Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 13 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dan Murphy (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 13 April 2009 (adding in my afd again, but something screwy is happening here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:42, 13 April 2009 by Dan Murphy (talk | contribs) (adding in my afd again, but something screwy is happening here)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< 12 April 14 April >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Possible hoax. Certainly unverifiable BLP. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

John W Kirby

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

Cannot find any sources, either it's a hoax, or a non-notable unreferenced WP:BLP MickMacNee (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • the SPA author's only other contributions are insertion of Kirby's name into other articles. In LDV Group Limited it is claimed that he "has made many submissions" to the LDV blog, but a search of that blog for his name gives nothing,
  • The author's comment below is correct - the search function on that blog doesn't work, and there is indeed a "John Kirby" who has made several posts. However that does not confirm any of the article's claims. JohnCD (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • the enormous list of his charities has been copied verbatim from here - the web-site of a Nottingham bar.
JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have been labelled a SPA, but in fact it is just that I am new, I have ideas for other articles. I have met John Kirby, and in fact he donated to me an old laptop, when I searched for him on the net I could not find him so I ask people who know him, for information, prior to writing I looked at information on over thirty individuals on Misplaced Pages, and carefully drafted what to say and followed the layout used. As a newbie, I am unable to upload, but I have newspaper articles from 1994, page 3 of the Folkestone Herald and Copies of Bus and Coach week, which have clear information to back up this information.

As to why I wrote the piece, well, two reasons, first, in the difficult financial times we find ourselves, for someone to survive a bankruptcy, when there was a stigma attached, because of poor payers, to come back and still do good, might encourage someone else.

The second, his views on politics, race and religion, the acceptance of all without question, is in my opinion a great trait.

As to somebody searching on LDV, type in any name and it does not work, but open and read the Home and the Open Forum, and you will find loads, and they are well-researched pieces.

As to the list of charities, well, that is because he was connected to SKIN Bar and those are the charities he supports though all of his enterprises. There is not a single charity on that list that has not had a cash donation in the financial year Apr 6th ’08 to Apr 5th ’09 from John Kirby personally, I know because his secretary showed be all the receipts whilst he was out.

I now think I have done John a disservice, the page which I thought would be good, now suggests it is a hoax, and not truthful, so I would sooner see it removed than harm him, but I stand by it, and wholeheartedly, think it is an inspirational story. ProfPenguin (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Short to the point

Short to the point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


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

The result was merge to Detali Zvuku festival. MBisanz 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kvitnu

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

Minor record label with only a few releases. Most of the artists do not appear to be notable at all, and those that are notable are only marginally so. The centre of a walled garden, possible conflict of interest. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil 10:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Detali Zvuku festival

Detali Zvuku festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor music festival, no reliable sources cited, part of a walled garden related to the music label. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Google News and Google Books aren't particularly useful for this kind of thing. I found coverage on Tokfali, a fairly reputable site , and it's been mentioned on last.fm and other places. I have no doubt that someone with access to Ukranian sources can cite this article. The festival was an event over multiple years. I think it's clearly notable and if we want to improve it we need to seek out those with access to the sources. I've suggested merging the record label into the same article. Here's a source with an interview on it: .ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamieS93 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep per ChildOfMidnight, but the article needs to be improved significantly. Timmeh! 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was No Consensus Cheers. I' 13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kvitnu Fest

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

Minor festival, no real claim of notability, no reliable sources cited, part of a walled garden of articles relating to the record label. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, needs reliable resources for notability. Drawn Some (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be covered in reliable sources (), but they are in Ukrainian. There is probably more in Ukrainian papers not listed on Google News. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment' Are you sure that the link provided actually shows reliable sources and that they actually refer this event in the detail needed to count towards notabilty? Becuase not everything on Google news will satisfy these criteria and it looks like the only way to chack would be to read Ukrainian. Spiesr (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Kotra (producer)

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

No real claim of notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunaewsky69

Dunaewsky69 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, no reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion (G12). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sleeplessness when a new baby arrives

Sleeplessness when a new baby arrives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An essay packed with WP:OR. Ironholds (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete (WP:CSD#G12). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary H. Wright

Gary H. Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a character that appeared in only one episode of a television series. It depends on only one source, which isn't cited and is problably unreliable. Also, merging the article appears to be useless, because the character is insignificant. Gary H. Wright fails to be notable enough to have it's own article. Thanks.--Music26/11 10:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

God In Fiction

God In Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from being mistitled and listing the Bible and the Koran as fiction, this is a non-notable list which is unsourced and primarily original research. It also contains phrases such as, "God is an idiot." ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Whether or not the Bible and The Koran are works of fiction, or factual records is open to debate and down to personal interpretation, and if God was depicted as an idiot in one work, then there's nothing wrong with the article stating this, as long as it can be sourced. The article as it stands is pretty poor, but I feel that an article which discusses the depiction of God in films and literature could be written which would have encyclopedic value. The current article barely scratches the surface.--Michig (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. For example, see Thou Shalt Read Our List Of Top 10 Film Portrayals Of God, In Rewind from MTV, this BBC news story, and the book The hidden God by Mary Lea Bandy & Antonio Monda.--Michig (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The depiction of God in film has also been the subject of another published book: God in the Movies, by Bergesen & Greeley. As you can see from this listing from IMDB, there are plenty of examples that can be cited of the depiction of God.--Michig (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I am in agreement with the nominator in regard to the list's lack of references, OR aspects, and concept of what constitutes fiction. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • So am I. But none of those criticisms of the current article are grounds for deletion since none of them indicate that a good article can't be written in its stead. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am withdrawing my "Delete" input since the current article is a completely different offering at every level. My initial input belonged to something that no longer exists. As for the new article, it is clearly a work in progress and it deserves to grow -- I will gladly add to it. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve into a properly-sourced well balanced article, per my comments above and the available sources noted.--Michig (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. See Cultural depictions of Jesus for an idea of the possibilities for this article.--Michig (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with the nominator that the article should be retitled. "Cultural depictions of God" would be a better title, and the Bible and the Koran should be removed - to state here that these are either works of fiction or works of fact would violate WP:NPOV.--Michig (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Surely if we retitle the article as you suggest then it can include both of those without making a judgment on their veracity? Whether the Bible is fiction or not it's surely a cultural depiction of God. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think a retitled article could and should discuss the depiction of God within those works, as they have a clear influence on how God has been depicted in cultural works, e.g. the depiction of God as an old man with white hair and beard can be traced back directly to certain passages in Leviticus. It would be interesting to know where the 'traditional' western image of God originated and how that depiction has altered over the years.--Michig (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The "God" figure is represented in so many ways by different cultures and religions and is so pervasive in the arts that no single article can possibly address the subject. I42 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Is that a reason to have no article at all? Surely having a 'cultural depictions of God' article with links to other more specific pages on specific cultures and religions is better than just removing it entirely. No single article can possibly address the whole of science but we can probably agree that's no reason to delete that! Olaf Davis (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Michig provides several decent sources which demonstrate that either 'God in Fiction' or 'Cultural representations of God' is a notable subject. I have a slight preference for renaming this to the latter and leaving a redirect. All the deletion rationales (except I42's, which I frankly don't understand) address problems with the current version of the article, which is not a reason to delete a notable topic. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination seems to suggest that parts of the article was found to be offensive. While I agree that it's inherently non-neutral to claim that the Bible or Koran are "fiction", there's nothing there that can't be fixed by editing. God does in fact appear as a character in many, many works of fiction. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have made some suggestions for improving the article at Talk:God In Fiction. --Michig (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced, POV. Also, most novels of a certain type at least mention God or religion in passing, so this is probably unmaintainable. - Biruitorul 14:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. A potentially encyclopaedic topic that could certainly be improved along the lines suggested by Michig. Tevildo (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It is cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing no more. I predict a replay of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Portrayals of Mormons in popular media, although with fewer delete opinions to turn around this time. Uncle G (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - However bad the article is, the subject is encyclopedic. God knows it's going to take a good deal of work to make it any good, but, hey, that's true of a lot of religion articles. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. All reasons given for deletion are based on the current state of the article, not what the article could realistically become. WP:DELETION requires us to consider the latter, not the former, before deleting an article, and I see no reason any issue with this article cannot be fixed by editing. JulesH (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:HEY, this can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per, good god. There is a topic lurking here, that would require a lot of tracking down of scholarly sources and quasi-scholarly sources (i bet The Atlantic has had an article on something like this in the past 10 years). But as it stands now, this is an original essay with no guidelines available to us to decide what due weight should be. There's that weird list of bullet points about one minor author's "directives" about writing about god in fiction, but why such weight for that minor personage? The current article is a piece of junk and needs to be at least stubbed. But why keep a stub waiting around for that 1 in a million editor who's going to devote major research to examining this concept appropriately, and then defend the article from the inevitable cruft accretion ("Hey, my favorite Larry Niven sci-fi novel talks about god, let's put in 500 words about that!").Bali ultimate (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a shambles - and unfixable POV: "even the humourous portrayals of God are rarely irreverent" says the article - if a few people are killed over cartoons of a prophet, one might imagine what religions which forbid depition of the deity (Islam and Judaism, to name 2) would think of that statement - isn't blasphemy irreverence in overdrive? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: all POV is fixable. The only issue is "Is this topic encyclopedic?" The content can always be cleaned up. — Reinyday, 03:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy redirect to Kinghorn#Education. Trend of the discussion was pointing towards merge and redirect, and speedy deletion is called for under CSD G12 because entire article was a copyvio of the school's webpage. Orlady (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Kinghorn Primary School

Kinghorn Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Contester stated schools are always notable. I disagree. Nothing asserts the notability of this primary school Computerjoe's talk 09:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. MBisanz 23:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Foldabots

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

Unreferenced toy book. Only source on page is a dead link. Author has created an army of Foldabot pages, and has since been blocked for it. For reference, please see: Foldabots toy book, Lupet and Uwak:Foldabots, Liyab:Foldabots, Metrotren:Foldabots, Lu-Sho:Foldabots, Pasada:Foldabots, Karera:Foldabots, Elementron:Foldabots, Raya:foldabots character, Miko:foldabots character, Foldabot Liyab, Foldabot Patrol, and more... every time I check, there are a few more. They may be breeding on their own at this point. OliverTwisted (Stuff) 09:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment this was tagged for speedy, but I removed the speedy as I felt it didn't meet any of the criteria. I was however about to send it here when the nom beat me to it. Black Kite 09:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Both of the times it's been nominated for speedy deletion, the article hasn't met any of the criteria, so AFD is the right place for this to end up. I added the only source in February in an attempt to find some reliable references for this subject - from memory, when it was a live link it was a newspaper article about the new Foldabots book and the only such reference in Google News. I am not convinced either way about Foldabots' notability - there are a lot of websites out there on Foldabots and it seems popular in the Philippines, but there's a lack of reliable sources (in English, anyway, perhaps there are reliable sources in Filipino). Somno (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. TheCoffee (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. no predjudice to undeletion if non-trivial sources can be found Fritzpoll (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Farooq Bakshi

