didn't even tag the article in relation to this discussion, blatantly trying to get it through on the sly. Yes I should assume good faith, but in this situation with this user, there isn't a fat lot of good faith left. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, perhaps the nominator should read up on the deletion policies before nominating any further articles? Jeni ( talk) 01:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    Actually as I remarked it has been tagged as an orphan for nearly a year. I didn't do the tagging. An orphan is defined in Wikipedia:Orphan as an article with less than three links in (this one had two). Please don't make accusations like that, it sours the atmosphere. -- TS 15:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    According to WP:Orphan, the only problem with being an orphan page is that it's difficult to find and thus less likely to be improved. The removal of links is therefore likey o exacerbate a problem and create facts on the ground. WP:Orphan also advises that we concentrate on those articles with no links Folks at 137 ( talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable. The TV series is a popular one featuring an important actor (David Jason). Reading the talk page for the series, there seems to be interest in deducing the fictional location and the actual production location, so there is content if anyone wishes to collate and edit. There are probably plenty of interested fans and it's not their fault if we have not been industrious enough. An issue is whether any fictional location deserves an article. This one should be kept, if any is. So far, TS hasn't explained his reasons for deleting the pre-existing links. Folks at 137 ( talk) 15:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for pointing out that I hadn't explained why deleted the two links to the article. I did so because they pointed to a useless stub that adds nothing to the reader's knowledge, and because nothing verifiable is known about Denton except that it is the made-up name of a fictional English town in a series of detective stories. -- TS 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence of notability or necessity present, at all. It's just a placeholder name; "A Touch of Frost is set in the fictional town of Denton, which appears to be in or near Oxfordshire, more precisely in the upper Thames Valley. There in fact are at least ten places in the UK named Denton, including one in Oxfordshire, though the town in the series is not directly identified with any of them." From one of the UK DVD distributors. It had to be called something, it's called Denton, how does that necessitate an article? Someone another 23:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    Actually I think the DVD distributor may well have "borrowed" that wording from this section of A Touch of Frost or an earlier version. There has been a bit of fannish wittering about the location, but it is not based in reliable sources. -- TS 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It may help if we try to establish clear criteria for the retention/inclusion of fictional places. Any such place is "made-up" for the sake of a story and has no notability beyond that. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, according to Wiki, and most stubs are probaby "useless". Reasons for deletion need to be better than that. If the reason is lack of notability, then probably most fictional location articles should be merged. So, maybe this argument is a generic one that belongs elsewhere where the main principle can be discussed and decided by a wider audience. Folks at 137 ( talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Also, removing wikilinks in the interest of cleaning up WP:OVERLINKING isn't bad faith. Wikilinking a bunch of words doesn't make an article better, it just makes a sea of blue links that do nothing to enhance understanding of the topic. Niteshift36 ( talk) 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with an eye toward improving the tone to a more WP:NPOV. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Digifold

Digifold (  | 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. Article created by editor with a WP:COI - initial version claimed he had invented it. noq ( talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, unambiguous advertising: Digifold is a new generation of 4 and 6 corner folding device for box gluers and associated machinery...it used advanced materials to improve speed and reduce cost... When you're a Pepsi Generation dropout like me, describing such a tool as new generation seems rather breathlessly promotional to the point of bemusement. Google News is all routine trade coverage of who's purchased this line of products, with nothing to indicate general awareness outside the box printing business. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 19:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If this is Morgana's DigiFold, a device used in the production of books, then there a good number of independent sources about it [29]. It also has a fairly good claim to notability " the world's first integrated creaser/folder" [30]. The wiki article is a bit unclear whether it's about that or something else. Pcap ping 14:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Plenty of Google responses. Article clearly needs improvement, but editors should be given the opportunity to do so. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but consider revising the article to be about the company--whjch would make a stronger & more informative article. From the description, this is the machine used in book production also or a variant of it. It apparently has a major share in an infdustry, and that is sufficient, even were it not innovative. The sources are perfectly good reliable trade magazines--the good ones are accepted in each industry as the major sources. They is the primary way people communicate about commercial products, and reliability goes according to what is accepted in the subject. TheWholeSubjectDoesNotSeemImportantToMe is not a good argument. And finally, notability is within a field. For a machine, notability within its industry is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete advertising for a product of no demonstrable (via reliable, third party sources etc...) notability. Bali ultimate ( talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DGG. Pcap ping 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Is there anything to confirm that it is the same product as the Morgana one? The description of its use seems at variance. noq ( talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Its mentioned in the news enough to be something worth talking about. Google news search results = notable enough to have an article about it. Dream Focus 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and likely re-focus per DGG. -- Banjeboi 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Bittersweet: The Love Songs Collection

Bittersweet: The Love Songs Collection (  | 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 compilation. Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 20:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Cher is unquestionably a notable artist. If her bio article were to have all the worthwhile and properly sourced information about her, however, it would be far too long. Therefore, the editors of the article have properly used summary style. The main article links to a daughter article concerning Cher albums discography, and that article links to articles about particular albums. It's an excellent way to make available a rich level of detail about Cher (which some readers would want) without surrendering to clutter that would impair Wikipedia's value for readers who want less detail. JamesMLane  t  c 08:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

War Paint and Soft Feathers

War Paint and Soft Feathers (  | 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 song. Released only as a promo in US. Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 20:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a non-notable song for which I can't find any significant independent coverage. In the event it's retained, it should be a redirect to Cherished per WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The Great Debate (song)

The Great Debate (song) (  | 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 song is not a single and is not otherwise notable. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - Rule Britannia is not a single either, that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Parrot of Doom 18:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Gina DeVettori

Gina DeVettori (  | 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 actor. No movie she's had a significant role in been in has been widely reviewed. She has neither won nor been nominated for any awards. She has not garnered any significant coverage in any sources. Bongo matic 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Stephen Moore (businessman)

Stephen Moore (businessman) (  | 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:BLP issues aside, this article reads like a narrative of a resume, and I was unable to find any substantive sources on the web to back up any of the claims made about this person. Just not convinced he's notable. 2 says you, says two 14:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Update on sources reply

As of this revision, a number of references had been inserted:
Note I am not bothering to delve into whether the sources can be considered to be reliable for the most part, as it is irrelevant. Bongo matic 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Primarily as per WP:NEO - timelines can exist but not as FORKS or under a neologism ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Politicalchronology, etc.

Politicalchronology (  | 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)
Politicalchronology 1990s (  | 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)

Appears to be mixture of original research and forked content from other articles to justify a non-notable neologism. Scjessey ( talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Politicalchronology does not refer to external research in its field, it is designed to be a source of world political chronology. Nor is the article fully completed yet and all references and sorces required will be edited, as well as further guidance and description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl29gbg ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    You could at least start by providing a reference to the term "politicalchronology". At least then reviewing editors would have something to go on. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed as moot. I have summarily redirected the page to Coteaux du Tricastin AOC; a redirect is worth keeping here as a plausible spelling error that has in fact been made, and I see no grounds for erasing the history. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Coteaux de Tricastin AOC

Coteaux de Tricastin AOC (  | 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)

G7, and A10 (although not really recent). Was originally created through expansion from almost duplicate stubs. This stub named Coteaux de Tricastin is the wrong name. The correct name is Coteaux du Tricastin AOC (now uopdated). Any content worth keeping has been moved over. Kudpung ( talk) 12:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Nafeh

Nafeh (  | 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 magazine is not notable in Iran. The article looks like an advertisement for the magazine and how good it is! Must be deleted ASAP. Professional Assassin ( talk) 10:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep. There are indications this magazine is notable in Iran. I have added a couple of cites including one which shows the publisher attending an important literary award function. The fact that at least two notable writers have published their work in the magazine indicates notability. More importantly perhaps, the existence of an independent literary magazine, and information about it is of interest to people living in English-speaking countries. The topic of free speech in Iran, is a very current and important issue that some people may want to research or simply know more about. Therefore, I see no reason to remove this article from Wikipedia & I believe it can be developed further by other editors, as I had little difficulty coming up with a couple of new references. The article may never become a very long one, but how long can an article about a literary magazine ever be?— KeptSouth ( talk) 11:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The magazine has near zero notability in Iran. The article lacks any reliable source to show its notability. You have added a link as a supposed source which has nothing to do with this article's topic. The only relation between this article and your source is this image caption in your source: Simin Behbahani and Nahid tavassoli, writer and pubisher of Nafeh (a literary magazine). Does it really show this magazine's notability? There are hundreds of likewise magazines in Iran.-- Professional Assassin ( talk) 12:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I read both sources. There was nothing about notability of Nafeh in them.-- Professional Assassin ( talk) 12:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Chemical Safety Report

