The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Ellis-Bextor's Fourth Studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, based on speculation, the article even contradicts it's self, suggest we delete as per WP:CRYSTAL & feel this is a case for WP:HAMMER. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Stop… Hammer time. (Haven't done that for a while.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:16, 15 June 2009 (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna fish sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are several reasons why I feel this article should be deleted. First of all - and most importantly - there are no reliable sources. I have looked for them for nearly half an hour, and can't find any specifically on the tuna sandwich. Secondly, the lead section veers into tuna, not tuna sandwich topics, from the 2nd sentence. Citing StarKist and sentences like "Large chain sub shops such as Subway, Quiznos, and Blimpie often feature tuna subs as a daily deal or featured sub" make it sound like an advertisement. Most if not all nutritional information pertains to food chains in the US, not anywhere else.

Finally, the one reliable source - that Tuna Fish Sandwiches have appeared on the food network - is fallacious, as http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/kicked-up-tuna-melt-recipe/index.html describes a tuna melt - an entirely different culinary delight - which is not even a sandwich, but tuna on toast. The BBC article is about the rarity of tuna itself, not tuna sandwiches. If it was about the rarit yof the sandwiches, I could understand. As it stands, this article patently does not assert notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies notability via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. It has been at least mentioned in 31000 news stories from 1930 to the present alone [1]. The Daily Mail says it has been "the staple of the snatched office lunch for a generation." The New York Times in 1985 called it the "quintessential tuna fish sandwich" and covers it far beyond giving a recipe. This is a famous and highly notable sandwich, not just a random combination of ingredients. See[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Edison (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source points to Tuna Nicoise, pickle-tuna sandwiches, etc. The final three are cookbooks, and the second and third are only trivial mentions. What we need is two sources from the Daily Mail etc describing only the sandwich, not tuna itself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the final source isn't bad, even if it is from a Malaysian Oil worker and part time journalist, not a chef. Can we get another few like that? A foreign language paper with a circulation of 300,000 isn't amazing, but it's OKish. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times articles are not cookbooks, nor is the Daily Mail. And I did not present an exhaustive sampling of the coverage of this sandwich over the last 70 years. And significant coverage in a cook book is still significant coverage, and evidence of notability. The Daily Mail article is also significant coverage and not a cookbook. I don't know what you are calling my "first source." Cite #3 has a tuna melt at the top of the page but scroll down to Brenda's Tuna sandwich. The sources show that major newspapers have called it a "quintessential" sandwich and the "staple" of the office lunch. Other sources I did not include covers numerous people being killed by tunafish sandwiches; if it were human, it would be a notable serial killer! Other sources discuss the problem of mercury in the tuna content, and the high fat content. Inn other words, there are sources to say something encyclopedic about it from multiple reliable sources. Edison (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we add them to the article so that it actually asserts notability? At the moment, it doesn't. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "quintessential" and "staple" quotes should serve as an assertion of notability. I will add them shortly. The other cites will be available in the AFD history for anyone to work into the article. It does not have to be complete and perfected to survive AFD.Edison (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a case of writing a lot about something that could be summed up in 2 sentences. The title explains the whole thing. Tuna fish. Sandwich. End of story. Its really a dictionary entry gone long-winded. WP:NAD also WP:NOTHOW to make a tuna fish sandwich. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument ignores our notability standard of what deserves a standalone article, and could be equally applied to anything else someone didn't like. The article is not a directory entry and is not a how-to. The sources available at Google Books and Google news are sufficient to support a proper encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If you're going to rag on me, at least get your insults correct. It's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't feel the topic is encyclopedic and it deserves nothing more than a dictionary entry. I don't care how many books it gets mentioned in or news articles someone uses the term in. Of course you can find it, the thing is a common term. Number of mentions isn't what makes something notable. I don't see the notability. If you have any more comments on how you view me, take it to my userpage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Interesting one! At first when I read the article I thought it was a rather clever WP:HOAX. I mean - "Tuna sandwiches in the media"? However on examining the first reference Spokesman review/NY Times, I have to say that it does offer significant coverage from a secondary source. The other sources leave a little to be desired - I ask myself what is the reference about - and the answer is invariably tuna, not tuna sandwiches. And as for the fact that sandwich/sub chains sell tuna sandwiches as their special sometimes, to me offers no justification for the article and is not worth including in the article. Fortunately the inclusion of the The Star article, as well as The Spokesman review satisfies WP:N in my mind, so keep, but give a good cleanup. I suspect the article is more likely to be kept if the Original research/uncited material is removed and less emphasis was given to its inclusion in cookbooks and sandwich chain menus. Paulbrock (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Category:Sandwiches needs filling and this article deserves a place. It needs cleaning up and the crusty bits trimmed. The BBC ref supports the article's claim regarding concerns about the diminishing stocks and that at least one notable sandwich supplier is notably switching to a sustainable source for their tuna sandwiches. Lame Name (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Did you know that there are 85 Google News hits with "tuna sandwich" in the title? You do now. Some examples:[7][8][9][10]. And be careful. A Chinese tuna sandwich killed a Korean diplomat[11], another killed a man in a nursing home[12], and another was used by a woman in an attempt to murder her husband.[13] Who knew a simple sandwich could be so deadly? And John Gotti was a fan: "All I want is a good sandwich. You see this sandwich here? This tuna sandwich? That's all I want--a good sandwich."[14] Beautiful. Fences and windows (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A visit to the public library produced noted chef James Beard in "James Beard’s American Cookery" (1972) (Little, Brown), page 811 saying ""Canned flaked tuna is without doubt one of the all-time favorites as a sandwich spread." He then discusses the desirable proportions of celery and mayo, and the possibility of chopped egg and onion. Tracy Seaman in "The tuna fish gourmet(1994," pages vii-x, says that millions of Americans consume one or two tuna fish sandwiches a week, not including tuna melts or tuna salad plates. Seaman says "For many of us, tuna fish is also the stuff of cozy childhood memories.." "The same tuna sandwich, embellished with chopped vegetables, fresh herbs, capers, olives, roasted peppers and the like, is still a staple in most of our adult diets." Not all sandwiches are notable by Wikipedia's standard, but this one is. Edison (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A common food item, with plenty of references to verify that for any disbelievers out there. I use to eat it constantly, before the mercury content made me go numb. Dream Focus 08:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Massively noteable subject - per sources from Fences and windows and those already in the article, there's probably enough material to make a tasty featured article if one was so inclined. Yum! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per FeydHuxtable. Obviously notable, plenty of sources. Granite thump (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Those sources mentioning being killed by a tuna sandwich - it wasn't the sandwich, it was the tuna. Mixing it with bread did not make it worse... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - this article "denotes" what a tuna fish sandwich means and what it is about (see WP:NAD), and is well sourced (although admittedly some cites are trivial). There is plenty enough at least for a good article. User:Fences and windows has found some excellent news sourses. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (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 keep (withdrawal by nominator). ^blurred_peace ☮ 03:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rowley is not a notable actor, though he has appeared in multiple movies; he does not have enough secondary sources published on him (the only news articles are on his gambling addiction and divorced wife) (misread an article on Google News, as to why I placed that there). Does not meet criteria in WP:BIO. ^blurred_peace ☮ 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am not sure what the nom is talking about, as I see no stories about gambling addictions or divorces. What I do see is plenty of reliable source coverage about his theater acting & his work with improv group The Groundlings. See GNews archives. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm withdrawing this nomination after further discussion on IRC. ^blurred_peace ☮ 03:26, 14 June 2009 (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) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Red B-17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence that this B-17 Flying Fortress bomber is more notable than most of the other 12,730 B-17s which were produced. A Google search of B-17 Big Red doesn't produce any reliable sources - all that's there is a couple of sources where the aircraft's paint scheme is used as an example of how B-17s were normally painted. This is the only book reference, and it's just the caption to a colour plate in the book where aircraft was selected as one of several representative examples of what B-17s looked like. Please note that this is a contested prod, with the article's creator removing the prod notice with an edit summary of 'It is Notable because it compleated 35 missions successfully, not many did that'. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds more a like a page meant to memorilze the plane it is a artilces to inform on the plane. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This plane is notable for the fact that it was the lead bomber in the very first mission of the 388th. This is not a memorial but an artilces to inform. Also please note this referance that states this plane is notable http://www.388bg.org/Aircraft.html CrayZatseA (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The offline reference doesn't count, the notability we consider here is WP:NOTABILITY, and if those guidelines are not met an article does not stay. Leading the first bombing mission on the 338th is no different than leading the first bombing mission in Afghanistan after 9/11 or into Iraq in '91 or so forth. We define notability as something that made the planes service outstanding - dropping the atomic bomb, for instance, was notable. Unless you could pull something equally as notable out for this bomber than its claim to notability fails our notability standard. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "offline reference doesn't count" - a novel approach indeed. But the article, I'm afraid, has no chances with or without them. NVO (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you see this? http://www.388bg.org/Aircraft.html this clearly states this plane's notablity.CrayZatseA (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a website self-published by the '388th BG Association Historian' (according to: [15]) and only briefly mentions the plane. Sources which cover the aircraft in depth and are published by a reliable source which is independent of the unit which operated the aircraft are needed. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further references will be forth comming or can this be merged with 388th Fighter Wing? CrayZatseA (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be merged. For that happen the afd must first be closed, and consensus must be to merge. As a matter of procedure the afd can not be closed for a week, but once it is the person closing it may elect to merge it of the fact consensus is to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is a independent referance to give credit to this articles notablity.

Il s'appelait Big Red--: mars 1944-mars 1994 By Bertrand Illegems, Louis Gouraud Published by Office municipal des activités culturelles, 1994 CrayZatseA (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Gotta admit, I'm having trouble seeing what was notable about this particular plane. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From the very reference used to show that this plane was special[16] "Big Red 42-30207 : The Big Red was like many of the B17s - it flew its missions until it was shot down over France. " DGG (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2009 (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 Flummery. Nothing sourced, nothing to merge. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Berry Flummery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Flummery Gigs (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Flummery, if kept it should be renamed to Cool berry flummery. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The role of food in our nation's history is gaining in popularity, as evidenced by recent books published by writers such as Mark Kurlansky (his latest effort being The Food of a Younger Land). This contributor's interest in the foods of our nation's historical leaders is a nice reflection of this recently tapped trend in reader interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtwikiteach09 (talk • contribs)
• Merge - a variant of Flummery. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:57, 20 June 2009 (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. I can't pull a consensus to do anything specific to any of these articles from this discussion: nominating this many articles together when the issues are not necessarily common between them has not produced a particularly constructive AfD. I would suggest renominating one or two of the worst-offending articles separately and seeing where this goes. ~ mazca ^talk 12:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also:

List of film duologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film trilogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film tetralogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film pentalogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film hexologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film heptalogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film octologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film ennealogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film decologies and larger series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film crossovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of films based on television programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of television programs based on films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film remakes A-M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of film remakes N-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lists that will never be complete. They have a tendency to attract crystal balling with regards to future films. Recently Men in Black III, Ghostbustsers III and the third and fourth Twilight films keep being added, and groups of film that are unconnected are grouped together. Any films with more than two can be dealt with by having a navbox, and those which are trilogies and larger already have navboxes, rendering these lists redundant. The head page is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete EVERYTHING per nom.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to confess that I have added titles to many of these articles, but I agree that they are in danger of becoming unwieldy. magnius (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Film series. The article's in bad shape, but it definitely has the potential for an encyclopaedic article. It's not a dictionary definition as the nominator argues – it already contains additional information such as the longest and most commercially successful film series. Jafeluv (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete main article as dicdef. Also delete all others - there is a reason why categories were created, and it is precisely so that this doesn't have to occur. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep main article. The concept of a series of connected films is a very notable concept. Neutral on the lists. Powers ^T 23:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the main article anything more than a dicdef? And surely the word series is understood, who needs to be told that a film series is a series of films? Darrenhusted (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may currently be a dicdef, but there's plenty of room for expansion. There must be sources out there that discuss the whys and hows of the creation of series of films. The sequel article should provide a good model. Powers ^T 23:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the second paragraph is not even remotely dictionary information. While minimal, it is perfectly good encyclopedic data. Powers ^T 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph should be on the James Bond page, otherwise it is trivial. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly trivial; box office success is one of the strongest indicators of notability for films. Powers ^T 03:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a piece of trivia about James Bond, and tells us little about film series other than if you make lots of films they make lots of money. It doesn't even tell you that per film James Bond would be very low down on a list. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just as relevant as mentioning the highest-grossing film on the film article, don't you think? (P.S., please indent your comments an extra time to separate them from the one above.) Powers ^T 12:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, "Film series" is a dictionary definition that really needs no other explanation. At best, what little additional information about creation and what not belongs in film or sequel. The individual lists fail the general guidelines for lists and notability with most of the lists named in ways most people wouldn't even understand. Duology? Films with a sequel, at best. None are unique concepts, nor very notable. A film having a sequel, being in a trilogy, etc isn't really a notable fact. There are categories for the larger items, which are far more manageable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP THE REMAKE LISTS!! What have they got to do with those film series lists?! Being a remake is notable, and being a remake certainly doesn't make a film part of a series. I can see why List of film hexologies is up for deletion, but what's the rational on the remake lists? They're not related in anyway. Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply There is no reason why we can't just have a "remake" category rather than an actual article, the same argument applies to all of them actually. I vote that categories are created (if they don't already exist). magnius (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a category for remakes, which should go hand-in-hand with the list. You can't contain red-links in a category. For example, how exactly is The Virgin Spring and The Last House on the Left (1972 film) a series?! (The latter is a remake of the former) Lugnuts (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why would you need a list? Link Virgin Spring in LHOTL. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a list on any article then?! These films are not series' and as such should not be contained in this group-nom. What is your rationale for deleting the remake lists? Lugnuts (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are cruft. If a film is a remake then it is linked in the new film article, then the new film is linked in the original article. In fact if you search for a film using the search box you will usually get a drop down list of all the titles of similar articles. As an example, the new Taking of Pelham 123 lists the two previous versions and the novel. Its entry on this list tells me nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that a list could be annotated with the source of the remake, whereas a Category cannot. Powers ^T 12:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopaedic. If the remake is notable, the source should be noted in the article on the remake. If the remake is not notable, then the most it should have is a mention in the article on the original film. If neither are notable, then they have no place in Wikipedia.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as WP:LISTCRUFT Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and only because this is not something that lends itself to a mass nomination. What's happened here is that you've started with "film series" and then decided to add on unrelated lists of films (remakes, crossovers, TV-inspired) and even a list of TV shows (?) that have nothing to do with the concept of a film series. While I'd tend to agree that the lists of film "octologies" and "heptologies" are trivial, pointless, and showing off, I can't judge these along with remakes, or a list of films based on TV shows, etc. This isn't the type of thing that you bunch together and ask for votes on. Figure out what you want to do and get back with us. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I checked at the film project before making this a mass AfD. A list is a list is a list, they all contain the same thing, indiscriminate lists that can never be complete and would be better dealt with by interlinking articles and navboxes. The definition articles for Sequel et al. are fine, the massive tables and list add nothing, in fact the crossovers list has masses of OR (such as the Looney Tunes list, which misspells the name of one of the most famous sportsmen of all time). Darrenhusted (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I checked at the film project before making this a mass AfD So please show us where exactly in your discussion it mentions film remakes and crossovers. Oh, it doesn't. Lugnuts (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template at the side of the film series, in addition to the article, was what I was talking about, sorry if that wasn't obvious, but I said "we are talking about 18 list pages" which means I was including all the list mentioned or linked to from the head page. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I still think the remake lists are not in the same ballpark as the series lists. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I probably should have been clearer, and I still think that information in the remake lists can be covered elsewhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article contains little information. The information can be put into existing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayau (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All Appropriate lists. Of course most lists will never be complete, except for members of those in a particular past event the like. Like all WP articles, they get edited to improve them. The number is finite, andthats all that's nevessary. Useful subsets, goodf for navigation, good for browsing, can contain more information than a category. Browsing is one of the key purposes of an encyclopedia, and "useful" is appropriate as a justification for a list or other navigational article. If there is debate over a particular item, it can be discussed on the talk page.If there is one of these lists that has a particular problem, let it be nominated separately; the general concept of them is correct. DGG (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is what categories are for folks. These lists are (a) pointless, (b) never finished and (c) evidently contain plenty of non-notable films (on the basis that no-one has done an article on them). Maybe Film series is worth keeping. None of the rest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a film doesn't have an article, does not means it's not notable! We might as well stop creating new articles now on that basis... Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All Though undoubtedly incomplete and suffering from different contributors' opinion of what constitutes an entry in a film franchise, the lists are nevertheless very useful and very informative in a way that categories and nevbowes aren't. As a film journalist I often refer to them (and contribute when possible), and they have become a vital part of my work.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it's useful and that you have put some effort in to it? That navboxes are less informative than a random list, and that categories can't carry the same information, but better sorted? Or are you saying that navboxes and categories are too difficult to find? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm saying it's useful, and I also explained why it was in my case. I also did not argue that it shouldn't be deleted because I put "some effort into it" and I don't appreciate you insinuating it. And yes, I find such lists more informative and easier-to-use than a navbox and a category, and yes I find them better sorted. The navbox only lists the films of one franchise in addition to plenty of other information related to that franchise and categories are just a mess in my opinion whereas a list of duologies is just that, a list of duologies. No list of characters, locations, cast/crew etc... For example in the Spider-Man navbox you linked it took me a good 45 seconds to find where the hell was the link for the movie Spider-Man, something which wouldn't happen in a simple list. An encyclopedia should be an easy-to-use tool providing information in a way that benefits the user. Having such a list does harm to absolutely no one that I know of and actually proves itself as an important, interesting and helpful tool to many a person, myself included. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All IMHO these pages add some important statistics for every cinema lover. --Kasper2006 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better reason than your humble opinion? Darrenhusted (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all except Delete List of film crossovers. All of these articles are useful and well-defined, except the crossover article. What you view as cruft others view as useful information. And would editors please stop saying that lists should be deleted because a category exists! Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive!!! Fences&Windows 20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that most of the films already have a category (look at the bottom of this page and you will see a category called sequel films, almost all the films on this list are in there). And most of the larger series (such as James Bond) have navboxes which link to all the information about a film series (such as the Spiderman template Happy Evil Dude had trouble negotiating). Take a look at the Marx Brothers list on the page about ten or more films, it lists their films and nothing more. Click on any one of those films and you will see the Marx Brothers navbox which gives a proper breakdown of which brothers were in which film, are you saying a list on a page is more informative than that navbox, or the category about the Marx brothers? These lists are either lacking in information, or contain large chunks of blank text and original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve them. Fences&Windows 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improve what? The Marx Brothers list is just a list, the navbox is more comprehensive, there is no way to improve that list, it's just a list. The list tells me nothing, the navbox gives me links to all the films, plus the bios and all connected articles. You seem to have missed what I was saying, the list is just a list, there are better ways of giving the reader ways of navigating between articles which a list cannot do. Why keep a list when any film with more than one film in its series will already have multiple categories and navboxes linking the material in a more efficient way than any list could ever do. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguement about already having a category is neither here nor there, per WP:CLN, lists do not compete with categories. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fine if these list served a use, but they don't. The information on these lists is better contained in navboxes and better linked through categories, and so far other than telling me they are useful no one voting keep is giving a compelling reason to not delete these crufty and OR riddled lists. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2009 (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) 09:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Indoor Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Definitely non-notable; website has not been updated since May 11, several deadlines for the schedule and team lineup announcement have been missed, very few (if any) true independent sources, cannot find a website for any team besides the Outlawz and Surge. With the summer heating up, time is definitely running out for a summer launch; if there is any further news about the league coming out in the course of this discussion, I might consider removing the request. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have no notablity outside the league and, like the USIFL, will likely never play a down. (I am keeping the Lehigh Valley Outlawz and New England Surge articles intact, because they have history in the notable Continental Indoor Football League)

Bridgeview Red Devils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pennsylvania Stillers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Southland Chill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you, Tom Danson (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Obviously, a major malfunction. Not voting a keep, because there's no news article I can find to report its demise, although this made some news [17]. It isn't hard to figure out what happened; launching a professional sports league during a recession is never a good idea. I agree that the articles about the three teams should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Recreate if league gets off the ground, but for now delete league page and delete mentioned teams other than Lehigh Valley and New England because of the teams historys.--Giants27 (t|c) 17:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  Chzz  ►  18:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. It appears not much has changed since I tagged it for notability concerns back in April. Ray^Talk 02:52, 16 June 2009 (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) 01:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DV8 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This disambiguation is not needed as there are only two links and on the DV8 page there is a hatnote in case someone wants to find the theatre. A prod was declined and a blurb was added about there being nightclubs with the same name. Since the nightclubs is not notable, per MOS:DABRL it shouldn't be included as there isn't a chance of there being an article for it. Tavix |  Talk  21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the prodder. No evidence the nightclubs are notable, the page is currently an orphan. Tassedethe (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if the article is made, a DAB might be made then - but for now, no DAB reqd  Chzz  ►  18:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for a disambiguation page at present. If there is a notable chain or franchise or something of nightclubs with this name and someone writes and article about them, then the hatnotes can simply be changed to use {{two other uses}}. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2009 (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 Royal Roads University. Cirt (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Roads University Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This organisation shows no particular evidence of notability; 27 non-Wikipedia Google hits. Deprodded by a spa. Abductive (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article does not assert notability, and a web search does not turn up any third-party coverage—largely just internal links and listings on social networking sites. Maralia (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Royal Roads University, possible search term StarM 04:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 27 Google hits does not suggest people are searching for this outside of the University. Let them eat cake use Facebook. Abductive (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Royal Roads University. At present the relevant section in the main article is empty so incorporating the key facts from this page is the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to RRU. Unsourced, so no point merging.  Chzz  ►  18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd say merge or redirect but there doesn't seem to be a practical point to doing either. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2009 (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 Insurgency in Kashmir#Militant_groups. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Freedom Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this article has no citations. google search turns up No evidence of any organization with this name. the link to the supposed website of this organization is broken Wikireader41 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the movement definitely exists and I have added sources. Pahari Sahib 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good start, but it needs more references from other sources Pahari Sahib. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Insurgency in Kashmir#Militant_groups. I agree. Beyond the existence of the group, it seems to be impossible to verify any of the other statements in the article. Merge seems to be the way to go. Seems to be an organization that exists (see this as an addln reference).--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but does this meet WP:N to merit a separate article? or maybe we could just mention it in another article on the insurgency in Kashmir. much of the info in the article about this organization does not appear to be verifiableWikireader41 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you suggest merging it? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possibly Insurgency in Kashmir#Militant_groups. doesnt seem to satisfy WP:ORG at all. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Stuartyeates (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Insurgency in Kashmir#Militant_groups per above. Doesn't meet WP:N to merit a separate article, but enough to show existence for the groups section in the other page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2009 (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. Flowerparty^☀ 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I cannot say for certain whether this author evhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Puyo_(mangaka)&action=edit&section=T-1en exists; while not a blatant hoax (and therefore not falling under a CSD), there are no sources, no GNews, and very few apparently relevant Google hits as far as I can tell for "Puyo MangaKa"; the most relevant-seeming ones appear to be related to this article, not giving much credibility to the article or credence to there being any notability here. Strong suspicion of a hoax. Tyrenon (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was easily verified with a simple Google search. Whether or not this person is notable is a different issue entirely, but I will say that you label things as a hoax a bit too easily. I have mistakenly labeled things as hoaxes but you are doing it daily on things that obviously aren't hoaxes. It wastes people's time. The other day you said some media guy was making false claims about working for various newspapers and who wants to be a millionaire etc. but all of it was VERY easily verifiable. Maybe you need to fiddle with your search engine or browser settings or use a different one or both. Something is wrong here. Drawn Some (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The problem is this: GNews gave nothing for the two terms together (Puyo is a city in Ecuador, requiring a filter). Google itself generated hits, but other than the two links to Wikipedia I pulled up most of the hits had to do with either a game called Puyo Puyo, a game called Puyo Pop (which seems to be the same game under a different label) or included stray mentions of the two terms (not uncommon). The combination of that and a lack of sources after a month does tend to raise a hoax concern. I'm probably a little too willing to call something a possible hoax, but on balance the number of entries that are either adverspam/self-promotion or blatantly non-notable (i.e. generate few, if any Google hits and have no sources after close to a month in here) is more than somewhat frustrating (particularly when the site, whether it should be or not, is used for a decent amount of sub-college-level research). Yes, I'm itchy on my trigger finger, but I'm also not doing this to make any points. There are a lot of articles that really have no place in an encyclopedia that stick around for a very long time. Tyrenon (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're referring to Chip Zdarsky (the only other miscalled hoax I can think of right now, and it fits closely with the description you just gave), I almost got climbed on tagging that. The source it linked to had every indication of being made up nonsense (a pre-dated death date in the one provided source certainly gives the appearance of being the work of a very bored high schooler; had it simply lacked that source, it might have gotten a notability nom, but the level of nonsense didn't just raise my eyebrows), and there was nothing else linked to IIRC.Tyrenon (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was Ellis Watson. You didn't say hoax, you said "tall tale" and said it had "no verifiablity". Maybe you need to spend more time searching, use these terms for this Puyo guy: (puyo "haruhi suzumiya" -"puyo puyo"). When I did it I didn't exclude the double puyo term but then you actually have to scroll down to eliminate some video game stuff. On that apartment complex one, the older Google hits weren't for "Akme ballet" at all, they just included those terms separately, but you didn't seem to notice. Maybe using quotation marks will help narrow things down. If you're going to rely so heavily on Google, slow down and do some creative searching. Sometimes you have to search under a different version of a name or even different spellings. Frequently names have different spellings when transliterated from non-Roman alphabets, for instance. I am with you on eliminating crappy crap but you'll lose credibility if you don't slow down and be more accurate. Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that Google News by default is set up to search for recent stories. Activating archive search is a must. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Animenewsnetwork have 11 news articles that mention him, (providing some verifiability - certainly not a hoax), although I haven't yet looked through them to see if they satisfy the WP:GNG. If he is notable, then it looks like the best sources are going to be Japanese language. Animenewsnetwork show that his name in Japanese is "ぷよ", although this just hiragana so not so useful for a web search. Combining with an associated title might help: [18] or somesuch, but it's all Greek to me. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all the first couple dozen hits on that search are video clips of the anime adaptation. Given the franchise's popularity, sifting out manga-related hits is going to be ... difficult. The manga doesn't seem to have been licensed outside of Asia (there's at least one Chinese edition, possibly a Korean one as well) so finding European reviews doesn't seem likely. We definitely need a Nihongo assist here. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A fair number of Marasmusine's 11 ANN results are not very useful, as Puyo is the artist of only one of the three Haruhi Suzumiya manga. A better place to look for relevant hits is here, the article for the exact title, The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi-chan, from which we can find among other things that this version is a best-seller and that his starting a new series is considered important enough for news reports. I note also that we have list of episodes of the anime adaptation of this particular title. Neither of these alone demonstrates that Puyo meets WP:CREATOR, but they are strongly indicative of notability, enough that more digging is warranted. I further note that no one seems to have interwikilinked the ja.wiki article. That the nominator could not find this easy to find information very strongly suggests that the nominator did hardly any research as required by WP:BEFORE, which deserves a trouting. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: I am particularly concerned that the nominator, knowing that a Japanese person is involved, didn't check -- or ask to have checked -- ja.wiki for information. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Claiming the anime is adapted from the manga is misleading; the manga is also an adaption of the novels. The anime and the novels are clearly notable, but I tend to be skeptical of media mix manga like this one; occasionally the creators may go on to do notable works of their own, but drawing a manga based on a popular novel/anime is no more inherently notable than writing a novelization of a movie. Doceirias (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There's multiple animes -- one of which is specifically adapted from Puyo's parody version, rather than from the original novels. Your point about writing the novelization of a movie is well taken, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If they created several notable series, they are notable. Dream Focus 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But he hasn't created "several" -- just one, at least so far. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, he isn't credited as the "creator", but as the illustrator/writer. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG on its own. Goodraise 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't appear to meet WP:ARTIST. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see conflicting claims above about notability and verifiability. The discussion seems inconclusive to me but the failure to add any references to the article is not encouraging. I will go with a weak delete unless or until somebody adds references that show notability to the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as failing WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Goodraise 12:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources given above verify the author's existence and credits. The issue at hand is whether penning an adaptation that then is then adapted itself into a notable work makes one notable under WP:CREATIVE. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that is not the issue. Even if the mangaka had illustrated and written a work that was notable enough for a stand-alone article and even if that work had been adopted into another work that was notable enough for a stand-alone article and even if that alone was enough to become notable via WP:CREATIVE (which after re-reading the criteria, I find not even close to being the case), then failling WP:V, which is policy (as opposed to some more or less accepted guideline), would still be ground enough to delete. Goodraise 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But he doesn't fail WP:V. Just as Quasirandom said, there are sources in the above discussion that verify the information in the article. Whether or not he is notable is another question, but I don't see how you can argue that he is unverifiable. Calathan (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying that "he is unverifiable". I'm saying that the article topic fails WP:V. I'm saying that we can't write a verifiable article with those sources. There's 11 ANN news stories mentioning the mangaka. Did you look at them? They basically all sum up to "Puyo illustrated an adaptation of The Melancholy of Haruhi-chan Suzumiya." Personally, I'd rephrase that like this: "#REDIRECT [[The Melancholy of Haruhi-chan Suzumiya#Manga]]". - The way I understand it, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." also means that these sources should provide enough information for us to actually write an article, and not just a redirect. But maybe that's just me. - On a related note, (as I'm starting to get the feeling that I didn't make myself clear on that part either) as far as I can see, the mangaka fails every applicable notability guideline by far. Goodraise 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think we disagree on what constitutes enough information for an article. If someone is notable but all that is know about them can be summed up in one sentance, then I think a single sentance article is acceptable (or at least doesn't violate WP:V). However, I am doubtful that he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:N. Also, I just want to correct you in that he created an adaptaion of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (with no "chan" in it) called The Melancholy of Haruhi-chan Suzumiya (with a "chan" in it). If this is redirected, the redirect should probably be to Haruhi Suzumiya#Manga, since the manga adaptations are covered in that article. Calathan (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2009 (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) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W. Lawrence Lipton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Suspected auto bio. Seems to vastly over estimate own significance. Main claim to fame seems to be DNA Spread Theory which is also up for deletion Salix (talk): 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probable autobiography. An interesting guy, but not one who is going to meet our standards for inclusion. Fences and windows (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probable? Did you notice his name at birth compared to contrib name? Angst? The actual fact of the auto part is immaterial but it sounds like it based on rather trivial personal events: Became an early AOL power user? Negotiated leases? I mean among some central notability a few details can be ok or deleted but in context of larger article these are funny. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do NOT Delete. This article reflects biographical data available in most university libraries and online portals to recognized biographical databases. The "See also" section evidences a dozen instances of Marquis Publication Who's Who recognition in at least three areas of endeavor spanning a period of two decades. The text of those listings indicate international recognition and award in several European and Asian nations. Absent contribution by an industry or personal publicist/biographer, information available through publications such as Marquis or newspaper articles/columns would appear to be the only objective basis for verification of biographical data under the standards for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreknangst (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of people have been listed in the various editions and sections of Who's Who. What has William Lawrence Lipton done which would meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people), and which reliable sources can be used to verify this? Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no demonstration of notability (Marquis Who's Who will publish an entry on anybody who's willing to pay for one) & badly written & poorly sourced autobiography. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, Marquis does not require payment for inclusion, I am not even sure that one can get listed simply by paying a fee (I have been included in several of their editions and that was purely their initiative). Having said this, I agree that Marquis' listings don't establish any notability and are not a particular honor: their selection policy seems to be rather inclusive (logical: the more people are included, the more might buy a commemorative plaque or the actual editions in which they appear, which seems to be the main source of income for this outfit). In addition, all info they publish is provided by the subject, so this is not an independent RS. --Crusio (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tried to search this material independently; I found little to no mention of the subject's books or theories anywhere. One item here that could possibly convey notability is the subject's alleged connection to the Kuchars and Andy Warhol, but this is not independently verified nor reported in reliable sources. Article doesn't meet even a very generous standard of notability. To avoid confusion, please note there was a different author Lawrence Lipton (1898-1975) who was James Lipton's father and was connected to the Beat Generation poets.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely autobiography and COI (which of course doesn't mean the article couldn't be fixed if the subject was indeed notable), and as the article creator inadvertently points out, the lack of sources other than those he paid for because of an inability to find better sources is evidence of lack of notability. We need independent sources and if the subject himself can't provide them... Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No RS  Chzz  ►  18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to have no academic/educator connection so fails WP:Prof. No other notability either. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Possibly even a speedy delete as both promotional and no plausible claim to notability. If evidence were need to demolish any claim of Marquis WW for purposes of notability, its this article. BTW, you don't even usually have to pay--I certainly didn't the 2 years they included me--their apparent purpose must be to get as much content as possible to make as many separate editions as they can. DGG (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An interesting life and a notable life are not the same thing - Vartanza (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, possibly speedy as advert. Ouch. No plausible claim to notability whatsoever. Google Scholar, Books and News got nothing. A general Google search for "path of the serpent" +lipton found me his blog (confirming that the SPA is indeed the author, or at least using the same username). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2009 (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) 01:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The phrase "DNA Spread Theory" exists so far as I can see only in this article and in the autobiographical article of its author W. Lawrence Lipton. Fails our notability criteria and is original research WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W. Lawrence Lipton is also nominated for deletion--Salix (talk): 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's OR; it incomprehensible; it's a fringe theory with such tiny support as not to deserve a Wikipedia article. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:OR material on non-notable WP:FRINGE theory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Wait for investigation or hang on etc. Re his bio, I used to breadboard and I used an IBM 1620, which is a higher number than the 360 LOL. I also got hit in the eyelid with an exploding electrolytic capacitor while breadboarding... I too miss the days when integrated circuit pins were on .1" centers that could be easily soldered by hand... This is all interesting and maybe a few citations to an autobio published elsewhere would be interesting if notability could be established. I have already posted links to other "Creative Works" or software and this piece even lacks an indication that underlying algorithms for his analyst programs would be creative or unique.