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

Non-notable poet. Claims notability but no sources are provided. Google only returns 7 results for "farooq bakshi", including this article. I've also checked the awards but none of them appear to be notable, and they don't provide a list of winners anyway. Laurent (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by author dr farooq bakshi is a notable poet of urdu laguage in the indian state of Rajhasthan. he has immensely contributed towards the development of urdu language in the non-urdu speaking parts of india ,particularly rajasthan. his works are regularly published in all major urdu newspapers and magazines in India. Google doesnt return many results for his name because a lot of urdu newspapers and magazines in general do not maintain websites and the language itself is under represented on the web. the reason why google only returns 6 results for "farooq bakshi" is not because he is non notable but because indian scholars of urdu language are grossly under represented on the internet in general and of rajasthan in particular. also many news papers and journals of urdu in india do not maintain website where their works could be accesable. dr farooq is the poet who has left a lasting impression on the promotion of urdu language in rajasthan. One his awards is a Rajathan urdu academy award which is an annual award given for signifacant contribution towards development of urdu language. Rajathan urdu academy is body constituted by the state govt for managing affairs of urdu language. i will personally try to provide sources confirming his accomplishments. --218.248.32.114 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would tend to believe, however the problem here is that one of the criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability. If nobody can verify any of your claims then we may have a problem. To be honest, I'm not sure what's the policy in that case - a more experienced Wikpedian than me may be able to help, possibly on the help desk. Laurent (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: The BBC is one of those sites that made lots of efforts to offer Urdu contents and news. Please can you check if you can find something releated to Dr. Farooq Bakshi on it? If so, please can you post the URL here? The url: http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/ Thanks. Laurent (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia must stand by it 'verifiability' policy, no argiung upon that. but the i wish to raise a bigger issue here. that whether mere non existence of online information upon a particular topic or a person would make it unnoteworthy?. whether prior existence of online information is a sine qua non for being considered "genuine"?. Are you willing to accept citations and refrences of books,journals and news papers which are not available online? the problem is that large parts of the developing world is still beyond internet where the primary source of information is still printed ! if wikipedia overlooks this problem then i belive its too "elitist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.42 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Yes we are willing to accept print/ non-online sources, as we should - at least in theory. In reality, sometimes you have to fight harder to get print-only sources accepted, but it should be done. Now the question is, can you add the sources you say exist to the article? LadyofShalott 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - User:Laurent1979 sent me a message on my talk page regarding the person in question. Just by googling the person in question's name, I was able to find two English language sources (see here). I am sure that there are more sources in Urdu and Hindi which I would recommend 220.225.244.42 to search for. I will work on improving the article later. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Anupam. The two sources are about the same event though and his name is only mentioned once (without more details) so I'm not sure that will be enough. For example, he doesn't allow us to verify his biography or that he is the president of Anjuman-e-Taraaqi Urdu. As mentioned by LadyofShalott, it would help if 220.225.244.42 could provide the references of the journals and newspapers he mentioned. Laurent (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. The articles you provided are not from non-trivial sources. While I am not aware of this person or his influence, a google search of the subject's name (in quotation marks) brings up 9 results. Perhaps there is information in non-english sources that can be given to prove notability, but the translation necessary to make that information verifiable to English-speaking editors on the English wikipedia would take an overwhelming effort. At present, there is no way to verify any of the information on the page, and due to that alone, the article can not claim notability.Mrathel (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - English-language sources are not required for notability or verifiability. There are people on here who read Urdu and Hindi who should be capable of verifying any sources in those languages if they are provided. Of course, 220.x does need to provide them... LadyofShalott 18:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
comment well i was more or less suggesting that if the sources were to be presented by someone with the capability of translating the information to the extent needed to verify notability, then it would be alright, but that information would have to be able to be verified by someone other than the contributer. I am not sure of the actual WP policy regarding other languages and was only making an educated guess as to how the process would work, but at present there are no primary or translated sources provided that can verify that the subject meets notability.Mrathel (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO in a verifiable way. A grand total of ZERO hits on Google Scholar, Google News, Google Books, and WorldCat. The English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, ideally sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. Otherwise we may fall into the trap of having to lower the standards of notability for lack of verifiable sources of notability for certain subjects. In my opinion, it is not good practice to justify a keep recommendation based on the assumption that sources of notability MAY or PROBABLY exist, for this or that subject, but are not currently available. As for their language, it certainly does not have to be English.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Do not delete- yes i will add those print resources , but ill require some time for that. as far as verifiability is concerned , the best person would be somebody related to urdu languange in rajathan.--220.225.244.42 (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? The best person for what? To provide a source? To do translations? LadyofShalott 13:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Bulacan Factory Explosion (Santa Maria, Philippines)

2009 Bulacan Factory Explosion (Santa Maria, Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

*Keep The main statements of WP:NOTNEWS are that Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article, which doesn't really apply, and breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information, which guides us to incorporate recent developments into the article rather than giving them prominence. WP:N is the basis that should be used for article creation. I am of the opinion that freak events with death tolls above a few people are automatically notable, so long as we have the reliable sources to make an article or addition to an existing article. These events are used as examples to change safety regulations, are something people remember (and fear, especially factory workers in Asia; a large population), and are unexpected enough that they don't get relegated to statistics like Gang violence (unless we want to merge it all into an Industrial Detonation in Asia article). It has significant, independent, reliable coverage at the national level and was printed by global news outlets including Aljazeera and the Wall Street Journal . Habanero-tan (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy WP:NOTNEWS also states "Misplaced Pages considers the historical notability of persons and events". There is no indication of historical notability at this time. Alluding to changing safety regulations is just an example of WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is it not historically notable? Habanero-tan (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Because history is not determined in 11 days. Only time will tell whether the event has historical notability. For example, did it definitely lead to a change in safety laws? Is there a national monument erected on the site? Is the media still referring to the incident after 6 months, 12 months? WWGB (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep I can't read properly close. BJ 10:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Documentation Centre

Human Rights Documentation Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently doesn't exist (otrs:2009040610033304). BJ 08:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment, could elaborate a little? I cannot access the OTRS link. There is quite a lot of google hits for the name. --Soman (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    "...there is no non-governmental organization called ‘Human Rights Documentation Centre’ based in Delhi, India." "An organization called the ‘Human Rights Documentation Center’ did exist in the United States until 31 August 2005 when it was wound up. It is now defunct." BJ 10:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    And their homepage is a subpage of hrdc.net. My bad. /me facepalms. BJ 10:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. statisfies notability. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Irene barberis