Chemical Safety Report (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
Predicted no-effect concentration (  | 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)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Posted my concern here about 20 days ago for this and another article Predicted no-effect concentration. On both articles, there no footnotes to determine where the references come from, I don't quite understand the context of the articles or reasoning for inclusion on Wikipedia. Any truly valuable information most likely could be merged into a relevant article on the topic, but to be honest I'm having trying determining what article(s) that may be. NJA (t/ c) 11:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have been provided which lead to a rough consensus that this appears sufficiently notable. The article clearly still requires substantial cleanup but appears notable in principle. ~ mazca talk 20:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Ultimate++

AfDs for this article:
Ultimate++ (  | 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)

Doesn't appear to be notable. None of the sources establish notability, and I couldn't find anything significant on Google. The article has already been deleted three times (see old AFD). Laurent ( talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

129.187.200.191 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC). reply

    • WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping or deleting an article. If PellesC is even less notable than Ultimate++ then it should probably be deleted too, but that's a different issue. Laurent ( talk) 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • WP:Other stuff exists actually CAN be an argument for keeping or deleting an article (see the WP:Other stuff exists). It is not like there is thousands of comparable entries that keep appearing in Wiki. Number of comparable software is in fact quite limited, there is only about a dozen of actively used C++ GUI toolkits in existence (and about the same number of IDEs). All seem to be covered by wiki now, which sounds reasonable.
  • Keep Notable references are sparse but exist. wxWidgets and WTL consider this project to be a competition: [50] [51]. It is also mentioned as system being in use in embedded devices: [52]. Critical review seems to be here: [53]. It appears to be quite often mentioned in various forums as possible option, e.g. [54] (more examples exist). Wikipedia lists many similar projects that are about as notable as this one, see VCF Juce TnFOX fpGUI FLTK FOX toolkit. 00:18 24 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping or deleting an article. Moreover, in my opinion these links do not help establish notability. [55] and [56] are wikis which are not reliable sources. It's actually very possible that these pages have been partly written by the authors of Ultimate++. [57] and [58] are blogs which are not reliable sources. Finally, [59] is a forum, so not a reliable source either. Laurent ( talk) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:Other stuff exists agreed. However, the question is how detailed wikipedia wants to be. IMHO, mix of various references, even if borderline notable, creates impression that the information provided by the article is useful for wikipedia users. Personally, when I encounter any new term unknown to me, my first reaction is to find it out in wikipedia for balanced review/overview. As I expect this to work for e.g. "FLTK", then it should work here too (that is the reason for quoting similar articles - IMHO, they should all be kept). This can be verified, to some degree, by the article traffic statistics. 10:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 ( talk)
  • Comment (as I have already voted Keep): there is a number of possibly notable non-English references: [60] - two articles in printed Polish 'Software Developers Journal', issues 2005-11 and 2005-12. There appear to have been two articles in printed French journal Programmez, issues 104 and 114 [61] [62] (links summary of articles in journal with page preview). Also, links like this [63], while not in fact making this notable, appear to suggest that "Ultimate++" is term somebody would miss in WP. This is definitely non-notable: [64] or [65] but supports the idea that the number of similar entries is indeed limited (per WP:Other stuff exists, compare that to the list of major StarWars characters...)
Obscure but perhaps weakly notable: [66] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 ( talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be mentioned in some books: [67] [68] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.237.17 ( talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maybe this really is the best cleanup venue after all... JBsupreme ( talk) 07:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Feloni

AfDs for this article:
Feloni (  | 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. This artist fails WP:MUSIC and general notability guidelines. Yes, she has received passing coverage by GO Magazine, and yes appeared on a reality television show (Coming Out Stories). We don't create articles for every single person who appears on a reality television show and for good reason. All the supposed references are dead links so I cannot vouch for their authenticity or substance. JBsupreme ( talk) 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both due to insufficient/trivial mentions in reliable sources. Beeblebrox ( talk) 07:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