I have no idea what this is but nothing on scirus with all quotes removed,

http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=dna+spread+theory+lipton&t=all&sort=0&g=s or pubmed ( quite surpsising as I expected some spurs on lipton+dna),

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=lipton+dna+spread

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete thinking that there might be some following in Archaeoastronomy circles I searched for the first book mentioned "Path of the Serpent" and came up to 8 google hits."Path+of+the+Serpent"+lipton&btnG=Search&meta= This does not look like its notable even in fringe circles.--Salix (talk): 19:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd prodded it earlier today. There is no mention of this theory outside Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do NOT Delete. One objection to this article -- which is clearly a work in prgress -- is the absence of Google hits for the term 'DNA Spread Theory'. Of note is the opening of the article which clearly states that the term is new coined. The article mentions 4600 year old DNA from Eulau Germany - it should be noted that the associated DNA test results were only recently published by Haak. Consider that the PNAS pre-publication announcement of genetic findings from a family grave dating to 1600 BCE appeared around December 11, 2008 - or only six months ago.

  Reference was made to mention of 'Path of the Serpent' and again the article indicates (possibly not clearly enough) the book did not create any waves or generate significant attention when it was released some thirty years ago - it is long out of print. However, it is an antecedent work which is augmented by data being generated through the Genographic Project (which, itself is only four years running).

  Reference is made by one contributer to the Lipton biography description of the state of computer technology at Brooklyn Technical HS circa 1958; as the individual certainly knows, there was a period in the 1960's when the IBM 360 was a state-of-art commercial processor. An article on the evolution of computer technology might well infer it was less powerful than some cellar phone capable devices. However, as to DNA Spread Theory: we are discussing a label which - in the absence of an alternative - is being utilized in association with the evolving utilization of DNA in cross-disciplinary studies of human history. Given the Eulau paper was only recently published by PNAS, it might be years before there is a hardbound publication associating the R1a Eulau family with with other R1a groups within the context of astroarchaeology -- while Wikipedia contributors can easily make that association in the context of the DNA Spread Theory article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreknangst (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This isn't Nature and it isn't a late breaking papers session at a DNA conference. There simply is not enough of an organization to do peer review on original research even if that was the objective of the site sponsors. If you have synonyms of can even tenuously link it to published work that may help but this still sounds like original research. I can go back to scirus or pubmed or any other db's you care to suggest as I'm looking for new info sources myself. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing new theories. Try Philica or Nature Precedings if you are having trouble getting the idea published in a peer-reviewed journal. Fences and windows (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It reads like WP:OR, but even assuming for the sake of discussion that it could be recast as a summary of material published elsewhere (in the author's (published?) work?), there is no indication in the article, or in an independent Google searche of the theory and its author, of any reputable third party coverage of this theory at all. As such it fails the test for notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails on every level. A Sniper (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:OR Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have some sympathy as I often want to publish new stuff in various places on line. Normally, this is speculative results of immediate relevance to something like a biotech stock.I've also been interested in starting discussion of highly specialized things like extracting amino acid or base patterns from proteins or DNA and discussing them etc. It may be nice to even consider something like wiki peer review site and start a journal but that isn't the current focus. Note also that peer review is not a popularity contest and often wiki criteria are things like consensus not merit. This is ok for an encyclopedia but not original research esp since here to audience is looking for an introduction thought to be generally accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is complete junk. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's core values. DreamGuy (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while the theory may have some real merit, Wikipedia does not publish original or primary material, does not publicize new phrases, and the theory itself can not be verified easily. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Total WP:OR. Pubmed turns up absolutely nothing, thus rubbishing it as a notable scientific theory, and Google turns up jack as well, suggesting it has no weight as a fringe theory either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (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 CSD G7 J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel: Fallen Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I feel this article violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FICT. Normally I would suggest merging it to Marvel Comics, but I cannot find any information of a Fallen Stars comic series coming in the near future, nor can I find anything close to the quote listed in the article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, the creator of the article has tried to remove the {{afd}} template, as well as adding quotes from the Marvel Comics company that appear to have been made up. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am well aware of such but this is actually a prank page i need to have up for a few days to prove to a friend that he be reading the comics instead of just using online reference when involved in any discussion of any media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightwx (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in that case, speedy delete. (You might also want to read WP:MADEUP.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:29, 13 June 2009 (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) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined speedy; still doesn't appear notable enough for Wikipedia, reads rather promotionally and has no references. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are hits but they seem focused on author Richard North Patterson or a different (older) businessman of the same name, such as this, this, and this. No prejudice against keeping if he is actually shown to be WP:NOTABLE, but I don't see it.  Frank  |  talk  17:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Frank. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable promotion of small-time entrepeneur. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 15 June 2009 (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Gone Easy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article created by User:Zithan as a result of paid editing (User:Ha!/paid editing adverts) and unsurprisingly is a barely-disguised infomercial for a product which does not meet notability guidelines. Disembrangler (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article has been rewritten by unpaid editor, and sources establish notability. Laurent (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't read the citations properly, did you? Hint: I'm pretty sure for starters that the American Chemical Society will object to your characterization of its peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology as being an unreliable, self-published, source. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, good point :D I admit I've dismissed the sources too quickly. For some reasons, I thought that the ACS paper was written by the same people who paid for having the article created, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Laurent (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is probably because you are also being too quick to dismiss the article as "Reads like an ad, and COI issue." based upon what the nominator says, not what the article actually is. You're judging the article not on what it actually contains, but merely on who you think wrote it, based solely upon what a nominator said in an AFD discussion. Here is another hint. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you be clearer, what are you intending to demonstrate with the link - "Here is another hint"? Ha! (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think what he's demonstrating is that the article has been thoroughly re-written since it was created by User:Zithan, so even though the question of who created the article and their motivation is completely irrelevant, it is a moot point even for those who mistakenly believe this has any relevance. NoCal100 (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the motivations of the initial editor are important, especially for a specialized topic like this one. The creator of the article could essentially write anything he/she wants and if you want to verify his claims, you'll have to spend an hour or two to read through the sources (and buy the ACS one since it doesn't seem to be publicly available), try to make sense of them, and correct the article. Uncle G has done it in this instance, but in most cases I suspect this kind of COI articles stay as they are because of WP:HOLE. Laurent (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you want to discuss the importance of motivations, see what I wrote here. But the echoed point is that the "COI issue" doesn't, and didn't, exist in the article as it stands. Neither does the "reads like an ad" issue. And both of those are cleanup issues (that we have cleanup tags — {{POV check}} and {{advert}} — for) in any case. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing aggressive in the above. It's a hint. And it is a hint. It's intended not to be rubbing one's nose directly in the error. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are 4 impeccable references, academic articles in peer-reviewed journals, which clearly establish notability. Paid-editing is not (at least not yet) a valid reason for deletion. If there are unsourced statements in articles, we tag them or remove them, we don;t delete the article because of it. NoCal100 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which specific references are you referring to? How do they establish notability (again, please be specific)? Ha! (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • have you read the article and its references? I Am refering to "The Prestige Oil Spill. 2. Enhanced Biodegradation of a Heavy Fuel Oil under Field Conditions by the Use of an Oleophilic Fertilizer" - an article from the academic journal Environmental Science & Technology, which is an in-depth review of the use of S-200; To "Evaluation of biodiesel as bioremediation agent for the treatment of the shore affected by the heavy oil spill of the Prestige" - an article from the academic journal "Journal of Hazardous Materials", which discusses the use of S-200 to treat the Prestige oil spill; to "Enhanced bioremediation of crude oil utilizing lipophilic fertilizers ", from the academic journal 'Desalination', which discusses S-200 in comparison to treatment with uric acid, and to "Effectiveness of bioremediation for the Prestige fuel spill: A summary of case studies", a paper published in the proceedings of the Advanced Technology in the Environmental Field: Second IASTED International Conference, which also discusses the use of S-200 to treat the Prestige oil spill. Any one of these would be more than sufficient to establish notability. The existence of 4 such academic references makes this AfD frivolous, at best, and a mean-spirited violation of WP:POINT, at worst. Do have a read of the article before making further comment. NoCal100 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't (and don't) consider those academic references evidence of notability. Many chemicals get tested and published on all the time. Those references would justify inclusion in other articles, probably, on the Prestige spill say or on bioremediation in general. But not notability sufficient for a standalone-article. Disembrangler (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then your idea of notability is wrong. Notability is not importance, nor significance. We don't consider things non-notable because they are "just one of many chemicals" (or "just one of many asteroids/railway stations/islands/species of beetle/movies/laws in Australia/&c."). This is an encyclopaedia, and our definition of notability is based upon being noted, in depth in multiple independent published works from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, by the world at large. We don't make subjective judgements of importance. We're here to write a reference work, for all interests, general and special alike. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Notability is not the same as, but has a lot to do with, importance/significance. We're not about to have entries on every chemical ever mentioned in a scientific paper, are we? No, we need some evidence that the thing is "notable", by relying on sources which demonstrate notability (generally, media coverage and such). Academic sources may also demonstrate notability, if they can explicitly show the subjects - yes -importance is high enough to make it stand out from the crowd of similar chemicals, eg by being the most commonly-used of a significant class of chemicals, say. Merely being used in a study as a specific example of a general type of chemical does not do that. Disembrangler (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Notability for Wikipedia purposes is demonstrated by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That's what we have here. NoCal100 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Mmm, key words "Significant coverage", which WP:N clarifies as ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Are these studies "addressing the subject directly in detail"? I don't know, I think they may just be using it because they've got to test a specific chemical (can't test a generality) and happened to pick that one. I don't think being used in a scientific study necessarily constitutes coverage in the usual sense of the term. Disembrangler (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • yes, these sources address the subject (S-200) in detail. Being used, studied and reported on in a scientific study is significant coverage. NoCal100 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any premise that implies I haven't read the article in enough depth is incorrect. Apart from the creator and his employer, it's unlikely that many people (perhaps even any) have spent as many hours as I have reading the content of the article and it's links (and links from links etc.), both current and previous. You've answered the "which", but I'm not clear on the "why". At it's core it seems to be a study into the biodegradability of heavy oil, using two microbial consortia and an oleophilic nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer. I understand that the fertilizer happens to be S-200 but I'm not clear on why that makes it notable. Specifically what is it about those references that make it notable? A plain and simple factual response that assumes good faith would be appreciated, rather than one that remarks on assumptions of bad faith motivations such as frivolity and mean-spiritedness. Ha! (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are not clear on why these references make it notable, please read WP:Notability. The very first line there reads "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This is exactly what we have here. NoCal100 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NoCal100, though the article either needs to be renamed or re-written to make it clear that S-200 and Oil gone Easy refer to the same thing. Perhaps S-200 (chemical) or something. Matt Deres (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Ha! (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the renaming and have made a similar comment on the Talk page of the article. I'd do it myself now, but I don;t want to screw up the AfD. NoCal100 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See what I wrote there. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable subject discussed in reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notable per significant coverage in one reliable source and further references to that coverage in additional sources. Ha! (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There's no coverage in reliable secondary sources at all, but the primary peer-reviewed publications are probably enough. Fences and windows (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The references of the article has been strengthened. This one can survive. Alexius08 (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the refs show this to be a major product. The low quality article submitted before uncle G started remediation on it shows that COI, paid or unpaid, does not necessarily produce good articles. DGG (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable given the sources cited and it's been sufficiently reformed from its initial COI version. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2009 (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 West Indian Girl. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural re-nomination. Last AFD was so tainted by socks and SPAs that a consensus was impossible to achieve. This one does not have any significant sources, and none were found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Having reviewed her notability under WP:MUSIC, merging the info into her band's (West Indian Girl) article would appear more appropriate.-Kiwipat (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to West Indian Girl. لennavecia 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge She is notable, a google search of her (without the Words "Trent Reznor") gained 48,000 results. However, I don't think that's enough to warrant her own article. So I support the merger with West Indian Girl--KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (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. A7, non-notable Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced BLP of minor actress with an unreleased album -- does not yet meet Wikipedia notability standards. DreamGuy (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 No reliable sources, no real assertation of notability. Epic's roster doesn't even list her. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:38, 13 June 2009 (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) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The topic of this article is a very minor television character that fails WP:NOTE. The entire article is original research. Drawn Some (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not the subject of any independent, reliable sources that I can find. Not an important character within the show. I'm surprised that there is no article to the effect of List of minor characters in That 70s Show, if there were such an article I might recommend a merge, but I don't think that's necessary. He only appeared in 3 episodes of the show [19]. Cool3 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very minor character. No independent sources. No notability in any sense that I can find. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (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, author requested deletion (see below comment). Jamie^☆S93 15:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Road Rules: The Battlegrounds (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The series is out of production. I can't find any reliable sources that the series is returning and, even if it is, this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. ceranthor 13:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Support per nom. If it is real, the page can be recreated. SpikeJones (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is make believe and to my knowledge BMP has no plans to film another season of Road Rules after the ratings disaster that was Viewer's Revenge. While entertaining in nature, this should be removed asap as it is more a fan fantasy than anything based on fact or sourcing. Neutralis (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It is verifiable. I have photos of it but BMP(The Producers) does not give me the permission to do so to post them. Please, just hold off with this for a bit, and then I shall provide some sources. It will be revealed one month before the next challenge(spin-off series) which airs in the fall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple5212 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is only verifiable if there are reliable sources. Saying there are sources but not posting any does not qualify an article for inclusion into Wikipedia. I have searched extensively for even a mention of said season and there is not even an unreliable source that is claiming that such a project is in development. Actually, a google search pulls up ZERO articles. There is no harm in deleting this article and then bringing it back if at one point actual sourcing develops. However, Wikipedia is not a gossip mill for fan fantasy.Neutralis (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable. --Apple5212 (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per SpikeJones and Ceranthor. Plastikspork (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this turned out to be false. I vote for deletion. It will never be back. I think we should close it quick since rumors will be spread... quickly... --Apple5212 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2009 (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) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. Unreferenced to any reliable independent source. Notability not established. Basically a vanispam page. WWGB (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Lechatjaune (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No WP:RS, notability is not clear. Cross-wiki spam, see pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Jason Bermingham. Lechatjaune (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (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 Bristol#Sport and leisure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. Despite searching I am unable to find any independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of this club - regardless of criteria selected. Nuttah (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CLUB.--Giants27 (t|c) 17:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a sentence or two at Bristol#Sport and leisure or a List of sports teams representing Bristol, Sports in Bristol or similar article if someone wants to create one. I think that a list of verifiable sports teams that are professional, play (or played) in national (English or British) leagues or are otherwise notable enough for their own article would be a good encyclopaedic topic, but one which would be too detailed for the main Bristol article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without prejudice to a mention in an appropriate article. This appears to be an amateur sports club, and they are very rarely notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Admittedly I started the article so have a vested interest, but it seems some others have updated since. There are 5 references now, and it looks like 4 of them are secondary sources. I know the team has also been discussed on Heart Bristol radio, although I'm not sure the precise date nor how I should reference a radio discussion on Wikipedia (any hints?). The information on the page may be scarce at this stage, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to keep the page. If the consensus is otherwise, I'd hope it could at least be merged with a Bristol page or a British baseball page. I also note that the pages for the London Mets and Croydon Pirates have less secondary sources but have not been flagged for deletion in two years! younome (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:N—lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The team and BBF Web sites don't count as independent of the subject. BRMo (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge summary to Bristol#Sport and leisure for the moment. Baseball is not a major sport in Great Britain. There is no indiucation that this is a professional club or even has an adult team, merely that it belongs to a certain league, whose status is unclear. Before we can start having articles on individual clubs, with need articles on the leagues in which they play. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (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 Linnahall. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tallinn Linnahall Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable heliport, no external sources, no hope for expansion. -- Sander Säde 12:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per total lack of coverage of this topic in reliable, independent sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Tallin#Air as suggested below would be fine with me too. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tallin#Air. Although the existence of the heliport is easily verifiable in multiple independent sources, at least two of which are undoubtedly reliable (US Military and [http://www.icao.int/anb/aig/taxonomy/R4CDLocationIndicatorsbystate.pdf (page 38) ICAO. I make no judgement about the reliability of other sources), there appears to be no indication anywhere of any discussion about it, let alone anything that suggests it is notable. Everything noteworthy about this heliport, including more than is said in this article, is already said at Tallin#Air so there is nothing to merge, but it is a useful search term hence my !vote to redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Linnahall. This is a small amount of information on that place, and if notable, can be described within. Sebwite (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Linnahall, making "heliport" a new section. This is usually the best solution for structures and establishments of local importance only. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2009 (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) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prod contested by author. Initial version reveals that the game was made up on the day of article creation decltype (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It does appear to have been just made up as the only Ghit is from Wikipedia. [20] Edward321 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2009 (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. CSD G7 J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod. Unverifiable, original research: the supposed "curse" is not actually mentioned in any of the references cited, and yields zero Google hits. Hqb (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Delete. Gosh, it's difficult to think of a policy or guideline that this doesn't violate—WP:OR, WP:NFT, etc. I'll go with the biggie: This fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not at all clear what this is meant to be about but you're right, WP:V is enough - not one of the "references" mentions the subject and I don't find anything by searching. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (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) 09:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only notable for one event Triwbe (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:1E. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per the nomination, the article is about a subject only notable for one incident. Perhaps (if appropriate) the information could be covered in a larger article about the user of tasers by police. Just a suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The incident has received substantial media coverage and is notable enough. The article could be renamed to "Kathryn Winkfein Taser Incident", because it is not a bio about Winkfein. Moreover, some of the other notable taser stories have developed further. -BStarky (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteTrivial human interest news event. DGG (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2009 (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. WP:CSD#A7, non-notable band. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:Music, with no search hits beyond the usual roundup of self-created social networking sites. dramatic (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
• Delete - not notable band, anything substantial in reliable sources. Wikilinks for the band members refers to basketball player, astronaut and disambig page. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 Doesn't even assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:28, 13 June 2009 (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 G3: Blatant hoax. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have attempted to verify the existence of this radio station without luck. Attempts to communicate with the editor actively editing the page have failed. The station does not appear in the FCC query. No relevant Google hits for the station or the online personalities listed.Sixtysixstar (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because Johnny Pickels and Raymond Alben are stated to be DJs on WPTX-FM and The 90's & Now Channel is stated to have been created by Johnny Pickels.

Johnny Pickels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Raymond Alben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 90's & Now Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - This is a Part 15 or Pirate radio station. I would recommend the other pages be deleted as well under the same token. If this were a real radio station, I would fight for it, but it isn't, so it needs to go. No license, no go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A 54 year-old pirate station? I know the FCC can be inefficient at times, but to not detect a station with a 54 year-old "history" (yeah, in the same way Moby Dick is an autobiography) in the largest radio market of the Americas is incredibly daft. This reads like a hoax and should be treated at such. "Pixelz" wasn't a buzzword to anyone but early graphics designers in 1985, and the poor quality writing describing the station being banned from Empire State "due to the people on the radio saying bad words" doesn't suggest a serious contributor in any sense. Finally, calling the events of September 11th a mere "plane crash" may be one of the most idiotic statements ever made by a hoaxer in any article. Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question : I don't understand the argument here. If you can verify that it is indeed a well known persistent pirate station, that would seem to be more notable than a licensed station, or do you want a page for everyone with a driver's license or every car with a licesne plate which has been spotted in more than just one local area or has park stickers for more than just one state? Sure, it could be a hoax but that is different from a non-licensed transmitter. On a more serious note, if you are going to make licensing into de facto notability then what about amateur radio operators? Or what about licensed cell towers? I'm rather taken with the architecture of the tower and trailer down the road. - Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - The standard notablity is that if the station has or has had a FCC license, it is notable. If it is Part 15 or a Pirate, it isn't notable. Simple as that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 Blatant hoax per Nate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a hoax. 95.9 Mhz is WEFX's frequency in nearby Norwalk, CT.  JGHowes  ^talk 14:50, 13 June 2009 (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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 23:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE explains that we do not put instructions or what to do into Wikipedia - this sat untreated for some since June of last year. Although its a good topic, Wikibooks is a better location for this and it violates Wikipedia policy per WP:NOTGUIDE.  — master son^{T - C} 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see it so much as a guide, but an article about the law, discussion of how it applies and examples how is has been observed in reality. It's actually better written than most I see here in AfD and better sourced than most in AfD (except the snopes.com source might not cut it). Niteshift36 (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a common sense keep since the Flag Code is one of the first things taught in either social studies or a US History class, and likely one of the most researched by young students writing their first paper. Needs more sources, but in many of the regular paper encyclopedias (at least those in use by elementary and middle school students), this article is a given and one of the few which usually sees at least a four-page pictoral in color with displays of the flag in various settings and how to treat the Flag. It's also enshrined in the US Code, and we have many articles which describe US Code subjects. Nate • (chatter) 06:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is this one of the first things discussed in a social studies class, or one of the most researched by young students writing their first paper, amongst the 95.5% of the world's population who don't live in the United States? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are equivalent classes and civics lessons in other countries. However as this discussion is confined to the United States Flag Code I'm only going by that discussed within America, not elsewhere. Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to a description of what the code is and how it works, which is encyclopedic enough. Were it, say, instructions on how to stop your flag being eaten by moths, that would be a How To, but I don't see that this is one. Anaxial (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article does not appear to violate any Wikipedia editorial standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. There's zero chance the article on the US Flag Code is going to be deleted, admins please close this. -Markeer 15:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that there's zero chance of this being deleted - it's just a pity that there's a much higher than zero chance that an equivalent article about China or India would be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily sourced. It describes the code and the significance of it, so it's not a how to guide. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic of US Flag Code is notable, and therefore the article should be kept. Whether the article is written in conformity with WP:NOTGUIDE, is a different matter, best addressed by editing, not deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs)
• Keep (getting snowy) Has specific statutory significance. Far different from the DIY stuff which is not allowed. Collect (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a pretty obviously notable piece of legislation. I look forward to seeing similar articles about equivalent laws in other countries, and to seeing a similar reaction if any such articles are brought to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2009 (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, problems raised in the nom are not solved. An as yet unpublished source is of no help at the moment. Fram (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no indication of notability and no verifiability at all, lacking even appropriate ownership information for any encyclopedic value, using only the website's own self-published claims.  JGHowes  ^talk 05:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not a great article, to be sure. However, Alexa corroborates the claims regarding the age of the site (it predates the widespread public adoption of the Internet in 1995) and shows that it is at least moderately popular. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Better to improve the article than to delete altogether.Bills16309 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an extremely well known site. I am neither gay nor do I read erotica online yet I've seen nifty.org referenced in many places. 174.146.255.243 (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the "many places" where it's referenced? Are they reliable sources? Usually, the lack of any mention in reliable secondary sources is indicative of lack of notability. In what way does this article comply with WP:V?  JGHowes  ^talk 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, could not find any reliable, independent 3rd party sources discussing the website? Zzzzz (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's very difficult to find sourced information about many erotic sites since there's so much spam clogging up the search engines, but an Alexa rank of <10,000 indicates reasonable popularity, and that site has been around since the very early days of the internet. Like the previous IP address that commented, I don't read gay erotica online but I've seen this site referenced before, but don't ask me to look anything up given the ridiculous volumes of spam on the internet regarding any sexual topic. 70.4.243.55 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The archieve earns it's place in any encyclopedia on the internet that includes articles about the internet itself (as Wiki does). The project is notable for serveral reasons, such as:

• age, Nifty was online many years before the net became popular
• unlike most porn sites this project is a not-for-ptofit organisation
• as far as I know this project is unique: a porn site accepted as US charity by the US IRS.
• the problems mentioned in the article about the non-acceptance of this site shows -imho- the lack of acceptance of gay sex.

IMHO I'm convinced that this article would never be proposed for Speedy Removal if the content of the site was about straight sex. This shows (again) that gay sex is far from accepted. What's the need for speedy removal?? The article only metions facts, it doesn't advertise or praise the site and tries to include references/sources, although it is indeed quite hard to find facts on other sites regarding Nifty. Reasons for this can be: people hardly discuss matters that are taken for granted because the product has always been there (Nifty is longer online then most people using the net), (2): the archieve is not a cummunity platform or chatforum, it is just an archieve or collection of stories, (3) the site doesn't annoy people by sending spam or advertise on other websites - so no reason to complain about the site, (4) - when visiting the site there are no pop-ups or other irritating gimmics, again; no reason to complain or discuss the site. Greetz, JanT (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bad faith do not help your argument. No one has explained yet how this complies with Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. A "Keep" reason such as WP:ILIKEIT is not persuasive. When all attempts have failed to find reliable sources to verify an article, it should be deleted (see WP:DEL#REASON). This article about a website must meet the notability guidelines just like any other article, regardless of subject. WP:WEB says that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability. Can anyone cite even one:

1. non-trivial published work about this website whose source is independent of the site itself? "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its creator) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it".
2. well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization the website has won? Getting 501(c)(3) non-profit status from the IRS is not a notable "award".
3. medium distributing the content independent of the anonymous creators?

Unless affirmative answers can be supplied, deletion is clearly warranted according to the relevent Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to make accusations of bad faith , although I could have chosen more neutral words. It just surprised me that the site was added on the list by someone who mentiones several times he is member of or associated to a Christian group not famous for their open minded aproach on gay lifestyle. Just that someone doesn't like the subject is no reason to keep it out. I don't like crack of heroine but both are on Wiki, as they should be. And the same should count for Nifty Archieve. I only wonder why the article should be proposed for speedy deletion and not the normal deletion. I did find some external references regarding the earliest versions of the archieve, but these references are in another language (Dutch) and not on the internet (but in a history/log file of a videotex BBS chat/discussion in 1993 or 1994. These references discuss the forced closure of the ftp site after loads of hate-mail to the hostmaster of the university where the site was hosted. I'm trying to convince the owner of that videotex host to make these chat-log files available online so I can refer to it. As there is a complete Category :Erotica and pornography websites I can't see the reason for Speedy Deletion. The only notable difference between the sites mentioned in that Cat and Nifty seems to be the fact that Nifty serves the gay / lesbian community. (this statement is based on visiting 12 randomly selected articles in Category:Erotica and pornography websites. JanT (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, this is not "Speedy Deletion" – Articles for Deletion is our normal process. Again, deletion is decided according to the previously mentioned policies and guidelines of WP:V, WP:N, and WP:WEB, not on the basis of personal opinion regarding subject matter. The articles I checked in that category seem have multiple reliable sources cited as references – this one does not even pass WP:GNG.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I take back all my words regarding the speedy deletion. I got that idea when reading the message added to my talk page. Maybe this misunderstanding is the result due to the different handling of deletion processes between the Dutch language Wiki and the English language Wiki. And again: I'm trying to get two external sources published on the internet (so people can verify it) that discuss Nifty, but for one is the main problem the format and languahe (Videotex markup coding in the files needed to be filtered and the logging isn't mine, so I could maybe overcome the formatting problems but I don't have the copyrights). The 2nd problems is that it is part of a private NNTP discussion-feed and I only have a very limited bit of text, which is imho not really convincing - and again: I don't own nor have the full logs. JanT (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as wholly unreferenced to reliable sources. Alexa rankings and general knowledge can be treated as decent indicators of notability, but in this case the indication is not backed up by the expected coverage. WP:V is not optional; and a website that's had no independent coverage we can source to simply cannot be verifiably written about in an encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^talk 00:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete refs are shaky at best. RS and V are crucial. And afraid I can't help but wonder why all these IPs and new accounts are here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rlevse: Please see my comments to User:JGHowest. I do have external and not in any way connected source, but this material is not yet publically available. The few things that can be verified is -ar least- some of its age via The Internet Archieve project and the age of the site is notable. Also the IRS status is verifyable, and not many porn sites are tax-wise seen as charities.

As noted over there I'm busy in getting the mentioned source available on the internet, but apart from getting permission and also some more of the logfile (I only have 20 lines relevant logging) ia ongoing but demands extra work (technical and finding an old PC with 5 1/4 floppy and/or old tape streamer to read the logs

Another notable side of this erotica site is that is is 100% free from day 1, no annoying pop-ups and via an active moderator quite good indexed and catagorized, unlike many other (even paid) sites.

The age of the site can also be checked via other sites keeping stats, as the mentioned Internet Archive and Alexa, is also the tymesramps on the files. And although self-research is NOT ALLOWED I can speak from personal experience [when working for an Erotica Videotex amd earlier for a BBS on premium rate numbers we used stories on Nifty as source as early as in 1994-1996 when we were very active [and our last Videotex service seized in 2001).

And even another reason why there is a lack of recent references to the archive is the fact that the site has been always there -at least in the idea of the current users that missed the Usenet/NNTP period, ler alone the FTP and Gopher period. No one discusses the existence of the [[[WWW]] as such, it is taken for granted. But again: I'm trying to get references online and contacted the University in question and asked the webmaster for help in pointing external sources. Please give me a few more days to find some external sources and references as I think at least one non-straight site should be included in a Catagory: Erotica and porn websites.

Many thanks, JanT (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Rlevse. Sock floods always make me suspicious. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2009 (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) 01:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Describes a competitor in the World Series of Poker. Is simply competing in this event sufficient for notability? I can't imagine that it is: surely you're not a fully-professional athlete by so doing. At any rate, I can't find any sources for this guy — the links at the end of the page don't mention him. Google only returned 50 results for "aaron niswander", including a baseball player and some random people getting divorces and being mentioned in obituaries. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced BLP, and WSOP is a non-invitational tournament series with many amateur and semi-professional players. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per A Man in Black. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete unless someone can find some independent sources on him, which seems unlikely.Anaxial (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy d I'm not seeing a claim to notability. Hobit (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have speedied this, except I saw the WSOP as sufficient to defray a speedy. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'd say paying to play isn't a claim to notability. And that's all you need to do. Hobit (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did not pay to play. He won entrance by winning a $60 WSOP satelitte event with over 120 players in the field. I was thinking being one of 80,000+ players in the WSOP from all over the world was exclusive. Look at it this way...being one of 80,000/100,000,000 poker payers (worldwide). This means .0008% reach this goal. LucasHistorian 2:27pm June 15th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Winning a 60$ satelitte also isn't a claim to notability IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. This is certainly a notable achievement. Anyone who has ever played poker would have to agree. LucasHistorian 2:27pm June 15th, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • I've played poker with friends, and I disagree. How does he pass our notability criteria? Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poker with friends, and sitting beside Chris "Jesus" Ferguson (which Aaron did) at the WSOP are two completely different stories. I feel in the world of poker, this is a notable achievement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasHistorian (talk • contribs) 11:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails Notablity.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of RS. Fails notability of a BLP where the inclusion standards are the strickest FloNight♥♥♥ 16:25, 19 June 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This person was a minor political functionary and is now a minor official in Telstra, not notable. Grahame (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Average spokesmen for embassies, press secretaries, and communications company bureaucrats aren't notable, and there's nothing here to suggest that he's done anything above average. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable PR hack, fails WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable former govt. functionary. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability.Anaxial (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a project of one author, and I really don't see what's notable about the subject at this time Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete He's a college baseball player? Absolutely not they're only notable in extreme cases (see Stephen Strasburg).--Giants27 (t|c) 12:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable per WP:ATHLETE. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Notability is subjective and WP:ATHLETE is not a policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stowesm (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE is Wikipedia's policy for determining notability, and according to it this individual is not notable. He may be notable to you (I assume you either are him, or know him?), so in that sense it is subjective. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, and although mentioned in several articles, doesn't qualify as "significant coverage" require by WP:GNG. BRMo (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable joke, no sources, appears to be something someone made up. Author removed prod tag with no explanation or improvement to article. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: very old joke, that was around when I was a child. But not encyclopedic, or deserving of a page on wikipedia. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN joke with no reliable sources to its notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability or even of significance — comes close to being under CSD A1. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced article, with no indication of notability.Anaxial (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikibooks or Uncyclopedia. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, Uncyclopedia would delete it unless they could somehow turn it into a joke on the Windows operating system. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced and apparently non-notable aspect of children's street culture. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I am highly convinced a child created this article, besides it would create one window, not windows. Delete per WP:MADEUP. Tavix |  Talk  16:18, 16 June 2009 (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. Potential merge not ruled out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-notable dictionary definition; it is unclear whether this term is in actual use anyways, even in French, except simply to mean "poster designer", which is what "affichiste" means in French. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Term is clearly in actual use as GBooks shows. [21] Numerous Google hits as well [22] Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • … in French language sources. But since this is the English language Wikipedia, our article titles are in English, and an article about poster designers would be at poster designer, just as our article on graphic designers is at graphic designer, not the French language title graphiste (c.f. fr:graphiste). Uncle G (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no good as a dicdef, the Gbooks references demonstrate use of the word in French; but OK as a stub about the artistic school/movement - which is how the article started out - with a valid reference to the term in an English art book. I have removed the first sentence which made it seem a dicdef, and reworded the rest slightly to bring it more in line with the source cited. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at references online, it is clear that, even in French, the word just means "poster designer". The word is no longer being used in the specific way that these guys back in the 1950s used it. So, I guess the question is whether an artistic movement that consisted basically of two guys is significant enough for its own article, or if it should be a footnote somewhere else. (And for Hains, it looks like it was only a phase in the early part of his career.) Brianyoumans (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree the notability of the "movement" is marginal, but both artists are notable enough to have articles, and I think a Scholar search turns up enough to make it a "keep". JohnCD (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge - Marginal notability. I doubt this is ever going to be much of an article in its own right, but it would be a pity to lose it altogether, so it could redirect to a section within poster or poster designer. --RichardVeryard (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2009 (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 Greens New South Wales. Cirt (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles on suburban branches of minor political parties are not notable. Grahame (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CLUB "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable". WWGB (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that they're a notable chapter of a party. As noted above, local chapters generally do not warrant their own articles. —C.Fred (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Greens New South Wales. The state party is notable, individual branches are not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to/with NSW Greens per Lankiveil. GetDumb 09:28, 18 June 2009 (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. Flowerparty^☀ 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian schools in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of non-notable schools. My speedy deletion tag was removed by an IP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article has barely any content, anyway. The article does not discuss how these schools are notable for being Brazillian and being in Japan, and it fails the general notability guideline. Talk about a random topic, right? The Earwig ^{(Talk | Editor review)} 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not random; the Dekasegi returnees number between 275,000 and 300,000. Abductive (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable list that fails WP:GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per above. Livitup (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep such an unexpected list, but where are the 80 schools? The fact that therea re any at all is unusual, and if there is a list, then it is fair enough to enumerate them. It needs some expansion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Japan has been allowing Japanese-Brazilians (of whom there are millions) into Japan because they need young workers. But these people don't often speak Japanese. Abductive (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. There could very well be an article to be written here, but as it stands, it's too incomplete to be useful and may be original research. Dekimasuよ! 15:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Merge per below. Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too narrow of a list, no sources, very less than half-assed attempt. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A quarter-assed attempt? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Come on now, be a little nicer. We are probably talking about the article of someone who doesn't speak English very well. Dekimasuよ! 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not too narrow as it can be polulated with the supposed 80 schools. This is a good size for a list, a good chance it can be maintained, and a better chance than List of Brazilian schools in Australia at actually having some members! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. I've added reliable government sources (national and local) to some entries. Fg2 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it can be folded into List of schools in Japan and List of high schools in Japan? Abductive (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brazilians in Japan#Education (an article I just started). I know there's some coverage of the topic of Brazilian schools in Kanno, Yasuko (2008), Language and education in Japan: unequal access to bilingualism, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 9780230506947, but that's mostly of specific schools with lots of Brazilians in them, rather than the whole topic of Brazilian schools in Japan. Per WP:SUMMARY, if the content there develops to the point where it clearly deserves its own article, it can be split back out. Nominator gets a WP:TROUT for violating WP:BITE [23] --- {{db-test}}??? cab (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might be good to merge one place or the other Fg2 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Merge to Brazilians in Japan#Education, which seems a good compromise until the content can be developed and sources found that demonstrate its independent notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brazilians in Japan#Education per cab. The article doesn't seem to meet the criteria for stand-alone lists, but may be of some value. Cnilep (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not merge. If the number of schools is as asserted (though it needs a source), it would be too long to include in the proposed merge. As for Who then was a gentleman?, the content of the list does not need to be notable. ZooFari 04:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original author of this list has created other articles on this topic, namely Brazilian School in Japan and Fusyūgaku. However, it looks like he can't write English well, so the articles barely make sense (I'm guessing that they are attempts to translate the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia articles). If this subject is notable, someone might want to clean up those articles or merge the content together into one article. Calathan (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some cleanup but not checked the translations. With sources added, these might be merged somewhere to make an interesting article as part of the topic of the education of Brazilians or foreigners in Japan. Fg2 (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2009 (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip D. Gingerich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nonnotable scientist. Only significance is a one-time 'expert' in the Darwinius debate. This is not enough for Wikipedia standards. Northfox (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is well-sourced. Several Gbooks hits. [24] GScholar shows his works are heavily cited. [25] Significant Gnews hits. [26] Edward321 (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:PROF: to begin with, he meets (5) "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" (he is E. C. Case Collegiate Professor of Paleontology at the University of Michigan). He is also a AAAS Fellow, President-elect of the Paleontological Society, and is an expert of cetacean and primate evolution. And much more. Clearly is a very notable academic. Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISI scientific citation index lists 377 of his papers, 29 of which have been cited over 40 times, 6 have been cited over 100 times, and one been cited 242 times. (And bear in mind that the ISI index tends to miss a fair number of citations.) Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable academic in his field. The first page of Ghits contained multiple mentions of his awards in his field, at least one of which has its own article on Wikipedia. I've added a few to the article, with references, but didn't do an exhaustive search. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, hundreds of Google News hits dating back to 1984, h-index 33, numerous awards. Abductive (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: an H-index of 33 for a person who has a 35-year academic career is quite average (H-index/years active = 1), see H-index.Northfox (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In his field? Abductive (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no , it is not "average" it does not mean 33 papers, it means 33 papers with at least 30 citations. In essentially all fields that would be notable, though it does not discriminate between 33 papers with 33 citations each, and 32 papers with 33 citations each and 1 with 300. DGG (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The h-index article suggests that "15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States National Academy of Science"; so 33 would be about right for someone like Gingerich who, based on his awards and fellowships, looks like he's just a notch below a fellow of the National Academy. Guettarda (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from Hirsch's original paper: A value of m ≈ 1 (i.e., an h index of 20 after 20 years of scientific activity), characterizes a successful scientist.(see http://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569.full ). So, based on that, Gingerich is a successful scientist. For my definition, successful=average. Gingerich might have other achievements (some are included in article; more would be better), but an h-index indicating a successful scientist does not imply notable. If one wanted to include every successful scientist in Wkipedia, we would have millions of entries. Northfox (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if successful=average, but I agree that Wikipedia could end up with over 10⁵ articles on professors if kept on the basis of h-index alone, or on any one of the criteria of WP:PROF. There has to be something encyclopedic to say (and to wikilink to) about the person. Abductive (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If editors think that the criteria of WP:Prof are unsatisfactory they should argue the case on that page. The purpose of this page and similar ones is to apply those existing criteria to the individual cases that are brought here. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:PROF is useful, but reliance on an h-index is original research. An article on a professor needs secondary sources to tell us what is notable. Abductive (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I would oppose any attempt to incorporate explicit numerical values of the h index or any other bibliometric measure in WP:Prof. For WP:Prof the secondary sources are the citations plus any other forms of recognition which, in the case we are dealing with, exist in plenitude. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep, author of many papers cited in WP articles (I've linked several, but it's really botwork), named several species LeadSongDog come howl 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the arguments advanced by most of those above. It is difficult to understand why this article was prodded in the first place. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Snow Keep Head of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan. Obviously notable, along with all of the rest. Some was added after the nomination, but the NYT references with the quote "Philip D. Gingerich, the leading American primate specialist, also from the University of Michigan." was in the article when it was nominated. when reading an article, it pays to look at the references. DGG (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Keep. Second DGG. Fellow of the AAAS (documentation can be found here) is a definitive clincher. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A producer, director and writer of a film that is expected to premier is not notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy Too soon. Crystal ball. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Search for the full name nets eight pages, English WP, user page, Finnish WP, Finnish movie WP, two bios, one trivial mention in an online Finnish paper and another article about the movie. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing here, or available, that shows that the subject ofd this article is notable. Nuttah (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]