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

Doesn't seem to offer any notability. Repeated recreation following removal due to copyright violations. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Considerable improvement since proposal, copyvio+norability issues resolved, so it's a Keep from me now. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with nobody but the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodigal Sunn

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

Non-notable rap musician. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per notability and admitted sourcing issues. MBisanz 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dave Scherer

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

Seemingly non-notable person. The article is being used as a coatrack for the also non-notable website. BJ 07:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Alésia Glidewell

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

Non-notable voice actor. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 01:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Darryl Leiter

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

Non notable academic autobiography. Has published papers around fringe theory of MECOs, but fails WP:PROF himself. Verbal chat 13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the GS search -- but I don't see why you conclude it supports keeping the article: his work is not apparently widely cited. Moreover the references in the article are simply to his own papers, which does nothing to support the notion that they have had an impact. Is this the best we have? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not seeing the case for WP:PROF in the Google scholar results, and the coverage of him in the article from The Age cited as a source is trivial (he's merely quoted as "a scientist on the team" and the article makes clear that someone else led the research. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It is not easy to tell just what Leiter's position is--the HCO web site does not include him, but the SAO has many senior staff who are not part of that department, including Schild, and others of similarly great distinction. His first publication was a letter to Nature in 1969 from Boston College; his latest is 2008, from Harvard/Smithsonian and one listing him at Marwood Astrophysical Research Center, Charlottesville; his current bio entry in ADS is U Texas. , but he is not on their site. Considering the dates, I imagine he is a very senior research associate. He has been coauthor with a number of very important people in addition to Schild. The degree of responsibility such people have can, in my experience, be very great indeed,regardless of formal position. It is hard to imagine why he should be coauthor with different HCO/ASO people over such a length of time otherwise. Yet none of the papers is heavily cited. Puzzled. Some personal contact with someone who knows about things there might help.DGG (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Nomoskedasticity and David Eppstein. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that he does not meet notability criterion per WP:PROF. Pushes fringe physics, hence his low citation counts even thought he's been around for a while.Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per Bearian's search; I appreciate what DGG is saying, but I figure it means one can spend a long time doing work that doesn't have much of an impact, and longevity itself is not notability, nor is seniority necessarily notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, the discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)

AfDs for this article:
List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Precedents - Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones (e.g. the Springfield Interchange near Washington, D.C.).

This does not deserve its own article. There are sections that could be removed from the Highway 401 (Ontario) article - such as section 10 and 12 - if this article were merged with that one. Some of that information is superfluous as well. Rschen7754 (T C) 05:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Atle Bakken

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

NPOV, unsourced, unverifiable. Bdb484 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Note : Deleted only because writer does not know how to respond within the difficult and arkaic Wiki system, but knew how to resubmit article. Nelior70. 

Bdb484 (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Discussion indictates that this is an individual of marginal notability. On the basis of this, and in line with Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, the result is deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Carl Stephenson (producer)

AfDs for this article:
Carl Stephenson (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject requests deletion (otrs:2009032610018134). No personal opinion. BJ 05:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. Subject is notable and article isn't defamatory. -ClockworkLunch 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This person is both a notable producer and founding member of what appears to be a notable band. He meets inclusion criteria. Did he request deletion because he came across a vandalised version? -= Mgm| 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    The deletion request was not specific to vandalism. BJ 22:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete the sources provide mainly trivial coverage of this person. We should have more sources that cover him in-depth, which would allow us to make the article into a proper biography article. Otherwise, this article should be deleted. --Aude (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Marginally notable, requests deletion, not enough information for an actual biography. لennavecia 04:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of narrow elections. MBisanz 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

List of close elections

List of close elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is unsourced and unneeded because wikipedia has List of narrow elections. Any information not on the "narrow elections" list, such as Todd Thomsen's election, should be added and the "close elections" article should be deleted. BBiiis08 (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton |  00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Kenya Fluorspar Company

Kenya Fluorspar Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
What do you base that opinion on? - Mgm| 10:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Refs and external links have now been added. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Why is it that African subjects seem to be held to so much higher standards of notability? Would anyone have even considered nominating for deletion a European or American company with this amount of coverage in books? Shouldn't we be trying to broaden our coverage by encouraging articles like this rather than just concentrating on getting articles on subjects of interest to young college-educated Anglophone male computer geeks? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - exceptionally well referenced stub on notable Kenyan company. Great work Mr Accountable and Julius Sahara. Shouldn't we have list of systemic bias related deletions? That might get more eyes on articles like these than just the country specific deletion notices. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of Long Island

Demographics of Long Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reference (that isn't shown because there is no references tag) states that all the information is "taken directly from the Long Island wiki page", meaning that this page is redundant. No pages link here. Ian Weller (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Pointless (unless it is expanded) Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator's reason no longer applies. Mgm| 10:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube videos

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

This type of AFD has gone on more than a few times. There is a list of internet phenomenon. A list of youtube videos fails all of the WP:LIST criteria Shadowjams (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 00:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Punahou Circle apartments

Punahou Circle apartments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obviously there has been some coverage of this apartment building in the media, and WP:BUILDING apparently recently failed as a guideline so we don't have specific rules for these kind of structures, but as of right now I think this does not meet WP:N. I would say the coverage of these apartments to date is "trivial" not "significant," and essentially all of it relates to speculation about making it a landmark since Barack Obama once lived there (a Google News search for all dates on "Punahou Circle apartments" without "Obama" reveals no hits at all).

The sources linked in the article (I did not bother cleaning this up since I'm putting it up for AfD) suggest that it will be some time before any decision is made about this building getting landmark status. If it does eventually, and even more so if it becomes something more akin to the Lincoln Log Cabin State Historic Site, then we should likely have an article on it. For now all we have is speculation and the knowledge that an American president once lived here, but I don't think that's sufficient for an article at this time. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. I am pretty sure that it is debatable that the fact that the President of the United States of America lived there as a child would make this structure notable. It's novel, but to me, there is also a similar issue I saw with Salt lake eagle gate apartments, which was deleted a bit ago, despite a citation that several presidents of the LDS Church lived there during their tenure as president, owing to proximity to the temple there in SLC. In any event, I'll change my mind if the actual structure that another president lived in as a child is similarly endowed with landmark or pending-landmark status. (The Nixon Library doesn't count - the library is notable unto itself and has the birth house relocated.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Not familiar with that AfD, but from how you describe it, it only had one citation mentioning former LDS presidents and didn't seem to have been the very in-depth subject of multiple independent sources as this property has. Besides, as much as LDS presidents are important to LDS members, the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, is by far a different level. --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's debateable as to how far that can go, Oakshade, but I figure this - the LDS presidents are, generally, notable enough to all have their own articles here on WP. I'm with BTP on this one - if it becomes a landmark, then most certainly a keeper - but first it has to get there. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Is the very in-depth subject of multiple reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Many more sources not listed in the article have been written about it, internationally no less. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply as the location is already notable regardless if an agency or two designates it "historic". --Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide links to specific sources which provide "very in-depth" coverage? And by "very in-depth" I mean going far beyond simply pointing out that the apartment building is being considered (maybe) for landmark status. There are a bunch of articles that mention that, but having an article solely on that basis would be a classic violation of WP:NOTNEWS. And I think WP:CRYSTAL is relevant here, because if the building was ever made a landmark then we'd have to think about it very differently. Right now we don't know whether that will happen or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you have a different definition of "very in-depth", but multi-paragraphed reporting, interviews and analysis easily satisfies my definition of "very in-depth". Perhaps you missed the point of my argument, even without official "landmark" status, the building satisfies WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOTNEWS applies to "persons and events". The childhood home of the most powerful person in the world is not a person or event. Besides, even in December and without any discussion this might be an official "landmark", it was already a tourist attraction. We're well beyond crystal ball speculation as to the notability of this location.--Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Where do you see "multi-paragraphed reporting, interviews and analysis" about this apartment building? Seriously, can you provide links to articles that have that? And again I mean about this apartment building itself - not a story that just mentions it and the connection with Obama. I mean articles that talk about its history, architecture, residents, etc. etc. Everything I've seen is a variation on "Obama lived here once, it might become a landmark." I can't think of anything else we would put in the article at that point and that ain't enough. And the policy I was referring to, "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information," is not just about persons or events, obviously. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you need the articles copied and pasted for you? Click on them and you will read very in-depth muilti-paragraphed articles about this building. This alone is in-depth reporting, interviewing and analysis about this building. More here. You seem to be under the strange impression that because they focus on the building's Obama history, that somehow means the sources only provide trivial coverage as you mentioned in the nom comments. "Trivial" coverage is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as a "one sentence mention." The coverage of this building is extremely beyond the scope of "one sentence." --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't need anything copied and pasted, obviously, and let's please try to avoid getting snippy. You still are not providing multiple links to articles as I've asked. This is a very standard request in AfDs, not something to be annoyed by.
In the above comment you provided exactly one link to an article (one which I had already seen incidentally, or something similar - I really have read about 10 of the sources that come up on Google News and they all say basically the same thing). Besides mentioning Obama and the landmark issue, here is the sum total of what it says about this building: "There are 96 units in the Punahou Circle apartments Obama lived in with his grandparents on the tenth floor in a two bedroom unit that's about 1000 square feet. They initially were in a one bedroom unit, but then shortly moved into the larger apartment." I believe the entire article (which is a transcription of a 90 second local news story) is exactly 15 sentences long which is not even remotely close to in-depth reporting - it's basically a press release which is kind of how the news report reads.
If we used this source (or similar ones) to build our article on this apartment complex, we would be able to say that it has 96 units and that Obama lived there on the 10th floor. Do you honestly believe that's worthy of a Misplaced Pages article? I'm asking in all seriousness because I truthfully don't see what you have in mind here in terms of turning this into an encyclopedia entry. Again, if you could link to other secondary sources that actually cover this building itself in some detail—or at least explain what you think will go in this article beyond "Obama lived in this building"—that would be helpful. I'm not trying to pester for perstering's sake, I just don't see any in-depth sources as you keep suggesting.
Finally, and not incidentally, you are reading WP:N incorrectly I'm afraid. Obviously you're looking at the first footnote there, which notes that a "one sentence mention" is "plainly trivial"—i.e. if something only receives a one-sentence mention then it's trivial in the context of that particular source. This is not remotely to say that 2, 8, or even 15 sentences automatically denotes "significant" coverage. In point of fact something could be covered in hundreds of news articles and still be "trivial" by Misplaced Pages standards. You have not at all demonstrated that this apartment complex has received non-trivial coverage, but I could still be convinced if you provide some actual evidence for that. Again I've looked and not found any. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming the coverage is about attributes of the building, but it's about the Obama connection. That's why it's notable. A place can be notable for any reason, whether it be the architecture, history or anything else. Your interpretation of WP:NOTABILITY to somehow mean that coverage of "hundreds of articles" on a topic could still be "trivial" is unique to say the least. For your request for actual links to "multi-paragraphed" articles on this topic, I actually did provide them above, but here are some individually.
(25 paragraphs)
"Obama's childhood home may become landmark" (13 paragraphs)
"Obama's Childhood Home Could Become Historic Landmark" (roughly 8 paragraphs (15 actually, but they're rather short), plus a 1:52 video)
There are more articles but I'm too tired to cut and paste them. But anyway, the claim that these are one sentence "Obama lived in this building" sources is opposite of reality.--Oakshade (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, no, my interpretation of WP:N, as you say, "to somehow mean that coverage of 'hundreds of articles' on a topic could still be 'trivial'" is not at all unique, that's the policy. When Barack Obama spends 12 hours in Turkey, there are hundreds (thousands) of articles about it. We do not create an article called "Obama's 12 hour trip to Turkey." When Kanye West writes a blog post about a South Park spoof of him there might be hundreds of articles about it. But we don't write an article called "Kanye's Blog Post About South Park." This is what we mean when we say that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. In my view you have not remotely demonstrated that the level of reportage about the Punahou Circle apartments rises above that of any other flash-in-the-pan story unworthy of encyclopedic coverage. The sources you provide are all variations on the exact same theme, and showing that 200 papers/local TV stations have said the exact same thing is just not evidence of significant coverage.
Having said that, I thank you for tidying and sourcing the article. In my view that's just about exactly as long of an article as we can have on this, and it's based entirely on sources that are essentially identical and which ascribe no significance to this place other than the fact that Obama lived there and that it might (or might not) get historical status some day (incidentally one of the other articles mentions multiple other places that Obama lived in Hawaii - this one just happens to be receiving coverage at the moment). For you that's enough for a Misplaced Pages article, but I see a permanent stub (unless this actually becomes a historical landmark - that would be a different situation) that does not pass WP:N. Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree, so hopefully some other editors can weigh in here and swing the debate one way or the other. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Comparing "Kanye's Blog Post About South Park" with this location is comparing apples to oranges and seems very much a red herring argument. This location isn't an "event." I think the childhood home of the President of the United States is notable and in this case, it has received in-depth coverage by many sources. You seem to be attempting to redefine WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial." While it used to define it at a "passing mention or directory listing" (obviously the coverage this building has received is extremely beyond the scope of "passing mention or directory listing"), it now only provides one example of what is considered "trivial" and that is a "one sentence mention" in a biography of a different topic. The coverage is far beyond a "one sentence mention" and is actually the primary subject of multiple independent sources. If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial", you need to make your case in its talk page, not push an agenda on a specific AfD. If you think that simply being the childhood home of Obama and nothing else is "trivial", that's fine but it is not in any manner WP:NOTABILITY's definition. --Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
AGF a bit will you? I'm not "pushing an agenda," or trying to change WP:N via an AfD (???), and claiming that is quite beyond the pale. I've don't believe I've ever edited that policy page and have nothing to do with how it is worded. We are reading/understanding it quite differently, obviously. I continue to think your view of what entails "significant coverage" is inaccurate, for reasons I have already expressed and will not repeat. I certainly have not accused you of pushing an agenda or trying to redefine our core policies: I just strongly disagree with your interpretation as you disagree with mine which is often par for the course in these kind of discussions. I think we can leave it there without impugning one another's motives. Finally the distinction you keep making between "locations" and "events" is odd in my view. Yes, this is a place, not an event or person, but it is beholden to the same rules when it comes to notability. Like events, places can be covered in a one-off manner (as Kanye's blog post has been, hence the analogy) that does not warrant wikipedia coverage and that's what I'm arguing happened here. Okay NOW I'm done discussing this (I lied earlier apparently). Apologies to the closing admin for all this verbiage, though I do think the issues under discussion here are semi-important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep What do we need for significant coverage besides articles written about it by several newspapers independent of each other? If this reaches NRHP status (that will be a few months from now, if it gets it), it will thereby be made notable, but as is I see it being a little past the minimum simply for its coverage. In case you're wondering, it's altogether likely that this will receive NRHP status: although I can't speak for the homes of many recent presidents, I know that the Bill Clinton Birthplace was listed little more than a year after his inauguration, and it's already a National Historic Site. In short: don't worry about it being a permastub. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If it gets NRHP status then it's a different story as I've said. It doesn't have that yet and obviously we are not a crystal ball, so the fact that it's "altogether likely" that it will receive a special status is neither here nor there at the moment. Incidentally it's one of many homes Obama lived in in Hawaii, and it's not his birth home. If it ends up as a landmark it's easy to recreate the article. But would you agree that if it does not end up with NRHP status then we should not have an article on it? If you take that view then I think the only thing to do is delete it for now since we just don't know what will happen (maybe eventually his birth home will get landmark status instead and this building will not, who knows). Finally, and I'm really finding it troublesome that a couple of experienced users are missing the boat on this which is why I'm weighing in again and then I swear I'll shut up, "articles written about it by several newspapers independent of each other" does not a subject for a Misplaced Pages article make. Right now this is a one-off news story (Obama lived here, it might get landmark status) being covered exactly the same way by a number of outlets akin to the way in which hundreds of papers will print an AP wire story. We cannot, right now, turn that into an encyclopedia article. If later we can, great, but let's wait until then - this article simply jumps the gun, and our policies do not encourage us to keep it around under the assumption that the subject will later take on more significance and receive more in-depth coverage. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject has been covered by reliable media. It is logical to assume that this place's notability will continue to growth due to the public's fascination with presidential homes. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral I am not going to get involved in this debate except to note that apparently (or at least according to my understanding of the facts, anyway) the article was created with a sock puppet account and the original account has been banned from editing Misplaced Pages. Not exactly sure where this info fits in the grand scheme of things.....
    --NBahn (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator. I moved the page as suggested. I'd recommend Bigtimepieace promptly put in some of the good content he found. DGG (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael F. Bamberger

Michael F. Bamberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article makes a claim of notability, that the subject's work has appeared in anthologies of best sports writing. This means that the article cannot be deleted under CSD criterion A7. However, a quick google search actually doesn't turn up much on this person, so I'm not sure if the claim of notability is true. Danaman5 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, it looks like there might be a conflict of interest with the article's creator.--Danaman5 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. A little more due diligence on the part of the speedy delete requester and the AfD nom might have saved us some time. The guy has indeed written multiple books, the latter of those two having been reviewed positively by both Publisher's Weekly and The New Yorker per Amazon. He also wrote what appears to be a pretty sycophantic book about M. Night Shyamalan, though the New York Times reviewed it. Plus he clearly does write for Sports Illustrated and other sporting-type publications so he would fit well in this category. The current article text is a copyvio so I'll quickly but inadequately fix that, but aside from that I don't think we have any problem having an article about a guy who has written multiple books reviewed in multiple publications and who writes (or wrote, I'm not sure) for the most well-know sports magazine in the U.S.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    I edited the article to remove the copyvio material and included cites to a couple of reviews of his books. Assuming we keep this it should probably just be moved to Michael Bamberger since he seems to go by that name sans the middle initial, but I guess we can wait on that until the AfD runs its course, or someone can go ahead and move it and make Michael F. Bamberger a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry, I should have looked more carefully and seen those things. At least it didn't get speedy deleted.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lake Palmer

AfDs for this article:
Lake Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is obviously not encyclopedically written, but aside from that, I don't think the documentary about this man provides notability to him. Perhaps an article could be written about the documentary, but it would have to be done so from scratch, so there's no point in keeping this here. Note that the previous AfD was about an article on a completely different topic (a puddle in Ohio). Chick Bowen 02:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Modepalast

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

Advertising Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but my concern is with the notability of the article, not RS. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Marz (rapper)

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

Poorly-written article on a rapper of very minor importance (was briefly a member of a notable group and signed to a notable label, but has done little else of significant importance). Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What's this 'NNE' then? If you mean NME, the content there is taken from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which is most certainly a WP:RS.--Michig (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Even without that, I'm unsure why a nationally available music news magazine which has been published weekly for nearly 60 years isn't a RS. That's like saying Rolling Stone isn't a RS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If there's enough out there to satisfy notability criteria, then the article should stay. Judge the subject, not the article.--Michig (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. The article is much improved btw, nice work. Hazir (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Shane Stanford

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

Non-notable Christian minister. The sources in the article are all tied to him, and a Google search revels no independent third party sources. Also note that the creator appears to have a COI. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Which of those do you consider reasonable? I see quite some trivial mentions. - Mgm| 10:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
*Keep per Jclemens. Timmeh! 01:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Question as Mgm the sources that Google News turned up were trivial mention, either statements that he was speaking at a conference, or what appear to be promotional pieces for his book. If someone can show me sources that are not of this nature I will gladly withdraw the nomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move. Move MBisanz 00:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Edith McAlinden

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

This article about a murderer fails BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. The event in question, a triple murder, has only recieved sensational rather than encyclopedic coverage, which is required per WP:NOT#NEWS. That policy states that Misplaced Pages considers the historical notability of persons and events...Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. The article itself reads like a newspaper clipping, as it only states sensationalist facts and does not analyze the importance of the person in relation with the rest of the world. I haven't found any sources to adequately document her in an encyclopedic manner. Furthermore, this article violates WP:BLP1E, which states Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry...If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. Per both of these policies, this article should be deleted. ThemFromSpace 02:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pillar of Fire (novel)

Pillar of Fire (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable book and article referenced only to a science fiction website. Suggest delete, or merge with author article Myosotis Scorpioides 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton |  00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Julian Taylor (golf)

Julian Taylor (golf) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Compact said: missing notability. I see neither a participation in one of the bigger tournaments nor another achievement that could distinguish him. Phoe (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to be an entirely non noteworthy former college golfer. wjemather 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Apparently was on a college golf team many years ago... can't find anything saying the team or player won anything of national significance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Mgm| 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Musker

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

Smells like a hoax. I found completely no mention of this guy on Google, save Misplaced Pages mirrors. tempodivalse  01:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Indeed, "This page looks like a carbon copy of Charles_Ferguson_Smith" appears in a edit summary from 8 April 2006. How did this survive for so long? Rklear (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (G3) Blatant misinformation. Mgm| 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean Kustom

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

The article's claim that the subject is a professional wrestling champion is not confirmed by a Google or Google News search. Does not pass WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to canting keels. MBisanz 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CBTF Technology

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

Whether loooking under the new or old names for the company, there are some ghits but nothing that establishes notability. I declined the speedy on this some months ago as I thought that maybe the involvement with the Sydney-Hobart race might be a claim to notability but in revisiting it, I'm not seeing clear evidence to pass WP:CORP. StarM 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think it should be retained in some form or other. I'm not going to argue that this is the best form, but I don't really see the harm in keeping it as is.

At any rate, you seem to disagree.

As an alternative, perhaps we could at least have a redirect from CBTF to Canting Keel, and add to the Canting Keel page a mention of at least Canting Ballast Twin Foil, and perhaps even CBTF Technology. Could you indicate whether there is a problem with that?

Esb (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (G3) blatant misinformation. Mgm| 10:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott Van Raven

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

The article's claims that the subject is a professional wrestling champion is not confirmed by a Google or Google News search. Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Terry Brown (martial arts instructor)

AfDs for this article:
Terry Brown (martial arts instructor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was a previous no-consensus close in February 2008. Some weak sources were found in the AfD but there's no conclusive evidence that they provide notability if indeed they're reliable sources. He's the author of one book, a senior instructor of a redlinked school and trained in a redlinked art. There doesn't appear to be a good merge target and he does not appear to meet notability guidelines. StarM 00:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dorset Senior Cup

Dorset Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article contains no content worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. It is one sentence long and, while that sentence is referenced, it gives barely minimal information on the subject so it is with regret, that I state assert that it is not worthy of an entry in wikipedia, at least in its present form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 00:16, April 13, 2009

Oh, and there are also 21,500 Google hits for 'dorset senior cup'. GiantSnowman 14:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was redirect to Gallifrey. –Juliancolton |  00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasterborous

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

The article is review- like in nature and contains information that is neither encyclopedic nor referenced. It contains no citation to reliable third party sources and reads like a combination of a review and a fansite, neither of which are appropriate for wikipedia. Information given is also disjointed, disorganised and poorly formatted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs) 00:31, April 13, 2009

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

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lil Henchmen

AfDs for this article:
Lil Henchmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The AFD process was not completed and I am therefore bringing it here. This article was deleted after an AFD in 2007 and the only new google hits for Lil Henchmen that I can find are 1) he was allegedly slapped by Tony Yayo (this is not mentioned in the article) and 2) he was "co-signed" by Sean Kingston, although there are no explanataions of what that means. Certainly his portfolio of work (=0) looks particularly thin even by Misplaced Pages Music's standards. This article has been twice speedied and each time the tag was removed by a non-administrator. The previous artice was speedied and prodded multiple times until removed by an AFD debate noted for significant conflicts of interestPorturology (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - The pages I found in the Internet have nothing to support his notability. - NY Daily News 12 --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm having a hard time judging the sources so I won't be adding my vote, but the IMDB page for this kid might be relevant (although it's not reliable enough to be included) - Mgm| 10:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete for utter failure to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC, for violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and bad-faith removal of previous AFD tags. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is all about his musical ambitions and shows no notability at all; the references are about an incident where he was allegedly assaulted; one of them says "none of this has been confirmed by anyone involved" and the other is a year-old report that his mother has filed a civil suit about it. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I did extensive research on Google hits for both his given name and alias, and found that most are blogs concerning the assault, or pages that refer back to this wikipedia article as a source, or to other pages similiar to this wiki article. (Those are also slated for deletion.) I can find no support for any collaboration, any credit, on any released recording. I believe that the blogs and other pages are nothing more than trying to establish credibility of having a music and/or acting career, when in fact, there is none. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Consensus has been clearly established; as such I am closing early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton |  16:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia–Paraguay relations

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

This is another of the bilateral relationship articles mass-produced by User:Groubani without attempting to demonstrate notability. A Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources on the relationship between the two countries other than routine government websites and some material on an eccentric Australian group which started a settlement in Paraguay in the 1890s (which is already covered in the New Australia article). The Australian Broadcasting Corporation also doesn't have any stories on the relationship between the countries in its online news archive. Moreover, neither country currently has an embassy in the other and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's website states that 'Australia's positive relations with Paraguay are modest' and that there's only about $2 million per year in trade between the two countries. As such, this bilateral relationship does not meet WP:N Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - only 20,000 articles, since if there is an article on "X–Y relations" there would not (it is to be hoped) also be an article on "Y–X relations". . .Rcawsey (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Another entry in the seemingly endless chain of whimsical pairings of countries with very minor foreign relations. Does not meet WP:N standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete another one of those Country X-Y relations articles that fails notability standards. tempodivalse  01:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know you guys are going to kill me but, this one is a bit reminiscent of the Australia-Uruguay article I have been reworking over the past day. You might want to take a bit of a look at this article on an Australian colony in Paraguay dubbed New Australia. This might mean these countries share some kind of relations even if they are from the 1800's. I am searching for sources as well for other things such as trade agreement etc., but have not made up my mind on keeping or deleting. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
My fault the nom already mentioned that, sheesh all this work I have done today has worn me out, so per nom I go delete. --Marcusmax(speak) 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Nikou

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

The references serve to prove OpenGate Capital's notability, but not that of Andrew Nikou. We need secondary coverage of Nikou himself to prove his notability. Also, the article borrows heavily from his company bio. JaGa 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Majlis Amanah Rakyat. MBisanz 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rural Industrial Development Authority

Rural Industrial Development Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page meets Misplaced Pages’s criteria for deletion because the subject is not notable, the article is very short, provides no little context, has not been significantly improved for two years and likely never will be improved due to lack of notability Unionsoap (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Majlis Amanah Rakyat per Biruitorul. It appears that this organisation was the forerunner of a notable organisation with a viable article, but there is very little to be said in this article that can be sourced. It appears logical to combine what little there is with the other article. If, in the future, more can be said or someone takes it upon themselves to research this further, there's no reason it cannot be split out again - but right now, a reader would be best served referring to the successor agency's article ~ mazca 01:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Transport in Hong Kong . MBisanz 00:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bus Terminuses in Hong Kong

Bus Terminuses in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. Can't remember the wiki link for that. check out WP:NOT Cabe6403 23:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I wouldn't quite call this cruft, it might actually be useful to someone. T.B.S. it's very difficult to follow as currently written, needs to be cleaned up and categorized by neighborhood. -Senseless!... says you, says me 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete USEFUL isn't a reason for keeping. I likewise can't remember where I've seen it, but there's a policy statement that rejects bus stops: and what more is this? Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Comment' bus terminals in general seem to be topics where articles are generally built on, so in theory the list article should be kept, if it can be reduced to terminals. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete A map of existing bus lines and their routes in an article on the city's public transport is useful. This isn't and it's not encyclopedic either. - Mgm| 08:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Lists that perform neither an internal-navigation function nor an encyclopedic purpose in themselves simply do not belong in an encyclopedia. Its disordered and all-encompassing nature, combined with the general lack of notability of individual entries, makes it useless for navigation, and its complete lack of commentary and sourcing makes it wholly unencyclopedic as an article in itself. This is pure indiscriminate information. ~ mazca 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a prime example of Busstationcruft that adds nothing to the understanding of HK's public transport infrastructure. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Phake. –Juliancolton |  00:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Tai-Phake

History of Tai-Phake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just one, long, unverifyable, seemingly made up rant. Ipatrol (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Mgm| 10:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fergusade

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

Had been an expired PROD, was recreated, no evidence of existance Ipatrol (talk) 00:01, 13 April 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.