L. Cedeño & Bliss Wishes

L. Cedeño (  | 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)
Bliss Wishes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (album by artist, related)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing in either article that tells me that the subjects are actually notable for inclusion. Along with apparent WP:BLP and WP:COI issues (author User:Etrangere has admitted to being involved with the subject), I'm not even sure if this passes WP:MUSIC, nor does the related article (an album by the artist). All of the references in the first article are trivial mentions or user-oriented websites (Last.fm and AllMusic). These websites do not even have any content on them other than track names and release dates. And the news article used for a reference does not even mention the subject. The article on the album is even worse. It's just a tracklist with a reference for the release date.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 13:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I disagree with deletion. The article only mentions the things that make this artist notable. Specifically it notes the characterizations and description as mentioned by NPR, which is a viable, editorial source. Also, the link to NPR does mention the artist. As a matter of fact, the linked story is specifically and exclusively about the artist, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't mention the artist. As for the related album - that is the album that is noted in the linked article. As stated NPR, is a viable, editorial, notable source. There is no original research contained in this article.
    Allmusic is a viable source from the inquiries and research I've done here on Wikipedia. Allmusic is used as a source in a great many articles here. Still, if it's not a viable source according to consensus I will remove it. As for the rest of the links being user-related. They're not related to me - they're related to the artist in question. I agree that Myspace is not a viable source and should be removed.
    I think instead of removing this article it should be improved with better sources and more description of what makes the artist notable. Since I wrote the article I'm not sure if my opinion counts here but I will gladly attempt to improve the article in hopes that in can be retained. Etrangere ( talk) 07:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Etrangere, you have an emotional and fiscal stake in the retention of this page on Wikipedia. This website is not for advertising.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 07:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Response to above - As the author I'd like to keep the article but I don't have a "Fiscal" nor an "emotional" stake in the outcome. What don't you get about - I'm not the subject of the article? If I'm not mistaken - editors who contribute articles are invited to take part in these discussions. If I'm wrong please direct me to the guideline which stipulates that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrangere ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. I only see a single album on a marginally notable indie label, the rest of the indies are non-notable. Further, as WP:MUSIC states, significant mention in reliable sources is required. I see none of that here. The NPR piece is a short bio with no named author, and cannot be used to establish notability. Then we have Allmusic and Last.fm. Two companies which simply publish music information. No named author, cannot be used to establish notability. Lastly, we have the Dallas observer. That's a single article. Multiple are required.. what's more, the Observer doesn't even mention this artist's name. It gives a passing mention to a band he was in, The Junky Southern, but that's it. The article is about some other band that the subject of the article wasn't even in. Fails WP:N, fails WP:MUSIC. Delete.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Article should be deleted. Notability not established Em7 ( talk)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly WP:CRYSTAL - few "possible" tracks, non confirmation of title, little resources to cite from ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Mission.Impossible.Area

Mission.Impossible.Area (  | 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)

Future album with no confirmed release date, only a handful of "possible" tracks, and a title which has not been confirmed in any reliable source as far as I can see. Smash with the WP:HAMMER and recreate when some definite information is known -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to find multiple souces that declare him to be notable even with Israeli circles. WP:SELFPUB and does not meet WP:BIO ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Yoel Glick

Yoel Glick (  | 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 author of self published works. noq ( talk) 07:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

*Keep Yes as I wrote above - his work is esoteric, meaning it will not appear in literary, religious or alternate press. Are those the only criteria of who can have an article on Wikipedia? Edoecohen ( talk (UTC)

    • You already added 'Keep' in a previous statement. Doing so again is not really...helpful. I was clarifying that while others had commented on his lack of coverage in Google and similar sources, I also checked paid databases and academic sources. Sabiona ( talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with an eye toward improving the tone to a more WP:NPOV. Beeblebrox ( talk) 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Gary M. Reynolds

Gary M. Reynolds (  | 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. Non-notable person who does not meet WP:BIO. His eponymous firm ( GMR Marketing may be notable, but he is not. The page is slick, as would befit a page written by a marketing company; judged on its merits, though, I do not believe it meets guidelines. Baron Larf 07:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

J. Futuristic

J. Futuristic (  | 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:MUSICBIO. Artist has released 2 non-notable mixtapes and a single that neither Billboard or Allmusic show as ever charting. [69]. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources.} Niteshift36 ( talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu

Nelabhotla Venkateswarlu (  | 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:BIO. nothing in gnews [70]. google mainly has directory listings [71]. LibStar ( talk) 05:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, appears to be just a non-notable executive of a firm. I can't find anything of significance about him.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There are Google News references to him as "N Venkat". Sometimes people with long names use a shorter version for business purposes. Here is an article which refers to him as a "management guru": Kalavalapalli, Yogendra (2009-06-15). "Hot tips from management gurus". The Hindu. Retrieved 19 January 2010. - Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - The references currently in the article are all links to mainstream India financial media. He has received widespread coverage as "N. Venkat". (though a lot of that coverage is sourced from press releases and product launches). -- Sodabottle ( talk) 08:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - enough sources to establish notability, and I suspect more can be found by searching in Hindi and Urdu. Pantherskin ( talk) 09:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
this individual has no article in either Hindi or Urdu, so there may not be significant coverage in those languages. LibStar ( talk) 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • For someone in the corporate world, Hindi coverage would only be a subset of English coverage and Urdu a subset of that. Vernacular press is helpful for other areas but not for business/industry. - Spaceman Spiff 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if this field were an except to the general guideline that sources in any language are adequate for this or for any other subject, there are sufficient English language sources already present for notability . DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

List of people of mixed Japanese and Korean descent

AfDs for this article:
List of people of mixed Japanese and Korean descent (  | 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)

Nomination for speedy deletion as recreation of article previously deleted at AfD (see previous AfD discussion) was declined by an administrator, but as before, this article is still a meaningless list which corresponds to the "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" section in WP:NOTDIR. DAJF ( talk) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • The difference is, "Mexican American" = "American in nationality and Mexican in origin". "mixed Japanese and Korean descent" = "mixed Japanese and Korean in bloodline". They are two entirely different things. As you can see, some of the people in the list are actually American in nationality - so how do you prefer to call them? "Asian-American" or "Japanese-Korean-American"? Blodance the Seeker 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion. Snow as well. WP:NAC TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Airsickness bag

Airsickness bag (  | 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 Mjpresson ( talk) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP with non-notabilty able to be determined ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Harris Wickrematunge

Harris Wickrematunge (  | 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 confused and confusing bio: "Canadian politician in Sri Lanka" and "born a Catholic however converted to Christianity". The facts seem to be mixed up with those of Lasantha Wickrematunge of whom he is alleged to be the father. Quite simply: no evidence. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 03:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WakkaWiki. Merge what you will from the history, but I see little sourceable information that could be merge-worthy.  Sandstein  06:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply

UniWakka

UniWakka (  | 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)

UniWakka is a wiki application that seems to have been under development from 2004 to 2006 or so, but never with any notable usage or references. Yaron K. ( talk) 03:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 05:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Had been given a speedy tag - why on earth was AfD considered necessary. In any case, page-widening was sufficient justification for deletion as vandalism. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Vanezza

Vanezza (  | 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)

Formatting nightmare iBen discuss/ contribs Replied here? 03:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blatant hoax. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 05:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Kornizon

Kornizon (  | 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)

Hoax? iBen discuss/ contribs Replied here? 03:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Journal of Innovative Optical Health Sciences

Journal of Innovative Optical Health Sciences (  | 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 journal was started by World Scientific only in 2008, and is covered by neither Scopus, WoS or any subject indexes. I do not see that it is remotely likely to be notable yet, and there are no sources saying otherwise. it is held in only 10 WorldCat libraries, including some, like Fashion Institute of Technology, that presumably subscribed only because they were offered a package of all of the publishers journals. This is part of an attempt to enter indiscriminately into Wikipedia all journals from that publisher. Several of us have been going through them to remove the ones that are of no possible notability. I sometimes wish we could find some way of saying just that if anyone looks for such titles here, but that is not our job--we're not a reviewing service. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Howard Brown

AfDs for this article:
Howard Brown (  | 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)

Barely sourced and seemingly non-notable; has been tagged for well over a year with no improvements made in these areas. ╟─ Treasury Tag► presiding officer─╢ 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Deletealmost completely unsourced doesn't even come up in the first 30 hits on Google. Looks to be a vanity article for a guy that got a bit part in a commercial and did some extra work. If this is criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia get ready for a list of notable actors that's a few million entries long. Nefariousski ( talk) 23:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - he had a top 20 UK single- one of the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.", and he wasn't just in one commercial he was the mainstay of Halifax's campaign for something like eight years. There are probably more sources to be found if you include "Halifax" in the search as it's such a common name. A quick search gets results from national UK newspapers- the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Daily Mail (which I shall for now drop on the article's talk page since I'm pressed for time.) MorganaFiolett ( talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Lindsay Manufacturing

Lindsay Manufacturing (  | 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Despite the valiant efforts to find adequate sourcing for this article, it does not seem to meet the standard of the notability guideline. Beeblebrox ( talk) 07:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Kabooza

AfDs for this article:
Kabooza (  | 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)

Unable to locate multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. The "awards" cited in the article appear meaningless and do not provide narrative evaluations. The TechCrunch article is not of sufficient depth. The BBC mention is extremely brief and only in passing. Attempts to locate further significant coverage were fruitless, leaving the ArcticStartup article as the only source of sufficient depth. The topic thus fails the "multiple sources" part of WP:N. Cybercobra (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Year 2070 problem

Year 2070 problem (  | 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 not asserted for theoretical problem. Only links are to unreliable web postings. Reywas92 Talk 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Oops, misinterpreted article, but it's still just a variant on the millennium bug with no sources, so my vote is the same. RayBarker ( talk) 03:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Put under Millenium Bug. It's a variant of that bug. (^_^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Oddly enough, neither one of the sources refer to a "year 2070 problem". In fact, the article itself refers to 2068 and 2034 as things that "might" be misinterpreted, and says that computer programs "might" be written based on an "assumption" that may or may not happen. If keep, let's have articles about the "year 2068 problem" and the "year 2034 problem" as well, because it makes just as much sense. Mandsford ( talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge somewhere... there's also a Year 2080 problem... since IBM designed the PC to startup with January 1, 1980 as the default date, and the Year 2100 problem... since some people modified the two year dates to measure after the Y2K probem... Perhaps an article 2-digit year rollover problems ? 70.29.211.138 ( talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • A bulletin from Dallas Semiconductor [77] explained that the company's RTC initially had only 2 digits for the year. This implied the year 2000 problem which could have been exposed by MS-DOS's trimming of unusual RTC reading to MS-DOS's default date of January 4, 1980. The bulletin did not mention any issues related to year 2080. The year 2069 issue stems from the choice of the 2-digit roll-over boundary by The Open Group. So the name of the article is misleading as it was taken literally from a single mailing list posting.-- ilgiz ( talk) 08:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As being similar to a vast number of potential "problems" (Year 32K anyone? which is a vastly bigger problem, to be sure) No need for article, no specific notability, hits WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:TRIVIA. Collect ( talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this; there's nothing worth salvaging here, and the Y2K- and system time-related articles already detail the issues inherent in using a two-digit year representation with an arbitrary cut-off date. Even a redirect from this title would be silly, because ??70 doesn't seem to be commonly used as a cut-off date. (The first second of 1970 is the commonly-used Unix epoch, but Unix doesn't handle time in a manner susceptible to two-digit year bugs.) Fran Rogers ( talk) 20:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The lack of reliable sources indicate that much of the article is Original Research.-- Pink Bull 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Little Eden

Little Eden (  | 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)

Unnotable summer camp - prod removed with no reason nearly a year ago and no improvement or additional references showing notability have been added in the meantime Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Kermit Scott

Kermit Scott (  | 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 notability for allegedly being a namsake for a fictional character. According to #73 here, it is only a myth/rumor that Scott is the namesake. Reywas92 Talk 01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There are credible sources which back up the claim that he was the namsake. CNN. The article is well cited, noting the arguments for and against the claim. Completely aside from the Muppets, Scott had a career as a philosophy academic at a number of reputable institutions, including Yale University and Purdue University, during his career as a professor. Academic records from decades ago are, generally, not always available on Google, etc., which can explain a lack of online records. He also co-founded at least two nonprofits as a counselor. Scanlan ( talk) 23:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. If that fails, then merge to the frog. 7triton7 ( talk) 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. An interesting news story is not neccessarily encyclopedia-worthy, but it may have meet the WP:BIO regardless.-- Pink Bull 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 ( talk • contribs) 19 January 2010

Strepulsion

Strepulsion (  | 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:OR. Defender of torch ( talk) 01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Alpesh Patel

Alpesh Patel (  | 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 sources provided for notability. Has an IMDB entry, but films he's had major involvement with don't appear to be notable in any way (can't find any Rotten Tomatoes reviews, etc). No indications of any major awards on imdb. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Peekko

Peekko (  | 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. This subject appears to lack non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme ( talk) 00:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_January_19&oldid=1234119364"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE