Welcome to ornacle.com on July 5 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WP:AFD/Y
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< 3 July 5 July >
Guide to deletion
Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • Review: Provisional draft #2 of the new arbitration policy.
  • Proposal: Proposal to create user-space redirects.
  • Poll: Should WP:NOT#PLOT be reworded, moved, removed, or kept the same?
  • RFC: Is there community support to change the constitutional relationship between ArbCom and Jimmy Wales?
  • Poll: How does the community feel regarding how the civility policy is applied and enforced on Wikipedia?
  • Discussion: Should notability criteria for pornographic actors be rolled back?
  • RFC: Naming guidelines for Macedonia
  • Preliminary (userspace) discussion on Wikipedia governance issues.
  • RFC: Should Wikipedia prevent Google and other search engines from searching User pages?
  • RFC: Should a bot unlink dates?
  • RFC. Outside opinions are solicited on self electing groups.
  • RFC: What is the community's opinion on using {{Italictitle}} to italicise certain articles' titles?
  • RFC: What is the community's view of paid editing?
  • Poll: About the preferred usage names as a result of WP:RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria
  • Discussion: Ordering and general presentation of talk page templates.
  • RFC: Simplifying speedy deletion policy

A new page to keep track of discussions throughout Wikipedia has been created: Wikipedia:Coordination

A new noticeboard has been created: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] Heidi Puurula

Heidi Puurula (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biographical article about a Finnish musician. No references in the article, no awards that I can find, no news articles primarily about her, no books, nor charting songs. Nothing that enables a biographical article that is verifyable from reliable sources. Does not meet the basic biographical notability standards. Peripitus (Talk) 23:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study

2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a well-made and well-sourced article on a paper which itself is non-notable. Parts of the content should probably be merged to Hadrosaur#Diet. However, Wikipedia isn't the place for articles on individual papers on extinct genera, or we would already have thousands of articles on scientific papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to mention 9 Google hits 0 Google scholar hits. This paper may be notable someday, but it is not notable at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
When the search is only on the long-hand exact title there are a few number of hits, but if you used more general terms to search for this specific study, you'd find a whole lot more results. That's another reason I reverted the name back to its original, shorter one; naming conventions indicate a more common name would be preferred here... — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I support the change back to the shorter title. "Quantitative analysis of dental microwear in hadrosaurid dinosaurs, and the implications for hypotheses of jaw mechanics and feeding" wasn't an appropriate title for a Wikipedia article. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The study is quite notable and has received a lot of attention. The article itself is high quality. There's no good justification for deleting it. Abyssal (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Where has it been noted? And where has it received attention? I am normally an inclusionist, but I can't find any evidence that this paper has received much attention at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and comments:Per above. Although, I agree with Firsfron that papers on individual journal articles have no place here. Having said that, I believe that the article should be kept and renamed to a smaller, more concise name, and encompass much more than just this study. Perhaps the article could be expanded to focus on the entirety of chewing and diet of hadrosaurids? --Spotty 11222 23:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The article's title was originally much shorter, before being moved to this longer title. There's definitely worthwhile content here, but I feel an article coving just the one paper is inefficient, sets a bad precedent (because how many papers have been written about extinct animals? Should we have articles for all of them? Slippery slope... ), and is ultimately unencyclopedic (because not even specialized dinosaur encyclopedias contain this level of detail). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a shame that the hard work should be destroyed but an entire article on one study is problematic. There are no other palaeontology articles I know of that are souly about one study. Anyway science isn't about any single study, it's about many studies in combanation. This study isn't the end of the debate and other researchers have yet to have their opinions about it published, so it doesn't make sence to give this one special attention. But I agree with suggestions that some of this could be salvaged and turned into an article about Hadrosaur chewing and Diet research or the Diet section in Hadrosaurid could be expanded to include some of this info. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is well cited with legitimate sources, which I believe by themselves indicate the article's notability. Not only were the findings themselves in this study very significant, but the method used to learn them was innovative and will be used in future studies. The article is really more about this important scientific study and what was learned, moreso than simply the journal article itself. But even if it were focused on the article itself, that wouldn't be all that outrageous; there are Wikipedia articles about journal articles out there. Obviously not every journal article in the world will warrant a Wikipedia article, but some will, and attention from nonbiased, legitimate, third party sources (i.e., the media) are a good indication of which ones are deserving. And finally, for me it all comes back to the question: is Wikipedia worse off, or better off, having this article? If somebody decided to look up this information on Wikipedia, what's the harm of having a page about it? I would argue Wikipedia is better for having it, not worse, so even putting aside all my other arguments I'd say screw it and let the article stay... (Please note: I also restored the name back to its original, shortened name.) — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the sourcing and work you've done on this article. This is truly beautiful work, and it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. However, none of the sources listed appear to even mention the journal article's title by name. In other words, they're news stories which report that there's been a new study, and what the study finds, without even naming the study: they're less about the study, and more about the concept. That's why I'd support a merger into an article about hadrosaurid diet. But there are dozens of such studies every year, even studies which are widely reported in the press. That doesn't make the studies themselves notable: these AP articles are just news items announcing a new paper, the name of the paper itself apparently unprintworthy. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In a way, I think you're making my case for me. You're saying these articles aren't only about the paper, but about the entire study in general. That's exactly what this article is about (not just a single article, but the hypotheses, the method, the findings, its relevance with regard to other studies, the whole she-bang). That's why I think this article is warranted; it's about more than just a single journal article; but at the same time, that doesn't mean it doesn't all fall under the umbrella of a this specifc Purnell study. Obviously, all these articles and sources about this study; they weren't just randomly written articles about hadrosaur eating habits in general. (That's why I think the title as it was before wasn't accurate, because it made it seem like the scope was limited to just this one article.) But I don't want to get this AFD too bogged down in a point-counterpoint discussion between two people, and I don't think it's fair to respond to every single person I disagree with. I've said my peace and would rather hear other people say theirs. — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge with hadrosaurid or any other relevant article. There's good content here, but the study itself certainly doesn't merit an article. Alternatively, if there is too much information to merge, create an article on hadrosaurid feeding based on this content. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename it Hadrosaur diet or Hadrosaurid feeding per mgiganteus1 (basically a daughter article of Hadrosaurid) and make its focus slightly more general, and less a discussion only of a single article. I doubt if the article itself is notable, but the topic certainly is, and probably the article is too long to merge into Hadrosaurid. Ecphora (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I see I used the word "article" confusingly to refer to the Wikipedia article and the journal article; but I think my point got through, the journal article may not be notable, but a Wikipedia article on the general topic would be. Ecphora (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to quick point out I don't think a merge is the appropriate action because this study itself (not just the paper, the whole study) meets notability standards (verifiable, legitimate sources, etc.). If it didn't, a merge into a feeding article would be appropriate because the study couldn't sustain it's own article. But in this case, I feel it does. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Notability and verifiability are two different things. If we created an article on every dinosaur study that received media attention, we'd have hundreds of such pages. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I've responded to you here, so that I don't bog down this page too much... — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Armen Firman

Armen Firman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Double entry: Armen Firman and Abbas Ibn Firnas are one and the same person, with Armen Firman being only the latinized version. The claim is that there were two different persons in 9th century Cordoba, Spain: one jumping with a cloak from a tower, and the other one, apparently having been inspired, some years later gliding with a set of feathery wings from a hill. This is according to my research wrong. In fact, there was only one person, the notable poet Abbas Ibn Firnas, who was said to have made the gliding experiment.

Reasoning:

  • The two webpages who support the view of two persons don't cite their references, therefore it remains unclear where they got their material from (see here and here).
  • In contrast, two scholarly resources which dealt with Abbas Ibn Firnas and with his flight attempt do not mention an Armen Firman. These are:
    • Terias, Elias, Sobre el vuelo de Abbas Ibn Firnas , Al-Andalus, 29:2 (1964) p.365
    • Lynn Townsend White, Jr. (Spring, 1961). "Eilmer of Malmesbury, an Eleventh Century Aviator: A Case Study of Technological Innovation, Its Context and Tradition", Technology and Culture 2 (2), p. 97-111 [100-101].

Both reproduce - identically - the original source, a 17th century Moroccan author. From White:

"Among other very curious experiments which he made," continues al- Maqqari, " one is his trying to fly. He covered himself with feathers for the purpose, attached a couple of wings to his body, and, getting on an eminence, flung himself down into the air, when, according to the testimony of several trustworthy writers who witnessed the performance, he flew a considerable distance, as if he had been a bird, but, in alighting again on the place whence he had started, his back was very much hurt, for not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one."

This is all, they both explicitly state that no other source on Abbas' flight attempt has survived. Unless we can substantiate the existence of Armen Firman in a scholarly work, which in turn provides its source(s), chances are that Armen Firman never existed. Because if he did, he should have been mentioned by those two scholars who explicitly deal with Abbas' flight.

There is also a biography on Abbas, which could help verify Abbas' Latin name, but I don't have it at hand: "Abbas Ibn Firnas", by Juan Vernet, in: Dictionary of Scientific Biography, I:5. The delete - as opposed to a merge - is important because, due to the story of Armen Firman circulating in the net, it is only a question of time, until an article on him is created, so we better need a delete log. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy close If they are about the same person, then you should be talking about merging the two articles, not deleting one of them. I don't see why a delete log entry changes any of that, it could just be redirected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I gave my reasoning exactly one cm above your comment. If you are the one who puts the page permanently on your watchlist, in order to prevent Armen Firman from repeatedly being resurrected from the web, where unverified information about him circulates widely, then fine. I say we need a delete log for that and, first of all, we need to establish beyond doubt here whether Armen Firman existed or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Having an entry in the deletion log won't stop someone from creating the article. It could be redirected to Abbas Ibn Firnas and if there are problems it could be protected. That would be more helpful to readers than deleting it simply to establish precedent for deleting it again. I've never heard of an article being deleted for reasons like this and I don't think it's would be a good idea to start now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, upon reviewing this some more, your whole argument is based on not believing one of the sources for the article, because there may be some minor factual errors regarding the dates. So, the core issue is which is whether or not the sources provided are reliable enough to be used as sources for a Wikipedia article in the first place, and/or if there are other sources (as opposed to opinion and WP:OR) that specifically refute the current sources. However, even if it turns out that they were the same person, this article should still be left as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, the MuslimHeritage and Islam Online articles directly contradict each other, the first says it is the latinized version, the second says they were two separate persons. I'm not sure either of these sites qualify as reliable. The third source is a program from the University of Houston's engineering school, and also supports the existence of Firman, and it cites it's sources. I'd say that works out to keep as deleting would involve making our own decisions based on opinion, as opposed to trusting the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Phpmaster

Phpmaster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, unreferenced neologism RadioFan (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Warpath (band)

Warpath (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

created by the band's drummer who also contested the prod so I'm bringing it here for discussion. References provided appear very blogish in nature rather than reliable sources. Claims of album sales and charting are unrefernced and the tone is very promotional. The band's name makes google news and other searches rather difficult. RadioFan (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk Johnson (NPG)

Kirk Johnson (NPG) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested and unactioned speedy, appears to be solely a promotional BLP piece, no assertion of notability, no sources other than his official website. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Bhaktapur

Miss Bhaktapur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A tin-pot beauty pageant associated with a city which has population not more than 61,000. Non notable heat of an event. Unreferenced. External Link leads to a site which is reported attack site by AVG and Google. The winners of the pageant have no major notability other than winning this competition. The major contributor seems to be on the mission to include every single beauty related competition taking place in Nepal without adhering established policy. Hitro 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Lalitpur

Miss Lalitpur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A tin-pot beauty pageant. Non notable heat of an event. Unreferenced. External Link leads to a site which is reported attack site by AVG and Google. The winners of the pageant has no major notability other than winning this competition. Hitro 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Danger From The Deep

Danger From The Deep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable computer game that does not assert notability with reliable sources. Plenty of Google hits, but no Google News hits. Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have also done some searching in the google news archives for this game and found a couple of articles written in what looks like German here and here. For the regular search I think this blog (in english) "might" be interesting. As for notability I think the jury is still out on it for now. - Dlrohrer2003 20:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added some sources (I think at least about.com should be prominent enough), and as you say, Google knows a lot about it, and, in the context of free Linux games (which is far from huge), this is relatively major software. LjL (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete nowhere near notability standard in terms of depth of coverage. About.com is fine as a source IMO, but the piece is nothing more than a couple of sentences worth of signpost. The first German source consists of two nearly identical paragraphs (God knows what that's about), the second is again a handful of sentences consisting of things like how to switch it German-language and that the game is still in early development. There's bot-all to write an article with. Someoneanother 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So you find that the subject is notable but since the article currently is not, it should be deleted anyway...? --LjL (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, misread what you wrote. --LjL (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Allena Hansen

Allena Hansen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete, other then the bear attack seems to be non notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] StarJets

StarJets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is stub-class, seems unnotable, and the single reference is an online forum.

Ishwasafish click here!!!

18:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect- Redirect this article to GeminiJets. StarJets were just a model division of products manufactured by GeminiJets. This link provides with some related info. Hitro 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect with GeminiJets. Not enough notability to warrant own article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eternity ∞ Discography

Eternity ∞ Discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Discography for an artist who doesn't seem to have an article and only has one release. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Instinctive Computing

Instinctive Computing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unnotable concept that is an original research essay copied from some site. This was speedied multiple times but was reposted multiple times by SPAs. Triplestop x3 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJTalk 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Reads like an extended essay. It is not encyclopedic and has few references. Parkerparked (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also WP:TROUT the two WP:SPA's that keep removing all the banners. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy drinking

Heavy drinking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find a WP:SPEEDY reason to delete this "dab" page, but somebody must have been drinking heavily to create it in the first place. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Alcoholism as I doubt that excessive water consumption is ever referred to as "heavy drinking". --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Alcoholism. Page was created as a redirect until someone decided that it could also refer to drinking large amounts of water. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Alcoholism. (And isn't there a medical term for drinking too much water anyway?) -WarthogDemon 18:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment and that's why I'm not a doctor. :P -WarthogDemon 18:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Triple Threat DVD/CD Combo

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Triple Threat DVD/CD Combo
Triple Threat DVD/CD Combo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Just a repackaging of an earlier "making of" video (which I merged with its album article) with a couple of non-notable CDs. Listed sources only note the DVDs availability without assertion of any particular notability Wolfer68 (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Hume

Billy Hume (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional tone ("writer/producer/mixer extraordinare"), no real references, notability is questionable. Delete. Eloquence* 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Silver Movement

The Silver Movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable band with no significant coverage in the mainstream media. No indication of national or international tours, no chart hits. Polly (Parrot) 17:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This artist has iTunes releases and is on an indie label. Just because they didn't chart or tour doesn't make them insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiomixxer1123 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Few independent ghits, I've found no evidence that it satisfies anything on WP:BAND. Getting distribution on iTunes is a step in the right direction, but not enough by itself. Matt Deres (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crossed Lines (2006 film)

Crossed Lines (2006 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. No substantial GHits and no GNEWS hits. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find anything proving this film was distributed widely (or at all, for that matter) and was reviewed by two or more nationally known critics, and it clearly is not historically notable. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete short films are rarely notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm having difficulty finding anything about this film at all (possibly due to popular title). I can't find anything that satisfies WP:NOTFILM. Matt Deres (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable film by a non-notable director, starring non-notable actors. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn by doncram and no delete votes. Non-admin closure. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] South Woodstock, Vermont

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont
South Woodstock, Vermont (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no assertion or evidence of notability or even documentation of the existence of this supposed community as a separate entity. South Woodstock Village Historic District is a wikipedia-notable topic to cover the NRHP-listed historic district of that name in Woodstock, Vermont, but its existence should not be used to piggyback an article about a non-notable community that may or may not include large areas not included within the legal historic district. doncram (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article, given the subsequent development of the article. doncram (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There was no source provided in the article, and now there's some generic link to GNIS where one might be able to run a search. I've been told separately, however, that there is evidence of this existing, so I guess i don't really doubt that it exists as a point location in some mapping systems. I do doubt that wikipedia is served by having this. I don't believe that wikipedia needs a separate article on every GNIS place. If it is not deleted, how about redirecting to Woodstock, Vermont which could carry the information that this is a place listed in GNIS. doncram (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed in the past, and precedent indicates that unincorporated communities whose existence can be verified are considered notable enough for separate articles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The "town" of Woodstock is a division of a county, not a municipality. According to it's article in Wikipedia , it "includes the villages of Woodstock, South Woodstock and Taftsville.". According to the Town Web page, "In addition to the Village [of Woodstock], the Town has four hamlets - South Woodstock, West Woodstock, Taftsville and Prosper - each with its own institutions and character. " Villages or hamlets, unincorporated or incorporated, have articles here. This is a distinct place, not a neighborhood. (the name itself is ambiguous, and could be either) DGG (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Catalyst31 and DGG. It is a verified and distinct population center which are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, see sources now on article. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Tony Gaffney

Tony Gaffney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

In my opinion fails WP:NOTE and for the time being WP:ATHLETE. Has been signed for the LA Lakers but it appears he is yet to play a fully professional game. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sensible Erection

Sensible Erection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

promotional article with no real claim to notabilty and no coverage in indepentent reliable sources. (prod removed) Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Google Web shows no apparent signs of notability. No results on Google News. The article's leading paragraph is written in an overly promotional tone and most of its content seems unverifiable[1]. — Rankiri (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing but WP:SPAM. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I have a conflict of interest as a member, so I won't be participating in the straw poll, but I'll point out some relevant information. As per Rankiri, WP:WEB is the most relevant guideline here. Calling this article WP:SPAM is completely ridiculous, suggesting a misunderstanding of the guideline. WP:V isn't relevant because it only requires more than primary sources when claims are contentious. As a member for six years, the only notability that I've heard of would be: occasional showcasing on the NZ Web Awards, the SERPG project by unassociated member Brass, and close ties with Hard from Sexy Losers and other semi notable webmasters of NSFW sites. –Gunslinger47 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    Having a conflict of interest as a member does not bar you from participating in the "straw poll". State your potential conflict of interest, explain your reasons an article should be kept/deleted. Do that and your input will be seriously considered. And respected a hell of a lot more than those who pretend to have no COI. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    I would hope to be taken seriously regardless. WP:PNSD, as you know. –Gunslinger47 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    I understand WP:SPAM just fine, particularly the section about "Advertisements masquerading as articles". This reads like little more than a masked promotion for me. You can disagree if you want but I won't call you ridiculous and claim that you don't understand. I can accept that you read it differently than I do. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    By labeling a collaborative work an advertisement masquerading as an article, you're assuming bad faith by the contributors. There's no reason to assume that any of them were primarily focused on promoting the site. If your issue is with tone and fairness, WP:NPOV would be more suitable. If your issue is with the lack third-party references, the article either needs expansion or has an issue with Wikipedia:Notability. –Gunslinger47 02:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete All the "references" are just links to the website, but some are made to look as though they come from outside sources (Brass - ??). Nothing on G-News, Ghits are the website, WP, promotional stuff and unrelated material. Matt Deres (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Brass is an SE user who has no official relationship to the current or past owners of SE. He owns the serpg.com site which hosts the game he created. I doubt this would qualify as an "outside source", however. –Gunslinger47 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] J.Cole (rapper)

J.Cole (rapper) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A nonnotable rapper with two mixtapes - Altenmann >t 15:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The references provided are not trusted sources & therefore cant really prove his notability. Harlem675 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jared High

Jared High (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No provided third party sources support the notability of this individual. Local interest story only. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. The story is a news event not an encyclopaedic subject. The court case was settled, which means no legal precedents and no ongoing significance that would make that an encyclopaedic subject. Also lacks any independent references and any coverage of the other side's viewpoint. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Local interest story of minimal encyclopedic significance. Resolute 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I know of several similar cases where distraught parents either blame the schools and either brought lawsuits or tried to enact statutes that make the schools responsible, so not very unique. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Resolute. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Matt Deres (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Shapiro

Theodore Shapiro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable psychiatrist. There are a few ghits for him, but they're mostly passing quotes and don't really speak to his notability. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgun (novel)

Shotgun (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Kehlmann

Michael Kehlmann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe this article should be deleted or moved to German Wikipedia because the subject is not notable enough to have an article in English Wikipedia. I can't find any English-language sources to use as references, which makes it impossible to expand the article, and none of his TV movies are notable enough to have articles of their own, so this article links to hardly any others. It appears his only claim to fame that can easily be verified is his parentage of Daniel Kehlmann. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Notable enough for me. Also, as said there is no ban here on using foreign sources so it is definitely possible to expand this article. Garion96 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment "Notable enough for me" isn't a valid reason! And the issue has nothing to do with a ban on foreign sources, it's the inability to understand them in order to use them for research so the article can be expanded, because right now it's just a series of lists. There is nothing notable enough about this person to justify an entry in English Wikipedia. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. Garion96 (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment I am not disputing what it says at Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources, I am saying that if you can't understand the sources in the first place then you can't use them to expand the article beyond the stub it is now. Could you please tell me why you think this person is notable? You have yet to explain that important point. 14:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.164 (talk)
        • Well..since you are saying that it is impossible to expand the article because there are only German sources I assumed you meant that non-foreign sources are not allowed. Perhaps you meant that there is no editor on the English Wikipedia who understands German and therefore no one can expand....? And yes, I think this person is notable enough for an article. With a filmography like that, the German wikipedia article since 2005 (German wikipedia notability standards are usually quite high) and the winning of three (minor) medals. Garion96 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think a director of German television movies is notable enough to warrant an article in English Wikipedia. He has an article in German Wikipedia [2] and even that one is sketchy. If he had an extensive list of noteworthy theatrical films to his credit he might warrant an article, but I don't think his background in German TV justifies allowing him an entry in English Wikipedia. MovieMadness (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Directing 50+ films indicated notability. Notability is not temporary - IE if he's notable in Germany, he's notable, full stop. This person already has an article on the German wiki and the French one. By your logic, you should be campaigining hard to get the French entry removed too. We have thousands and thousands of bio articles of non-English people that have been created from trans-wiking data from other languages. It's inane to argue that the English langugage WP can only have English language articles. Lugnuts (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep No valid deletion rationale provided. Nominator admits that there are sources, and admits that the subject is notable enough for the German Wikipedia. If he's notable in one language, he's notable in all. As a world wide project, we should be seeking to include all notable topics, not just those that are notable in "english". Resolute 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't agree that if someone is notable in one language, he's notable in all. Do you mean to tell me Mayor Freidrich Klingenschautzen from Blackensteinwallen in Upper Gugenberg would deserve an article in Wikipedia in every language just because he has one in German Wikipedia? That seems ridiculous. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment Is anyone who is voting to keep this article willing to do anything to expand it? As it stands now it has no references and is practically orphaned. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
        • A need for cleanup or expansion is no more a valid rationale for deletion than WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it isn't English. Resolute 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep; notable and verifiable. - Altenmann >t 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Please explain how this is "verifiable" to anyone who doesn't speak German? I can't find any English sources with information about this person. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Would you be so kind as to point out the policy that says English sources are mandatory? Obviously German sources would be verifiable by a person who speaks and reads German. We do not require that a source be accessible by everyone, only that they be accessible to someone. Once again, you have yet to offer a deletion rationale that has a basis in policy. Resolute 00:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lugnuts and Resolute. IP, you don't have to repeat your rationale for deletion every time a user !vote to keep. Salih (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment First of all, Salih, nobody has answered any of my questions. Second of all, in order to pad this article a little, the following was added to it: "During 1951-1953, Kehlmann was the drector of the "Kleines Theater im Konzerthaus" ("Small Theatre in a Concert Hall"). He was awarded the J.-Kainz Medal in 1966." Could someone please explain how this proves Kehlmann is notable if there's no indication of what either Kleines Theater im Konzerthaus or the J.-Kainz medal are or why they themselves are notable achievements? Thank you. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, while he has directed multiple films, there is no verifiable evidence that those films have "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or "won significant critical attention." Apparently per the one source[3] he won some award, but the award doesn't appear to be a large or notable one either. There is no verifiable evidence that he "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" or that he has "originat[ed] a significant new concept, theory or technique." Therefore, he fails WP:CREATIVE. That said, doing a Google News search for "Michael Kehlmann" returns 100 hits (both English and German), however because most appear to be his name being mentioned in stories about Daniel Kehlman, even at NDR's website where he is a director. That is not significant coverage for Michael, only his son, so he doesn't meet WP:N either. While the lack of English sources is not a valid deletion reason, that does address the issue of the lack of verifiable, reliable sources giving him significant coverage. By the same token, his having an article on the German Wikipedia is also completely irrelevant. The different language Wikis have different guidelines, and their decisions/content/etc do not carry over here just because they can. Likewise, many topics on English folks do not carry over to every last language Wiki just because it exists here. We frequently delete articles that have articles in their own language wikis because those other language wikis generally do not have the same notability criteria nor as large a editor base to help clean out inappropriate articles. The German article has never been nominated for deletion, so you can't claim its "notable" enough there either because no one has challenged it.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per all the reasons cited by Collectonian, whose rationale is far better than any offered by those who voted to keep. The only source cited [4] doesn't convince me there's anything notable about this individual. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Machine translations are good enough for German sources: Austrian Honorary Cross Class I, there are also a couple of reviews of his work behind paywalls at the NYTimes, and a good bit of coverage independent of Daniel Kehlmann in German/Austrian press. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe there are enough websites referencing him.Ricardoread (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Found a site that might help this article http://www.interspot.at/prodarticle.php?id=60&lang=en Ricardoread (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The different WPs have different standards of article inclusion, but this does not mean that a figure notable in German but not the English-speaking countries, or vice-versa, belongs only in that language's Encyclopedia. notability is world wide, and if =a person has done work in Germany that would qualify him for an article if the work were in an english speaking country, he's just as notable. Sources in any language are of course fine, as long as we can find them. DGG (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Con Man (novel)

The Con Man (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cop Hater

Cop Hater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems to satisfy criteria 3 of the notability for books guidelines, as it was turned into a film that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, with a director and actors that are notable enough for their own articles, etc. Rnb (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As per above.
  • Keep per Rnb; it satisfies criteria 3. Matt Deres (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Mugger (novel)

The Mugger (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

May fail Wikipedia:Notability (books). magnius (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bromheads Jacket

Bromheads Jacket (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to lack evidence of notability, googling doesn't offer much in support of their importance. magnius (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable indie band with two albums released. Also, a Google search on their name gets over 100,000 results, given that there's not going to be anything else coming up for their name I can't really see how that doesn't support their importance (100,000 mentioning a band is quite a lot). Esteffect (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Countryside Alliance (football club)

Countryside Alliance (football club) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

[edit] A Squared Anti-Malware

A Squared Anti-Malware (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Beyond the peacock words, there's no real indication of notability given for this software. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. No indication of notability in the article as it stands but Googling shows a few mentions in RS sources although I am not seeing really significant coverage (e.g. dedicated reviews). This comparison article is about as good as it gets: [5]. It is not a major player in the anti-malware market in English speaking countries. If there is evidence that it is a major player elsewhere then this needs to be added, otherwise it is a delete.
    Note: Despite being Austrian, there is no article about the product on the German language Wikipedia. They do have a two articles on the parent company though: de:Emsi Software GmbH (poorly referenced) and de:Emsi Software (short, unreferenced)! Perhaps somebody who speaks German might like to pop over there and sort this out. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I removed all WP:PEACOCK content.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347031,00.asp
http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/a-squared-Anti-Malware-Review-39757.shtml
Google News:
http://www.ixbt.com/soft/a-squared-anti-malware.shtml (English Translation (Google)) — Rankiri (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Christophe Godin

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Christophe Godin Articles for deletion/Christophe Godin (2nd nomination)
Christophe Godin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There seems to be little evidence of notability. The bands that he is associated with do not have wiki pages, and from googling do not seem notable in themselves. magnius (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The IUP Dating Game

The IUP Dating Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a short-lived, non-notable TV show on a student TV station. It is unreferenced and "IUP Dating Game" gets only 7 Google hits, only 2 of which are close to RS! In addition to lacking notability, it lacks verifiability. All I can verify from the 2 Google hits is that the show did exist and was presented by Frye. You can't sustain an article on that. DanielRigal (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deceptive Safari 4 marketing

Deceptive Safari 4 marketing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

NPOV title, although sourced the whole tone of the article is misjudged. The Safari page is short enough to have this section merged back into it and the NPOV addressed there. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] British Armenian

British Armenian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication that Armenians in the United Kingdom are notable. No coverage in news sources, or on Google Scholar. 2001 UK Census recorded only few people born in Armenia. No indication that they think of themselves as a group.--NovaSkola (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Plus there are some major BLP concerns here. The one individual on the list of supposed Armenians I checked out appears to have one Armenian great grandparent and there is no evidence that person considers themself be Armenian. I42 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename Armenians in the United Kingdom. British Armenians isn't a valid topic, but it is clearly established that the inhabitants of one state in another is a worthy article topic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in South Korea

List of schools in South Korea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is just a collection of external link and one miscellaneous not-sourced fact. More than 1 and half years have past but we have not seen it getting better than this. According to WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINK, this article should be deleted. Thorough recreation of this list is required for being part of Encyclopedia. Hitro 11:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Niyazi Kizilyurek

Niyazi Kizilyurek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the criteria set down in WP:PROF - books seem to be minor works, there is no evidence of significant impact, etc. Vizjim (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tamar Kaprelian

Tamar Kaprelian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singer/actress with one non-chart single, no album, one minor acting role. No evidence of notability outside of YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, blogs & forums; and no writeup in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO & WP:MUSIC Astronaut (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nikita and Jade Ramsey

Nikita and Jade Ramsey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a self-promotional page, not linked to from elsewhere on Wikipedia, created by user 'Nikitaandjade'. Poorly referenced, of questionable legitimacy and notability. Bonusballs (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

keep. factual, verifiable, no hype; sufficient notability as actors.. - Altenmann >t 15:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] VH1's Greatest Metal songs of all time

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/VH1's Greatest Metal songs of all time
VH1's Greatest Metal songs of all time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lists aren't generally a copyright vio, especially as bare bones as this is. But because it's not a vio, it adds almost nothing to the encyclopedia, yes VH1 released it, but that doesn't make it notable, and I don't see any indications that outside of marketing of the segment it's inherently notable. At best, it might warrant a merge into a similar article. But every media org that makes a list doesn't need a wiki page for that list. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete The first problem is that it lacks any reliable 3rd party inline citations. Even with those, it would still be questioned for its notability. Lastly, I think I saw a similar list to that once. Similar, but the number one was different. Either way, delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete unreferenced list, POV - ("greatest X of al time" is necessarily subjective). The criteria for inclusion dependent only on what the programme-makers thought would fill an hour or so of telly and attract advertising.  pablohablo. 11:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete For the most part, programs that come out during a sweeps month (such as the particular VH-1 "countdown show" that this comes from) are not notable enough to be talked about the next day. I imagine that this one went two hours, filled with portions of the heavy metal songs, with plenty of pre-recorded celebrity comments, commercial blocks, and stay-tuned hooks. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete-I don't think that weather or not it's notable is the problem, I think the problem is that it's probably the opinion of non-notable people. I've watched a clusterfuck of VH1 specials like this and they mostly just have comedians and other musicians, and although the people these specials are notable, they're opinions aren't. And I'm not insulting them. I'm just saying if this was a list created by well known critics like Robert Christiagu or Stephan Erwin, then it way be notable, but for now, it's unnotable. DELETE! KMFDM FAN (talk!) 23:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marcelo Lucero

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero (2nd nomination)
Marcelo Lucero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article was murdered sometime in late 2008. There was a lot of news coverage on the murder then. As of late (most recently 2009-05-28), there have only been anecdotal news stories about the murder (Newsday) and the reactions in the local communities. In all, this man was really never notable. If anything, the useful referenced content in this article could be used in some other article, but this article is an orphan, so I have no clue what that article could be. If no other article on the English Wikipedia even remotely references this one, why is this murder victim notable for inclusion on the English Wikipedia at all? Wikipedia is not a news site and this man is definitely notable only for his murder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is WP:BLP1E no matter how many newspapers talked about it. Everything even resembling notability traces back to the one event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the policy WP:NOTNEWS which says "News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events," and its predecessor essay Wikipedia:News articles, which says "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." This tragic death does not appear to have caused changes in laws or other societal changes sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TrioFit

TrioFit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

unnotable product/service. The parent article Rebecca & Drew Manufacturing might also be unnotable, though they were apparently given an award by New York Magazine. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete I agree with Floydian, This is not at all notable & It has only one reference! Harlem675 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco–Serbia relations

Morocco–Serbia relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, most coverage is multilateral or sport. [7]. I found this article but again the usual want to cooperate more type news. Serbian Foreign Ministry says close to nothing about relationship including listing no bilateral agreement whatsoever. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete There doesn't seem to be enough significant relations for these two countries to have their own relations article together.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; no contents beyond date of establishment. - Altenmann >t 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. And yet another random pairing of countries that don't display any real notability beyond the normal, pedestrian functions of government. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Federico Colpi

Federico Colpi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article that came to my attention as an unsourced BLP (unsourced since 2006). Both reading the article and searching through news archives convinces me that there are not independent reliable sources writing primarily about him. I don't think that he passes the general notability requirements Peripitus (Talk) 08:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Infomigra European Project

Infomigra European Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very poorly written, concerns a study which has yet to be published... Might be xenophobic and thus NPOV, but the article is written too poorly for me to understand. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Epsilon Iota Sigma

Epsilon Iota Sigma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self published autobiography-like article (Uses "we" and "our") on an unnotable fraternity. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gretl Braun

Gretl Braun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person is the sister of Eva Braun, but really doesn't seem to have done anything else to confer any kind of independent notability; and there doesn't seem to be any reliable source coverage outside of brief mentions in works about her sister or about Hitler. ~ mazca talk 07:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Also nominating her other sister, Ilse Braun for the same reason. ~ mazca talk 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is her membership in the "inner circle" based on being related to someone or because she actually performed a function? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, not notable because of her temporary relationship, but notable per Sealman's references: note that, despite their similar names, the books are all different. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Disney Jams, Vol. 4

Radio Disney Jams, Vol. 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails wp:music notability, is little more than a track listing. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-04t07:15z 07:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see how this album could in itself ever be notable. An article concerning the series perhaps, but not for each individual album if for nothing more than a track listing. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Triage Entertainment

Triage Entertainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be made by a user with COI on the subject. The article may be improved on, but for now I'll submit this for deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of hospitals in Indonesia

List of hospitals in Indonesia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list as per WP:NOT#DIR Davidelit (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per talk page of article (or re-naming as List of hospitals in Aceh if reasonable WP:RS can be found to support such a list)- it is a non notable list of hospitals in Aceh and does not provide any context of the health system in Indonesia or discriminate or describe the the different private hosptials and government hospitals - the only hospitals with articles in the Indonesian project (ie categorised as hospitals in Indonesia) are 2 private hospitals in Yogyakarta - hardly a representative collection of articles to link from at all. Better served by a creation of separate lists or articles by Island (the List of hospitals in Bali could serve as a good example if it had either WP:RS or WP:V - of which it has neither SatuSuro 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - The concept of hospitals in a given area of sufficient size is notable (and Wikipedia has many such lists). Individual hospitals don't have to be notable to appear on a list of hospitals. The list is not indiscriminate because it a well-defined scope. I do understand that the list is very incomplete as it currently stands, but that is a problem that can be fixed through editing. I wouldn't object to the list being renamed to reflect the current content, "List of hospitals in Aceh", but editing the list to include hospitals form other areas of the country is the preferable solution in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Point taken, but Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a good guide here Davidelit (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Correct, but I am not arguing for inclusion based on the other stuff. I am arguing for inclusion based on the notability of such list and merely pointing out the list lists as an aside. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment many lists in the Indonesian projects have been 'dropped in' by editors never seen again - and as a consequence they are always problematic - I would say that 'List of hospitals in Indonesia' becomes either a disambig or redirect - and that List of Hospitals in Aceh, or Bali or wherever are kept in the loop only if reliable sources are utilised - otherwise I believe they should be up for AFD - I do not think that such lists have any right to exist - there is nothing to check against - if there has been no attempt at verification by WP:RS - they are open to random and false information otherwise SatuSuro 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Provides no encyclopedic information. When I need a hospital in Indonesia, I won't be consulting wikipedia. If we do get articles on Indonesian hospitals, then we use categories instead.--Merbabu (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SchilliX

SchilliX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

These minor OpenSolaris distributions are hardly notable. ilaiho (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are comparable, minor projects:

AuroraUX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
BeleniX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
MilaX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

BeleniX is not a minor distribution and is really far ahead of the others listed here in breadth, scope and current status of development/quality. It is being actively developed and is also used by lots of people. In it's present state BeleniX can be healthily compared with SUN's OpenSolaris and is provides a full-blown, first-class stable OpenSolaris environment. It has a complete KDE3 (4 upcoming) desktop environment, package manager with networked repo, installer and other hallmarks of a complete distro [8]. In fact SUN's project Indiana that created the OpenSolaris distro was initially based off BeleniX - I know since I was myself part of the core development team. The current stub article on BeleniX is hopelessly outdated so I will be updating the BeleniX topic page shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moinakg (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • keep. All of these can be found on Distrowatch, indicating that they have relevance (AuroraUX is on the waiting list as it is new). These OpenSolaris distributions add weight to the OpenSolaris project by showing the different varieties of OpenSolaris. The Belenix project definitely needs to stay, for all the mentioned above, it is a complete package. The AuroraUX project although new is creating a lot of interest, not only because it is a OpenSolaris distro, because it is one of the few operating systems to have an Ada userland. A release distro for the AuroraUX project is not to far away, and then more info will be added to wikipedia. The Milax and Schillix pages do need extra information, but are complete and useful packages.craigvv (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • keep One of the most advanced distributions of OpenSolaris, by Jorg Schilling, one the most prolific OpenSolaris. Meets all WP:N and WP:V criteria.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • keep Being one the first and one of the most stable distribution of the only opensource SVR4 descendant in existence is notable enough to warrant a page in Wikipedia. Moreover the importance of OpenSolaris distributions goes beyond the number of peoples using it including among other things contributing back to the main OpenSolaris code base. Concerning the other distributions MilaX and BeneliX are competing for being the most popular distribution of OpenSolaris behind OpenSolaris himself. AuroraUX is also for it's innovative attempts at a ADA powered user land and also being the only OS wide deployment of the FalconPL programming/scripting language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlanchardJ (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, based on general user consensus. On an aside, a possible merger may want to be explored based on the below comments. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity death hoax

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Celebrity death hoax Articles for deletion/Celebrity death hoax (2nd nomination)
Celebrity death hoax (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a stub. Article is most likely not notable and only gives credence and power to those who continue to perpetuate hoaxes Most importantly, the site from which the "hoax" originated from allows the end user to enter in any name into a form, as of which it will be inserted into a pre-made template, regardless of gender or social status. I could very well put in the name of Spot and still get the same old article, 'Spot died today filming in New Zealand blablabla'. Considering this, and considering that this article mainly surrounds this, it might as well be deleted. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 06:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep; first AFD was just this week and ended in a speedy keep, which means keep the article, not delete it again a few weeks later!SPNic (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep In all fairness, the reason it closed as a speedy keep had nothing to do with the merits of the article. That nomination had been made by a banned user, whereas there is no such problem with this nomination. Still, the two articles cited thus far from msn.com are enough to demonstrate that this is notable enough to merit its own article. One of the byproducts of the Internet era is that it is easier to spread a rumor now than it was 20 years ago. Mandsford (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
And don't cut in line. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
While it is true that the first nomination ended in the speedy keep, said nomination was performed by a banned user and indeed did include a few who did propose its deletion - or merger with Pseudocide. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe Manning's note on the talk page explains why I have put this forth for AfD. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • keep. A quick goole book search shows that this is a notable and scholarly discussed phenomenon. I expanded the arcticle accordingly a little bit; just to move it in the right direction. Still there is a plenty of raw material outside for a decent article even without listmania kicking in. - Altenmann >t 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to pseudocide. There is nothing improper about this AfD being brought because of the procedural close. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
A redirect or merge would be inappropriate. I've explained why on Talk:Pseudocide, but I'm going to repost my comment here for the convenience of everyone involved in this discussion:
My preliminary search of sources reveals a wider scope for [celebrity death hoaxes]. Celebrity death hoaxes may include the various types of myths that arise out of collective grief surrounding celebrity death. Phenomena that would fit this general scope would include the death rumors that arose after Michael Jackson's death, the belief that a celebrity is dead and has been replaced (the Paul is dead idea), the idea that a celebrity death was the result of a conspiracy (JFK), that the circumstances of the death were falsely reported (the idea that Courtney Love killed Kurt), or that a celebrity is still alive (Elvis sightings). These phenomena are not within the scope of [pseudocide] because they are sociological creatures, a specific type of mass delusion, rather than a type of fraud. (Some editing in brackets for clarity.)--Gimme danger (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There's plenty of room for expansion here. Being a stub is not a valid deletion criterion, nor is refusal to cover an extant sociological phenomenon out of fear that it encourages the people who participate in it. Concerns about Wikipedia's dealings with the sorts of death hoaxes that have arisen over the last week are a matter of policy and should be taken to the village pump, not AfD. --Gimme danger (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well sourced and balanced for such a new stub. I agree with Gimme danger that pseudocide is sufficiently distinct as a topic that they should not be merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep A phenomenon which has been around for a long time and which has suitable references to allow a good article. Edison (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brightspirit's Mercy

Brightspirit's Mercy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable play. Only 43 Google hits, and none of them to a reliable source. I thought about redirecting this to Erin Hunter, but it isn't even mentioned in that article, only in the template associated with that page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This entire group of articles is problematic, in that there is not a single reliable source in the entire thing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is Melkittycat and this is my first article. Someone said it's a non-notable play, but I don't think so. Even if it doesn't deserve its own article, I'm going to put the summary and the link to the full play on the Warriors main article, and I'm going to do the same on the other play by Erin Hunter. Which reminds me, someone else said they were going to redirect it to Erin Hunter, but the only problem with that was, my article never mentioned Erin Hunter at all. But the first sentence on the article was, "One of two plays by Erin Hunter...", with Erin Hunter in an internal link. Go ahead, delete my first article. But in the main article, they barely put enough info for Brightspirit's Mercy, in my opinion, or for the other play, and I will put the plot summary on the main article. Melkittycat (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Whig Party

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Florida Whig Party Articles for deletion/Florida Whig Party (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Florida Whig Party (3rd nomination)
Florida Whig Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no reason for this state party to have a separate article from the national or international party. There exists no precedent in Wikipedia to allow for such an article. The state branch of the party itself is non notable and no reliable sources can be found asserting notability in a national context. This party has no members of note and no seats in the state legislature or major state offices. I will not withdraw this nomination either and promise to see this out to the very end. Baileyquarter (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong & Speedy Keep: We have already gone through this and it was determined almost unanimously last time that this party is unique and holds a number of reliable coverage elements to make this notable. All of us also looked to see about this state party/lack of Wiki precedent and none of us could find any justification to merge or delete. Precedent is not a factor in deletion as was deemed the case last time, and notability was not and never has been in question. Initial problems that sparked the last AfD was COI, but this article was redone and fixed into compliance. This article should not be deleted solely because it is an affiliate of a larger organization. This party is unique from the national party because of its novel ballot access scenerio, something that has been distinctly recognized by seven (7) different third-party sources. The fact that seven sources, to include Army Times and Ballot Access News specifically single out this registered state party as notable, is what compelled me to recommend keep. The fact that this issue has already been resolved and all claims/justifications by Baileyquarter have already been put to rest compells me to recommend speedy keep. In that regard, I have limited this article, as have subsequent editors, to the basic notable elements based on these outside media sources.Aardvark31 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep: Agree with last post. This entry is notable and the issues at hand have already been discussed ad naseaum. The entry is notable on its own as an individual registered entity and because the issue has already been hashed through as stated above. Danprice19 (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep: We JUST went through this in a contentious AFD. My opinion is, and was, that while there are some questions as to the reliability of a few of the sources, the article is sufficiently sourced to meet WP:GNG, and thus merits inclusion. I would prefer at least one source from a major media outlet for some additional reliability for the sake of improving the article, but what is there is sufficient for notability purposes. As to why the state party should have an article... First of all, the state party PRE-DATES the national party. Second, there is no policy indicating that state parties should not have articles, and indeed, as examples we have articles for the state parties of every major and most minor national parties in the states they operate in, here on Wikipedia. Of course, the mere fact that those articles exist does not give this article a pass, and is not in itself an argument to keep it, but rather a point made to prove that there is no policy dictating that state parties should not be included. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Well sourced and a good stub on a new political party. I can see no reason why the result of the last discussion, only a month ago, needs to be changed. Resolute 15:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Modern Whig Party and merge selected material. There is no reason whatsoever that this should be accorded the same treatment as Florida Democratic Party or Florida Republican Party. Rather, it should get the same treatment that is accorded by Wikipedia to minor parties that run candidates for parliament in European nations (i.e., don't win an election, don't get an article). There's no reason other than systemic bias to make a United States exception. Any discussion of the Florida organization (including its plans to run a candidate for Congress in 2010) is made within the context of the national party, which is going to support that candidate. If there were a Florida Whig sitting in that state's legislature, I would probably say keep. However, it's a case of Florida Whig is little more than a Modern Whig who resides in Florida. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: As I've mentioned previously, the party actually pre-dates the Modern Whig Party, which serves as a reason for keeping the article if it meets WP:GNG. If it did not predate the party, I would tend to support a merge for content reasons, but not for notability reasons. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Waltzed through? It actually got deleted on the first AfD, so it didn't waltz through anything except through the wringer. On the second AfD, the nominator withdrew the nomination, so I wouldn't call that waltzing through either. I'm not saying that the Modern Whigs shouldn't have their article -- third parties can contribute to political change-- but the Florida branch of the Modern Whigs? Nah, don't make me laugh. Your guy will be lucky if he get 5% of the vote. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 5%? 1% would be an achievement. Florida had 14 people on the ballot for President in 2008. The 12 "third parties" combined got a total of 63,046 votes out of 8,390,744, which is about .007% of the vote. The best a single third party did was 0.3%. BTW, ballot access in Florida is a joke. You need 50 members of the party and pay the fee.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to the national party article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has gone way off base and outside of wiki policy as the subject matter is being debated. Fact is that regardless of opinion about the actual subject, they have been mentioned in seven reliable sources as a notable and independent entity. Merge also isn't proper because this group is notable on its own and is merely affiliated with the Modern Whig Party and not registered as such. Debating the actual subject matter demonstrates bias and relinquishes credibility of the proposed resolution which ultimately leads me per policy to disregard. But beyond all that, this issue was debated last month and due to the open-mindedness and unbiased/proper nature of the original AfD user, it was withdrawn because all agreed this group is notable and stands on its own. Bottom line is this issue is old hat and was already debated and resolved LAST MONTHAardvark31 (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NedaNet

NedaNet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recentism. Non-notable website put up by self-promotion master Eric Raymond to capitalize (fame) over the Neda meme. Damiens.rf 04:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - totally agree with nominator's comment about Raymond; however, plenty of reliable sources have been gullible enough to have mentioned the site. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't agree that everything returned by a google-news search can be automatically classified as a reliable source. Are NY Times blogs, for instance, reliable sources? Should Wikipedia be gullible enough to parrot (once more) the newest one day project by Raymond? --Damiens.rf 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - it just happens to be a Wikipedia page involving a current event. And this is even documented (unlike other articles on which I disagreed with Wikipedia policy about, concerning original research). ~GMH talk to me 15:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep -The article is sufficiently sourced. kencf0618 (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Now that's completely inaccurate. The article uses only self-published primary sources (4 links to esr.ibiblio.org, that belongs to Mr. Raymond), a NYTImes blog post that just quotes Mr. Raymond (again, a primary source) and an article on WallStreet Journal that gives no original information about the site that isn't attributed to Mr. Raymond Himself. Trivial mentions don't establishes notability. --Damiens.rf 04:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Damiens.rf 19:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf International Airport

Waldorf International Airport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax and not a very good one. Zero results on Google or Google news, a ridiculous combination of runways, and according to Google maps terrain view there isn't enough flat land within 12km of Howick to land a hang glider let alone a Boeing 747. dramatic (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete - I really want it to be true, but it obviously isn't. Lacks any form of verification. No mention of it in List of airports in South Africa either. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Absolutely nothing in the net supports this. A lot of work went into this. Too bad they couldn't put their efforts into constructive editing. On a side note, Waldorf Salad International Airport would've been funnier. --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I would say that this is one of the more entertaining hoaxes that we've had in awhile. I liked the description of the nine runways ("Four of them are asphalt runways, one is a concrete runway, one is a grass runway, two are soil runway, one is a grooved asphalt runway and another one is a gravel runway") and the list of all the world's airlines that fly in and out of Howick. It would take billions of dollars to construct this, and I'm not talking Zimbabwe dollars. When did it get constructed? Oh yeah, July 2. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
What alerted me to it was their choice of Wellington for the New Zealand destination. The runway is too short for long-haul aircraft there (You can fly to Australia and the Pacific). Once a long-haul 747 had to make an emergency landing in Wellington. To get it airborne again, they had to remove all the seats and take off with a minimum fuel load into a gale, with pilot and copilot only! dramatic (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G3 As a blatant and obvious hoax/vandalism. Trevor Marron (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Delete There is no such airport. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dobryi

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 10:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Strohbehn

Tom Strohbehn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy delete Fails WP:N. Just a run of the mill college basketball player who never went on to do anything noteworthy in college, nor did he ever make any professional leagues. Creator of article only ever made four total edits – all to this page – which leads me to believe that it was Strohbehn himself that made it. Jrcla2 03:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] I did not have sexual relations with that woman

I did not have sexual relations with that woman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem like it's enough information for a separate article. Existing information should be merged with the Lewinsky scandal article ScienceApe (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

*Speedy delete as G12 copy-vio from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/historians_1-26.html ApprenticeFan talk contribs 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of every sentence uttered by every head of state or every politician. Isn't this covered adequately in the Bill Clinton article or one of its spin-off articles Lewinsky scandal? This is like having an article about Mark Sanford's spin-doctoring about "physically crossing the line" with women other than his wife without "having sex" with them, or an article about Larry Craig's "wide stance" in a men's room stall. Edison (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title belongs as a quote in either Bill Clinton or Lewinsky scandal, not as an independent article. A redirect is absolutely not necessary. I understand that Ask not what your country can do for you is a redirect to Kennedy's inaugural address, but this isn't exactly in the same league. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If the article is deleted, please maintain a redirect. It would be a perfectly valid pointer, just as "Ask not..." is a valid pointer to JFK's inaugural address. As for whether or not this article should be an article, I am not sure. —harej (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect deletion is heavy handed, this is somewhat notable riffic (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per SpacemanSpiff. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge (no redirect) Bazj (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I think that "but I didn't inhale" is the most commonly used Clinton catchphrase, with a sarcastic "I feel your pain" a close second, but we can't have a separate article for each memorable sentence ever uttered by an American President (please, don't respond by saying "Yes we can!) Not likely as a redirect, no sense in merging either. I'm fairly certain that this gets mentioned in the Lewinsky article, unless there was some nitwit who removed it because Wikipedia should not include a "false statement". Mandsford (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete No need for it's own article. In any case, I said it to my wife years before Bill said it to his.... Trevor Marron (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge (if solid evidence is not stated) Unless sources exist that can prove "quote has gone on to be widely cited as a meme in popular culture, as well as in politics", the article must be merged. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you were a young adolescent male in the northeast USA in the 90's, like me, you would know this phrase obtained almost cult-like status. Definately significant. Baileyquarter (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Being in a country far from the United States, I still dare to say this is a very known expression to me and that I have heard it in many parodies on American movies. I don't know how it can be proven with sources, but I do believe it's more to do with common sense. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a repository of every sentence uttered by every head of state or every politician."

Also, I don't agree with this, it's not a random line from a random politician. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I believe the content removed on April 7, 2009 should be used at least for proof in this instance, if not even to improve the article. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Advert Tone 10:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Место силы В МОСКВЕ

Место силы В МОСКВЕ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Utterly unencyclopedic personal account of the author's first experience in a Shiva temple in Moscow. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating:

all of which are basically copies of the first one. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Delete. It's actually lifted wholesale from a blog here which I suspect is by the editor in question.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT#BLOG. -t'shaelchat 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Copyvio, non-notable, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete all as promotional and containing little/no encyclopedic content. Alternatively, delete all but one and completely rewrite that in encyclopedic voice... if any RS can be found. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Lebanon–Uruguay relations

Lebanon–Uruguay relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bilateral relationship and no sources found. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 02:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • DeleteReads like a dictionary. Lebanon-Uruguay relations, defines Uruguay-Lebanon relations. Really? Nothing indicates having relations with each other is notable, or that there is something unique about a few thousand Lebanese living in Uruguay. Delete. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aside from reading like a 5th grade social studies presentation that was written on the bus on the way to school, there is nothing notable about the relationship. Just another random pairing of X+Y. Nothing but the normal pedestrian govt. function here. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stick to issues of verifiability and notability and avoid attacking the writer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete almost all third party coverage is multilateral not bilateral [9]. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to Foreign relations of Uruguay. Although the site for Uruguay's embassy in Beirut [10] has more detail than one usually finds, I can't find any news articles that indicate that this relationship is considered significant or notable in either nation. I've merged the information about the mutual embassies, and the link, in the Uruguay article, and someone else has done the same with the Lebanon article. Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have added some content - too much to be held in a "Foreign relations of" article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be quite lot of content and 3rd party sources in the article. I'd say keep. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What of that added content do you consider to be notable? The agreement about "cultural cooperation"?
I spent a few months in Montevideo. The Lebanese influence is quite visible, as it is in Rio and Buenos Aires. Almost 2% of the population claim Lebanese descent. I am sure there are many more sources in Spanish and Arabic. You may want to track some down. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

your own personal experience in Montevideo is not a reliable source and counts as original research. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • While I'm sure that makes for interesting contrasts and geneology research, what makes that notable in regards to the relationships between the two governments? The US has several million people of Cuban descent, yet the two governments don't really have relations. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
See Cuba – United States relations. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, you completely missed the point of that example, didn't you? Of course US-Cuba relations are notable, but not because Cubans live here. It's notable because of the actual activities of the governments, not because some people moved. Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, assassination plots on Castro etc., all notable events in the relationship. Some people of Lebanese descent life in Uruguay? That is what is passing for notable now? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm just curious, perhaps you can tell me what part you find notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
it's another WP:ITSNOTABLE "vote". LibStar (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Now that it's been expanded, this is well-sourced and appears notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources added after nomination. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Up to standards with other articles -Marcusmax(speak) 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] InterAccess

InterAccess (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable little Toronto art gallery. Fails WP:N. Article also has no references - thus fail WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • also, the article has a large amount of spammy material that was added by a user account named "Interaccess". The original article was much more stubby. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the article as it stands is poor and unsourced, this in itself is not a reason for deletion. As an organization, InterAccess is notable, and hardly a "little" art gallery (I don't understand the point of that kind of wording in a deletion nomination). InterAccess is actually a pretty important art centre in the field of electronic art and has been around for 25 years. Google books and google scholar show notability. I'll try to give it some time to properly source this. I've removed some PR language myself in the past and this could use a good thorough editing, but I think notability is easily shown here. freshacconci talktalk 04:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to withdraw my nom if the article's facts can be sourced per WP:RS and notability demonstrated. But I browsed through the Google Scholar results, and most seem either unrelated or only mention InterAccess in passing, as a place where an exhibition was made. Also, it'll be neat to find out in this AfD how many "scholarly articles" are needed to demonstrate notability: J Mann's article in Leonardo might be about Interaccess in more than passing (I haven't checked yet to see if my Uni library even provides access to that journal, it seems minor), but does that count as significant scholarly attention? I'll leave it up to others to decide. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This article really seems like a vanity puff piece with little if any outside reliable articles backing up any of its information. Due to Grant's dubious accomplishments and tenuous, at best claims to having accomplished them, it should be deleted. The lack of neutral, verifiable sources is disconcerting at best.

[edit] Jake Honig

Jake Honig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This young filmaker might be notable one day but lacks significant coverge today. citation on his student film is commendable but isn't enough to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE RadioFan (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As A7 decliner. Two independent, non-trivial reliable sources meet WP:GNG. Of all the 18 year olds who've created articles about their accomplishments on Wikipedia, this is the only one that really makes a good case for notability. His film garnered statewide recognition and an award. Oh, and he gets points in my book for not linking to a MySpace or Facebook page, either. ;-) Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete both because it appears to have WP:CoI and for the reasons listed. Gosox5555 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - subject meets the GNG and thus qualifies for inclusion. One of the sources was "dead" so I converted it to a cite news template. The story can still be viewed in Google's cache for now: [11] in case anyone feels the need to verify its authenticity. The film appears to be gaining momentum and is only a month old, so I think a technical qualification under GNG is sufficient for now. "Weak keep" because I wouldn't object to revisiting the subject at a later date, but as it stands now I think technically qualification is sufficient. (P.S. a COI is not a valid reason to delete.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crunk Juice (cocktail)

Crunk Juice (cocktail) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, nothing I could find in reliable sources. Page was previously deleted as a prod, second prod declined. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Catalonia

Military history of Catalonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "article" is just a bunch of headers, and even some of them have a strong Catalan separatist POV. To make matters worse, it will be pretty hard for a region to have a "military history" when that region has never had an army. This article's clearly a separatist attempt to spread free propaganda on Wikipedia, it's completely useless and, well, actually it isn't really an article. Taraborn (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shabbos Night Live

Shabbos Night Live (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources, RadioFan (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] African Heritage Studies Association

African Heritage Studies Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. It's been speedied and PRODded by established users, however I think there's some indication of notability, at least enough that it needs discussion. Neutral leaning weak keep, but this was not going to be an uncontested deletion. StarM 00:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep a gsearch quickly indicates it's an active and of some importance in academia [12], [13], [14]. JJL (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It passes WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. However, the article should confirm whether the organization is still active -- its web site is not online and JJL's links stop at 2006. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge it with the African Studies Association article. It is too small to be out on its own. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emochila and CPA Site Solutions

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Emochila Articles for deletion/Emochila (2nd nomination)
Emochila (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
CPA Site Solutions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Emochila was previously kept based on a closure as no consensus (see earlier debate) after an AFD plagued with sock votes and irregulatiries. While at first glance, this appears to be a well-referenced article, nearly all of the references are to materials that originate with the company itself. Some have promising names ("Company WhoIS") but link to the company's own web site. One links to a business partner, hardly a neutral source. Another links to the Better Business Bureau, who rely heavily on self-reporting. One is a press release. Three appear to be independent, published sources: of these, one has nothing to do with the topic, the other (the "E-Commerce Journal") appears to be a press release republished without editorial oversight or fact checking, and the third (from a magazine called CPA Technology Advisor) is a brief, independent review.

This article came to my attention after I speedied CPA Site Solutions. That article's author pointed out that Emochila is a competitor and has been using the fact that they have an article at Wikipedia while CPA Site Solutions does not as a marketing advantage. Upon reviewing both articles, this appears to me to be manifestly unfair: The most solid reference for Emochila is the link to CPA Technology Advisor, which provides comparable coverage for CPA Site Solutions. It appears to me that someone adept at manipulating Wikipedia process has been hard at work to be sure that the Emochila article was kept last time around. I believe that neither article should be kept, but out of fairness, I believe that if we keep one, we should keep both.

I have undeleted CPA Site Solutions to include it in this AFD.

There is also relevant commentary at my talk page which I would encourage other Wikipedians to review prior to commenting. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete both Frankly, I don't believe that both stay or both go. One can be notable while the other is not. And I would certainly express my opinion if that were the case. Fairness is not relevant. If a firm's clients are stupid enough to think that a WP article is significant in choosing a supplier, then they should lose their CPA licenses. And you can print that in the Technology Review. That said, neither firm can demonstrate that they are notable. The references offer nothing in this regard. Republished press releases are meaningless and fail WP:RS. A small blurb in an obscure trade publication would be something if it were accompanied by other independent sources. Its not. I looked through Google News for all dates and found one mention of E Mochila. The CPA Technology Review. That doesn't cut it. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 01:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Correction The E-Zine in question is the CPA Technology Advisor, To my knowledge there is no such publication as the "CPA Technology Review".
  • Response-not a vote Poster of debated article- Characterization of the CPA Technology Advisor publication as "obscure" is unfair. While it is certainly Obscure from a layman's perspective (just about any trade journal is) it is highly respected in the Accounting field. Also, characterization of the coverage of these companies as a "small blurb" is completely erroneous. Both of these firms have received in-depth full reviews from this publication on more than one occasion (from multiple authors). I agree, people searching for vendors on WP is foolish but that does not change the fact that it is being done, and that it is creating measurable and quantifiable financial losses for small businesses. Like it or not, WP now has formidable brand power and most consumers are going to interpret a WP listing as an endorsement to some degree or another. If consumers weren't prone to this type of obtuse behavior there would be no need for a consumer protection agency. Real or imagined WP has marketing power. I don't think it behooves this community to be flippant about this. Those with power have a responsibility to use it thoughtfully and responsibly. I would also submit that fairness is in issue in all endeavors at all times. Businesses of equal notability should have equal representation. Your point about notability is well taken. That's the crux of this issue, I think. Unfortunately it's a subjective one. What's highly notable to a specialized field, like accounting (or plumbing, or hotel management, or theoretical physics) is far more often than not obscure to the general public. (OT- While I realize this is a useless suggestion for this debate I think the community should consider adopting standards that businesses should be required to meet in order to get a Wikipedia listing. I'd start the discussion myself, but I think it should be started by someone with a substantially more impressive WP reputation than mine.)

UrKnightErrant (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an avid user of Wikipedia, but I am a CPA. I currently use neither of these companies for my website development. I did however note in a publication I receive, WebCPA (the largest circulated industry magazine) that Emochila had a fairly large amount of coverage in the March Cover Story which you can see here http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/ where it shows the cover story, and here is the actual article: http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/30847-1.html I only wanted to bring that up to note that in accounting circles both companies are regarded quite strongly for their web development in the profession. WebCPA is surely a strong source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.144.161 (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember that article. CPA Site Solutions got a nice plug in it, too. I wanted to work it into my article as a referral, but it didn't offer any factual information worth footnoting and including it seemed to smack of advertising. It was one of their clients going on and on about how much revenue she generated using the site to cross sell her services. They got another great plug too, in the same publication, in an article about Mike Block (one of the foremost quickbooks experts in the country) but decided not to use that either. Like I said, I worked very hard to keep a neutral perspective. UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I have done two things regarding the Emochila article. I have read the original articles of deletion (which the community decided to keep the Emochila article after review) as well as reviewed the links under question by UninvitedCompany. First, it is unusual to be questioning an article that has been alive on Wikipedia for almost one year. Two users, GRuban and Adrianwn voted keep. I quote user GRuban of the Wikipedia community in the original articles of deletion who noted:

Reference number 5 is displayed on the company website, but is pretty clearly a scan of an independent newspaper article. Or are you suggesting that it's a fake? I doubt it. Number 4 is a non-trivial review by an independent magazine - "can you show that having a review at this site indicates notability?" - well, that's what notability means, that multiple independent reliable sources have "taken note" of the company, written non-trivial articles about it. That's really all that can be expected. If this were a singer, we'd accept articles in an independent music journal, since this is an accounting software company, we need to accept articles in an independent accounting software journal....as well as....I'm not an accountant, but from digging around, it looks like a respected source in the industry. We have an article on it, CPA Technology Advisor which isn't great, but says it was around since 1991, so it's at least not a fly-by-night journal. More important, I found this: [2] in which Reuters seems to be very proud of receiving an award from them. Reuters is one of the top N news agencies in the world, for a very small N, so I doubt they would be proud of receiving an award from just anybody.

Second, I viewed the press coverage on the Emochila page and would have to agree with GRuban. #5 appears to be from the San Francisco Chronicle, the city's second largest publication. Furthermore, the article I mentioned originally earlier today (the WebCPA article) was not even mentioned in the Emochila page (I have since added it), and again, we're dealing with a respected news source in the industry, a heavy-hitting CPA magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.144.161 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep on Emochila, neutral on CPA Site Solutions. As mentioned above, in http://www.thomsonreuters.com/content/press_room/tlr_taxacct/264983, Reuters thinks CPA Technology Advisor is respectable enough that it brags about getting an award from them. Reuters is one of the top 3 international news agencies. That's one of the ways we define a Wikipedia:Reliable source, other reliable sources treat them as reliable. Therefore CPA Technology Advisor is a Reliable Source for our purposes. That, plus the Examiner article meets Wikipedia:Notability, "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The WebCPA article may or may not be in addition to that, it certainly doesn't hurt. CPA Site Solutions only has one review, which isn't quite "reliable secondary sources", it's one "reliable secondary source", so I'm neutral on it. --GRuban (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Correction: 76.105.144.161 is incorrect in regards to CPA Site Solutions receiving only one review from the CPA Technology Advisor. They have in fact been reviewed every year since 2005. The CPA Technology Advisor selects all the Accounting Web Design firms they consider notable and reviews them thoroughly. Until 2007 this review would include a "star rating", but as of last year they have stopped this (I suspect to prevent alienating potential advertisers). I'm certain CPASiteSolutions was included in all these reviews, and I'm pretty sure Emochila was too.

UrKnightErrant (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Relisting suggested - since one of the articles at issue has been modified substantially during the course of the AFD, and due to the shortage of comments from independent editors, I suggest that this listing be restarted rather than closed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That seems extreme. I see no need to discard the comments made so far. Mind you, you know the rules of this community better than I. The only changes I made to the CPA Site Solutions listing were the ones that you recommended. I realize that you don't feel either company should be listed, but If you are changing the rules on those grounds I object to restarting this AfD. I would prefer to see it through to it's conclusion according to the community's normal procedures and standards.UrKnightErrant (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If the listing isn't restarted I would guess that many closing admins would delete one or both articles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
ERP! I'll just shut up then. Restart away! Whatever way it goes, Thanks for all the help The Uninvited Co. Especially in light of the fact that you are our strongest negative vote. I'm confident that I have learned what it takes to come back in the end. Brian has always avoided the media on the logic that his accomplishment speaks for itself. I think if this listing gets shot down it will give me the ammunition I need to convince him that being media shy is hurting his company, and that will get him out into the circus like a shot.UrKnightErrant (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

CPA Site Solutions: delete. Fails WP:COMPANY. None of the article's fourteen references come from reliable secondary sources. Google News shows no results except for a single press release issued by the company. Google Web shows no immediately apparent WP:RS.— Rankiri (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Emochila: undecided. From eight references and seven press coverage links mentioned in the article only these three can possibly be counted in a notability review:

  1. http://news.emochila.com/emochila/news/index.jsp (hosted on emochila.com)
  2. http://www.webcpa.com/act_issues/2009_2/30847-1.html?zkPrintable=true (in my view, rather trivial)
  3. http://www.cpatechnologyadvisor.com/article/article.jsp?id=1016&pageNum=1 (also, the only relevant result on Google News)
As of the the rest of the sources, the ecommerce-journal article appears to be neutral on the surface, but it quotes directly from the company's press releases[15] and should not be seen as an independent reliable source. Accounting Web's Question Advice also appears to be legit but it's written by Mark Bourbin, seemingly the same Mark Bourbin who wrote this and whose contact email just happens to be Sites@emochila.com. Overall, I'd say that if #1 can be used as a reliable source, the company is passably notable to meet WP:COMPANY. — Rankiri (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] COLD (Computer Output to Laser Disk)

COLD (Computer Output to Laser Disk) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No context given, no assertion of notability Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Redirect/merge. Please take another look at WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE, particularly at the part that states: "when nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist". 373 results at Google News, 177 results on Google Books, 144 results on Google Scholar and a number of immediately seen sources like this, this or this firmly indicate that the subject meets both WP:N and WP:V. The real problem with the page is that it seems to be an unintentional content fork from Computer Output to Laser Disc, and, according to WP:CFORK, pages with duplicate content must be merged. — Rankiri (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: It looks to be copied from the reference provided in the article, thus it appears to be a copyright violation - Dlrohrer2003 05:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Jean-Baptiste

Alfred Jean-Baptiste (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:N Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AlWasl Club

AlWasl Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (