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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal music in El Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was created by a single-purpose account whose only contribution to wikipedia was to promote heavy metal bands from El Salvador. The only references in this article are to blogs and other non-reliable sites like the Metal Archives, through which the article boasts that the country has 59 bands. Just to keep things in perspective, countries with smaller population include Norway with over 1,000 bands and Finland with over 2,000 bands. Outside Europe, countries like New Zealand and Singapore also boast a larger number of metal bands (175 each, according to the same unreliable source) despite a smaller population to El Salvador. Need I say more? Article is clearly about a non-notable subject. Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To Music of El Salvador. The heavy metal scene in El Salvador may not require its own article, but some of the information here can be placed in the existing article on the country's music heritage. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what exactly? It's all original research supported by unreliable sources. None of the bands mentioned are even notable enough for an article on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the nominator: this is OR, the sources are not reliable and the article is full of weasel words and random factoids. I don't think there is anything to merge, and this is an unlikely search term. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Pastor Theo. Even if not sourced, it is verifiable information that can be done later. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure there's verifiable information in the article? Have you tried searching for reliable sources to verify anything in the article because I have and I found nothing. --Bardin (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. There's nothing to merge after all the non-reliable references are removed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original nonsense. Nothing to merge. --Anarchodin (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as this is no original research, fantasy or non-notable information. It's part of a country's heritage and culture. The argument used by Bardin is not valid because he is comparing highly developed countries with one of the latin-american countries with the lowest HDI. --Crimson33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • 60 non-notable bands do not make part of some country's heritage and culture. If that were so, there would be reliable sources in newspapers and books about heavy metal music in El Salvador but no, the article only have sources to unreliable sites like the metal archives and blogs. Most of those bands do not even have any album out. This is not a vote, your argument amounts to nothing more that "I Like It". --Anarchodin (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YobMod 14:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Google books has quite a few hits, for example in Zentralamerika heute Von Sabine Kurtenbach i find:" Many Spannish groups began the boom in Rock in the spanish language, known as Guanarock in El Salvador....Now Heavy metal, Trash and black metal have become popular in these lands, as interpreted by the bands Renegado and Tabu. In 1989, rock-fans organised a concert for peace for a youth the was sick of war." Kinder im Abseits Kindheit und Jugend in fremden Kulturen Kindheiten Von Manfred Liebel has "Music preferences cover a wide spectrum, from spanish-language melancholic music, to English language Rock, particularly Rap/Hiphop, Heavy metal and Punk...Since 1992, 8,000 El-Salvadorans atend the Annual Peace-fest.

No idea why sources appear in German, but I suspect other language (eg spanish) searches would also find enough sources to find at least enough for a section.YobMod 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would think any of those sources are relevant to this article's subject. None of those sources are about El Salvador or even heavy metal. One can find many results through a google book search by coupling two random words together like metal and a country's name. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments by nominator I want to emphasize that the article is filled with nothing more than original research and that it is unlikely to ever be more than that. There are 11 citations at present. Three of them are to the metal-archives.com; two of them are to metalcritico.com; one of them is to spirit-of-metal.com; and another one is to resistenciamusical.com. All four are unreliable sites that rely on content are submitted by their users. Two other sites are to blogs (obolog.com and blogspot.com); one is to myspace; and another is to a fanpage on geocities. One citation is to some kind of forum that I cannot view without signing in. In response to Crimson33, El Salvador is actually in the middle range of HDI according to this list. Countries with lower HDI to El Salvador includes Indonesia (280 bands), South Africa (101 bands), Bolivia (105 bands), Philippines (119 bands), etc. There is nothing remarkable or extraordinary about El Salvador having 62 heavy metal bands, none of whom are even notable for an article on wikipedia. I went through each and every band entry on the metal-archive site: 30 of those bands have not released anything more than demos. 6 have managed to release an EP but have yet to release a studio album. 22 bands have only released one studio albums. 1 of those 22 bands (Vertigo) have also released a live album. 3 bands (Dreamlore, Kabak, Kabala) have released 2 studio albums. Only 1 band (Raices Torcidas) has released 3 studio albums. That's it. The grand total number of studio album released by heavy metal bands in El Salvador is 31. How anyone can possibly think that a heavy metal scene that has produced only 31 albums up to now is a notable subject is quite beyond me. It is not even notable enough for an entry in the Music of El Salvador. Do you think the music industry in El Salvador pays much attention to a genre that has only produced 31 albums up to now? More important than anything else though is the sheer absence of a single source that even treats as heavy metal music in El Salvador as a notable subject. Not even a passing mention, let alone a discussion. The subject is simply not notable to have a presence anywhere on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Nicaragua & El Salvador Von Paige R. Penland, i find "The music scene in El Salvador is thriving....Heavy metal and Funk are styles embraced and developed by younger Salvadoran musicians. Multiple general reference books mentioning that El Salvador has a thriving Heavy metal scene does indeed convince me that deletion would be a mistake. Note, i don't read Spanish, and there are likely many more such sources in the language of the land.YobMod 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that you are doing is proving the existence of heavy metal music in El Salvador, something that is not in dispute. Heavy metal is a global phenomenon and can be found in many countries around the world. There is nothing remarkable about heavy metal music being heard in El Salvador, a country that has only produced 62 bands with 31 studio albums among them. Many other similar sentences to your example can be found for other countries, eg. Mongols now have access to a variety of culture ... While some express a pride in their old instruments, songs, and beliefs, others are dripping the ends of their curly-toed boots into new performance arts, including heavy metal, rock and "world" music. here; An Egyptian teen's preference may range from popular to heavy metal. here; Bangladeshi band music was the precursor to modern Bangladeshi rock and metal music. here; etc. There is no source indicating anything notable about heavy metal music in El Salvador. --Bardin (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, i am showing that general books about the region specifically mention Heavy metal being socially relevant in El Salvador, more than the vast majority of other music generes. Another: Seeing Indians Von Virginia Tilley has "the country (El Salvador) was simultaneously saturated with American pop, rap and heavy metal....The older Generation frequently complained that rock...were eroding traditional social values and leading to gang violence". Multiple general reference books mentioning that El Salvador has a thriving Heavy metal scene, and that its scene has a social impact does indeed convince me that deletion would be a mistake. Note, i don't read Spanish, and there are likely many more such sources in the language of the land.YobMod 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted wrongly. It's "American pop, rap, heavy metal and other music." It is also American heavy metal that this source describes El Salvador as being saturated with. No mention of an El Salvadorean heavy metal scene at all, let alone a "thriving one". --Bardin (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Would anyone mind if we asked some of the El Salvadoran wikipedians if they can do quick search? A spanish-reading editor saying there are no reliable sources would be convincing i think, but i don't want it to look like canvassing (eg. if people think that editors from the country would be biased to keeping), but the wikiproject is dead.YobMod 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, ask away. You can also raise the issue at the wikiproject metal talk page too. When the heavy metal scene of a country consists of just 62 bands with only 31 studio albums among them, I doubt that there would be any reliable source about it in any language. --Bardin (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment Please stop relisting this. It seems that it's an attempt to force a deletion. If no input has been given in the original 7-day window, it should be closed as keep by default. Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with relisting an article to find consensus where there is none. This is not the only AFD that has been relisted more than once. Yes, an absence of consensus should result in keep by default though it would be a peculiar thing indeed if an article is kept when not a single person in the AFD has actually supported that. That said, I do believe a "no consensus - default to keep" would have be a more accurate closing decision than "merge". --Bardin (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed speedy. Consists of one whole sentence and an infobox, doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. How on Earth this was denied a speedy????? Fails to establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of notability, abc news, express india, The Hindu, etc.  Chzz  ►  01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this meets WP:N per Chzz. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to meet WP:N. Enough sources for expanding the article. Salih (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Googling "Lakshmi Menon" results in 65,400 hits. I see her mentioned in many news sources. Before nominating someone for deletion, please spend a few seconds Googling. Dream Focus 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just reading this makes her notability obvious. Fences and windows (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added some sources. Perhaps editors could try looking for sources before nominating and voting delete? Btw, she's on the cover of Vogue India this month. Fences and windows (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family Leader Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Filing an amicus curiae brief does not make an organization notable. After comprehensive review of the Google hits generated and the all-dates Google news archive hits generated, I was unable to find any coverage of the organization itself in independent sources, and not even any significant coverage of the amicus brief (only mentions that it exists).

Ample opportunity has been given for editors to add sources; the above searches suggest that no amount of effort to do so will bear fruit. Bongomatic 23:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm afraid you're right. When I started the article, I was thinking the organization would turn out to have a little more notability, or at least notoriety. Probably a bad guess. Agathman (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable sources covering the organisation. Brief mentions don't count. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A mom-and-pop organization, fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreferenced stub on a non notable football club. Google search throws up a load of irrelevant information, something in Cantonese and the official website. Nothing even resembling WP:RS, thus, seemingly, no hope of the article being expanded. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Dragons SC HJMitchell You rang? 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Football Federation Northern Territory. Individual team articles about what is, essentially, a minor league, are not merited. Mandsford (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would suggest dealing with all the clubs of the Football Federation Northern Territory as a group. It is the highest level of football in the Northern Territory, a first level subdivision of Australia and the clubs in its sister organisations Football Federation Victoria, Football NSW etc. are generally considered notable. Of course this does not mean that reliable sources can be found. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 05:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Mattinbgn\^talk 05:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the team seems to just about meet notability. GiantSnowman 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the top level of a state in Australia seems to indicate club notability. Additionally, it is important to not fall into the trap and assume that all sources are online. Newspaper archival research can surely come up with some stuff. matt91486 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The club plays in the top league of its state. For me, thats notable! John Sloan @ 19:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a state, a territory with 150,000 people in a sport that is not that popular. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete No references at all to establish notability and it is unlikely that a non-professional sports team like this would receive the level of coverage needed to meet WP:ORG. The above keep comments appear to be WP:ILIKEIT as they don't demonstrate that any references actually exist, let alone enough to constitute 'significant coverage' as required by the notability guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, id never heard of this team until yesterday (since i'm from the UK). So I could analise this from a completely neutral point of view. I'm pretty sure the other keeps here are much the same! John Sloan @ 09:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems quite consistent with other teams that are around. Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously I have a stake in keeping the articles as the creator -- but unlike a recent discussion over the merit of keeping Whittlesea United, I definitely believe these team pages have a place on Wikipedia. They are clubs from the league behind the A-League in Australia. I've been pretty busy, so haven't had the time to spend on sources, but a quick Google News search finds this and this and this. Australian Matt (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd just apply some caution re "the league behind the A-league" claim. While this is technically correct, by any reasonable measure the standard of this competition would be a long way behind the other state leagues in Australia. As a yardstick, I'd suggest that no players have gone straight from the NT league directly into the A-league whereas there would be many examples from say the Victorian Premier League. Murtoa (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Palmerston FC player Alistair Evans has trained with the Queensland Roar (now Brisbane Roar) youth side. Rhian Davies is a W-League player from the Northern Territory. The others that come to mind from Darwin are Hamilton Thorp (Perth Glory) and John Tambouras (New Zealand Knights). Australian Matt (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete completely non-notable. A small amateur weekend club in a city of 120,000 people in a country where soccer is not one of the leading competitive sports. #2 Soccer's elite player base is built around continental European immigrants like Italians, Greeks, Balkans, etc, and Darwin doesn't have many immigrants from those parts; immigrants mostly go to big cities. There are eight teams in the city, so on avg 15,000 people per team. Not notable. Just on another note, Salisbury United is a team in my area, in the second division of suburban soccer. They should be deleted as well. When I was a kid I saw them draw 3-3 against a ragtag "Vietnam United" team from the area. They are no better than a team from a sporty high school. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comment about the 7/8th division in England etc, I looked up eg, Harrogate in UK; 160,000 people, and they have two clubs, one in 6th tier and another in 8th tier, but at least both have stadiums about 3,000 with 500 odd seats and are semi-pro. In Australia, 3rd tier soccer teams play in paddocks with no seats, no money etc. Entrance is free, at least the Vietnam Utd v Salisbury Utd one was (at a paddock with no fence/gate). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Nfitz, from English football league system, it appears that only the top 8 tiers in the UK have a regular full season. When I went to 9 and below I couldn't see any bluelinks to any teams. Well the 8th tier teams at least have a stadium. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as ChrisTheDude noted in the similar deletion discussion here, every team in the UK plays a full, regular season. And tiers below the A-League do indeed charge prices for admission - see the Victorian system example here. The NT News is a reliable source and it has now been added to the article. Australian Matt (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Dragons SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced stub on an apparently non notable football club. A google search throws up a few lists of clubs in the area and a few stats sites but nothing that would come close to WP:RS. There seems little hope of any more information being found to add to the article though, by all means, prove me wrong. HJMitchell You rang? 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Padres FC HJMitchell You rang? 23:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the NT Premier League would appear to be the top level of competition in the Northern Territory. Whether that makes teams at that level notable is another matter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete A Google news search of 'Darwin Dragons soccer' doesn't return any usable references ([1]) and this is a non-professional team so WP:ORG isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Football Federation Northern Territory. The premier minor league in one section of the country would probably be considered notable, but the individual teams would have to prove some type of notability that sets them apart from other clubs. Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are 8 teams in this league (Football Federation Northern Territory#2009 Premier League Teams). Why are their Wikipedia articles being picked off individually? WWGB (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 05:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Mattinbgn\^talk 05:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep. As I understand it, this team plays at what is effectively Level 3 in the Aussie league system. A team's professional status is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to notability (for example, there are hundreds of semi-pro and amateur teams in England with Wiki articles, some of which are of Featured Article standard), and seeing as there is no national cup competition to give us an easy guide to establishing notability (as there is in England), I see no reason why article for teams at this level should be deleted simply because of their level. The way I see it, this team are no less notable than a Wessex League team. Unfortunately, in order to improve this article we have to rely on news sources, and as Nick-D says there's precious little to use. I found one story about them receiving a grant, four Google News hits and a few more local news hits (search for "Darwin Dragons" -rugby) but that's about it. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I might be miss-understanding your comment a bit, but there is a national professional soccer/football competition in Australia - the A-League. This team isn't in it. Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So by that logic all non-league semi-professional English teams (most of which have articles on here) should also be deleted!? Or would you go as far as deleting all teams that don't play in the Premier League? John Sloan @ 09:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No; only teams for which sufficient references aren't available to meet the requirements set by WP:ORG like this one. 'Other stuff exists' isn't a reason to keep articles by the way. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly doesn't apply here because my reasoning for keeping the article is based on my belief that the subject is notable. See below ;) John Sloan @ 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not that it will make a difference, but just to clarify - they would technically be playing in a Level 2 league, with each top state league coming directly under the National A-League competition. I'm undecided on keeping the article or not, but leaning toward keep. I'll have a look around for some sources and come back. Camw (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bettia. GiantSnowman 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bettia as well. matt91486 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The club plays in the top league of its state. I consider that notable. John Sloan @ 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a non-professional team, in a sport which isn't the most popular in this country, in a territory so small in population that I'm not sure teams in its stage leagues in any sport would be notable (and I'm a staunch inclusionist), since they're going to be tiny non-professional teams, and thus are not going to have the reliable sources to make the article. This is a case where trying to judge it by, say, English standards, just doesn't make any sense. Rebecca (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily meets standard at which teams have been kept in the past. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it meet the standard at all, let alone easily? As I said above, I'm a particularly ardent inclusionist - and I'm not seeing notability at all. It's a local, non-professional team on which nothing useful could be said because the references aren't there; that the particular area the league represents happens to have its own parliament is neither here nor there. Rebecca (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this different that the local non-professional teams in the 12th level of English football that we consider acceptable (or is it the 10th level ...) Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously I have a stake in keeping the articles as the creator -- but unlike a recent discussion over the merit of keeping Whittlesea United, I definitely believe these team pages have a place on Wikipedia. They are clubs from the league behind the A-League in Australia. I've been pretty busy, so haven't had the time to spend on sources, but a quick Google News search finds this and this and this. Australian Matt (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "the league behind the A-League" is misleading. There is a massive difference in notability between the two levels, and where there might be a case for including one from, say, the NSW state league, the tiny Northern Territory market is a different story entirely. The writeups you linked above are just the same sort that the Canberra Times used to run on university sport when I was there - should we have article on those teams too? Rebecca (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - we should definitely have an article on University teams if they can be verified with good sources and deemed as notable. This team has its notability lie in its position as being in the top NT tier and the second tier behind the A-League. The Sunday Territorian meets WP:RS criteria. For the record - have a look at Melbourne University Rangers. Australian Matt (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Melbourne University Rangers appears a very poor example - a club that has had its entire and relatively short existence in lower amateur ranks and in my view is simply not notable. Some uni clubs may be notable due to their longevity and in some cases where they have participated (earlier in their history) at higher levels. A relevant example (in another code) would be Melbourne University Football Club. Murtoa (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Aussie Rules club is a better example - although the Rangers are now out of the provisional leagues. Australian Matt (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems the issue of whether or not the team is professional is irrelevant. I'm not in the habit of weighing in on AfDs I started- I make my opinion clear in the nomination and let the community decide its fate. However, I felt it necessary to point out my reasons, since there seems to have been a lot of focus on the professional issue. Having searched Google, I could not find any reliable, third party sources that dealt with the subject of the article in detail- as required by WP:RS and WP:N. From what I see above, there are still no such sources that deal in detail with the club- as opposed to a particular player or the league as a whole. I consider myself an inclusionist so invite people to prove me wrong! HJMitchell You rang? 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Content added I have added a reliable third party source, the Northern Territory News, that deals with the subject of the article as required by WP:RS. This deals in detail with the club, and also gives history -- the NT News article noted that the Darwin Dragons rejoined the NT Premier League in 2007. Australian Matt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete completely non-notable. A small amateur weekend club in a city of 120,000 people in a country where soccer is not one of the leading competitive sports. #2 Soccer's elite player base is built around continental European immigrants like Italians, Greeks, Balkans, etc, and Darwin doesn't have many immigrants from those parts; immigrants mostly go to big cities. There are eight teams in the city, so on avg 15,000 people per team. Not notable. Just on another note, Salisbury United is a team in my area, in the second division of suburban soccer. They should be deleted as well. When I was a kid I saw them draw 3-3 against a ragtag "Vietnam United" team from the area. They are no better than a team from a sporty high school. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the comment about the 7/8th division in England etc, I looked up eg, Harrogate in UK; 160,000 people, and they have two clubs, one in 6th tier and another in 8th tier, but at least both have stadiums about 3,000 with 500 odd seats and are semi-pro. In Australia, 3rd tier soccer teams play in paddocks with no seats, no money etc. Entrance is free, at least the Vietnam Utd v Salisbury Utd one was (at a paddock with no fence/gate). YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Nfitz, from English football league system, it appears that only the top 8 tiers in the UK have a regular full season. When I went to 9 and below I couldn't see any bluelinks to any teams. Well the 8th tier teams at least have a stadium. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it isn't really relevant to this discussion, what do you mean by "only the top 8 tiers in the UK have a regular full season". Every team in a league in the UK plays a "regular full season", eg here is the current (a few games left to play) league table (what I believe in Australia you call a "ladder") for the Essex Olympian League, which is level 11. And there are plenty of articles on teams at level 9 and below, see for example Midland Football Alliance, which is level 9 and has articles on every member club. Like I said, not really relevant to this discussion but just correcting a couple of misconceptions........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage this comment thread on the "elite player base" that a football article apparently requires for notability and simply state that I have added a reliable third party source establishing the club is notable for its presence in the Northern Territory Premier League, a League that has merited coverage in the Northern Territory News. Australian Matt (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace (talker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article cites no sources, and I can't find any third party sources (everything on a google news search seems related to a football team, not the talker). Without them, this doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB. In other words, if we actually wrote this article properly, by summarizing sources rather than writing our own opinions, there'd apparently be nothing to write. The first AFD was 3+ years ago, before modern notability guidelines existed. The second AFD was recently, but no one participated... which for some reason resulted in a no-consensus close... despite there being utterly no reason given to keep the article. Chiliad22 (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have made exactly the same experience: I found no sources at all other than the website crystalpalace.talker.com, which doesn't even have any usable information. The article has had a tag asking for references for half a year now, the talk page has been inactive since 2006. It doesn't look as if there is anything salvageable here. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete. Talkers predate the WWW where most sourcing is found. It was probably well known in its day and you would most probably find a lot of buzz about it in Usenet archives but that's not good enough for our current notability guidelines. Score one for the FUTON demon. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there is material in those archives it is good enough for the purpose. (I assume from Ron's comment that there are--I have not investigated) We need to adopt our view of what sources count as reliable to those appropriate to the subject. (Obviously one would not use such sources if there were better.) DGG (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I should have said was that if there was any kind of sourcing at all, it would be in Usenet archives or old mailing lists archives which would be true for any Internet related subject that predates the world wide web like talkers. I also agree with you, I think such subjects should be included if someone could demonstrate that they are "notable" (by the ordinary definition, not ours) by using such sources. However, the current guidelines say otherwise. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current guidelines are right to do so. Anyone can write anything at all on Usenet, including forging posts in other people's names — a practice that is in no way a recent invention, as you know. Presuming that there is such material on Usenet (which can be brought up with Google Groups, by the way), how do you know (a) that it was actually written by the person named in the "From:" or "Sender:" fields, (b) who that person is, and (c) what that person's reputation for fact checking and accuracy is?

      Here's a example that might drive the point home: Put your name, "Ron Ritzman", into Google Groups, and the second thing that comes up is a post saying that Ron Ritzman is a troll. The first thing that comes up is a post saying that Ron Ritzman "flunked out of clown school". Would you accept this as reliable sourcing for a Ron Ritzman article? No, you wouldn't. And the reason there is the same reason as everywhere else. The people making those posts did not have factual accuracy as their goal, and even though they didn't use pseudonyms, there's no reason to believe that they are who they claimed to be. They are not identifiable, they have no discernable reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and even if they had they have no motivation to uphold those reputations when posting to Usenet.

      You want to counter FUTON bias? Look to published books and papers. If they don't exist, regret that no historians decided to document this particular piece of history, not that an encyclopaedia aims for accuracy and requires that historians have done so, and done so properly such that their writings can be authenticated and their credentials/expertise known.

      Usenet is "text on the 'net", by the way. Rejecting Usenet postings in favour of proper sourcing is not an example of FUTON bias. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So we should keep an article because someone said there might be information on the Usenet archive, but you didn't check? That just seems very irresponsible all around. Anyone could post anything to Usenet... and you're not even sure anyone did that much. This "there might be information on Usenet" defense could justify an article on literally anything. I hope the closing admin will note DGG's keep comment was contingent on that information being found in Usenet archives... but even then, Usenet posts are about as unreliable as you can get. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the topic may not lend itself to citation in reliable sources, that is what's required to show notability. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Love Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another non-notable single by Raven-Symoné. Yamh91 constantly undoes all redirects of Raven-Symoné related articles, accusing me of vandalism in the process, so here we are again. Never charted. Fails WP:NSONGS. Per NSONGS, title should be a redirect to the parent album, thus all current content should be deleted, and a protected redirect installed. —Kww(talk) 22:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs as it hasn't charted or been covered in any sources. If redirected, it will easily be recreated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Yamh91 should also be beat with the clue stick (and blocked if he or she continues to ABF). JuJube (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - no deletion rationale provided. AFD is not for content disputes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Failing WP:NSONGS is certainly a deletion rationale. Clarified my language.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator is really calling for a redirect over an article. None of this requires a deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't. There are different ways in which something can be not notable; and, as User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things says, thus different ways of dealing with them. You've basically brought a talk-page dispute, over an ordinary editorial action, to AFD, when the eventual action either way, be it reinstating or undoing the redirect, does not involve the use of administrator tools, and does not involve deletion at all. If you want to discuss mergers, then {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} are the templates, not {{subst:afd1}}. If you want to bring in outside opinions to help resolve an impasse over an ordinary editorial action, then Wikipedia:Requests for comments, Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion, and Wikipedia:Third opinion are the places. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is for deletion, as the name states. It's not for things that don't involve the administrator deletion tool. AFD is one of the highest trafficked parts of Wikipedia. It has enough traffic that actually involves deletion without need for traffic that does not. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article absolutely fails inclusion guidelines, must be deleted, and therefore I brought it to AFD. The installation of a redirect afterwards is as a courtesy, and, because of the actions of Yamh91, that redirect needs to be protected to prevent further recreations of the article. Admin tools are absolutely necessary to accomplish this.—Kww(talk) 13:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur with Kww. One song that never charted does not, can not and, in all likelihood, will not justify an article in its own right. Judging by the behaviour of the creator, I think the nominator has done the right thing. It might, technically, be the wrong forum, but if I had a penny for every time AfD was used in place of another forum, I'd be a rich man. The content should be deleted (redirect if it must), protected and the authour warned. HJMitchell You rang? 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annabeth (Percy Jackson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The author and the books are notable, but I think this article fails WP:BK under the category of derivative articles - it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book. In this case, the article consists entirely of original research whose only source is the books themselves. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Until there are reliable independent references, this cannot be more than original research and must be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources, specifically about this character, Incidentally the List of Percy Jackson and the Olympians characters could really do with a tidy, as it contains redirects to the same page, and links to Greek gods which do not mention the books at all. The article itself is horribly 'in world', and if trimmed to be encyclopedic would only be a stub, which would easily fit in the parent articles. Quantpole (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and encourage editors to address concerns per WP:POTENTIAL as the character IS in the notable books and does get her mention (in context with these books) in reviews in such reliable sources as CBBC, Pittsburg Post Gazette, Worcester News, CBC 1, USA Today, CBC 2, Business Standard, Chicago Pride... and with a library card, one can see more at School Library Journal 1, Chicago Tribune, School Library Journal 2, Register Guard, Publisher's Weekly, Kliatt, Booklist, Horn Book Magazine 1, Horn Book Magazine 2, Dallas Morning News, San Antonio Express News, Los Angeles Times, among others... and then let's add the fact that her character has NOW been cast in a film spinoff of the book Lightning Thief Holywood Reporter. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We editors will work all around the article and promise to make this a GA within 2 months. Please don't delete this article. I'll add third-party sources tomorrow & work on it from Tuesday. If Annabeth's article will be deleted just because of lack of 3rd party sources, then I bet that over 10,000 should be deleted for the same reason (and half of those are not notable enough). I'll encourage users at PJTF to improve the article significantly. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To back up what I said, take a look here: Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. We editors are trying to build the article and if you nominate it for AfD just then, then it is impossible for us to improve the article. Thanks. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 10:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of WP:PJTF)[reply]

Comment It's not just the lack of third party sources. The article as it stands is completely in contradiction to WP:INUNIVERSE and consists entirely of the world's most extended plot summary. It needs three quarters of the content removing and some kind of real world perspective injecting to demonstrate that the character has acquired notability separate to the books. Reviews which just mention the name as part of a plot summary are not sufficient in my view. If there are reviews that comment on the character separately (and there may well be) then you need to add both the source and a commentary on what the source is saying. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this author or series at all, so I don't know if such sources exist - certainly nothing was done to improve the article in this respect after the first AfD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first four sources only mention Annabeth in passing in a plot summary. This suggests to me that the article should be shortened to two or three sentences and merged back into the article on the book series, as the character (as opposed to the author or the books) is not notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the next four sources, all are short reviews of one or other book, of which one appears to mention Annabeth in passing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response, and not in agreement with your assessment, but AFD is not for WP:CLEANUP and WP:Merge discussions belong on the article's talk page after a keep. Your initial arguments for deletion is not among those listed at WP:DEL, and seems that the alternatives at WP:ATD should have been discussed or considered... more so because WP:DEL indicates that concerns over page content are suposed to be discussed and resolved, without going straight to deletion. Further, length of description has immediate relationship to the book(s) in question. Perhaps if she were a character in one short book, a short summary would be suitable. However, she is a major character in The Lightning Thief, The Sea of Monsters, The Titan's Curse, The Battle of the Labyrinth, The Last Olympian, and the movie Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief based on the series. That much inuniverse content requires a summary directly in relationship with the information being presented for a reader's understanding. It's perhaps understandable that with the nearly 3 million articles on wiki no one improved this one since the last AfD. However, with Wiki having no WP:DEADLINE for perfecton, it would be prudent to encourage and discuss proactive improvement per WP:POTENTIAL rather than toss this one on the ash heap. With a talkpage discussion it can be decided if Cleanup requires a scalpel or a machete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that cleanup and merge do not belong in an AFD discussion. I listed it for the reasons stated, and because I could find no sources that would help me clean it up. The book's characters, unlike the books or the author, do not appear to have become notable in themselves. If those interested in keeping the article find those sources and rewrite, that would be one thing, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that these sources exist. I wait to be persuaded.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Elen of the Roads does not seem to understand this that deleting Annabeth's page will trigger a major dispute. For example, if you deleted Lyra Silvertongue's page, all editors of His Dark Materials will be enraged. Deleting Annabeth's page would trigger a similar reaction. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 11:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a reason not to delete it if the consensus were to be that it does violate WP:N??? Last time I looked, Wikipedia wasn't a fan club.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with Pmlinediter. This article should not be deleted. Instead, suggestions should be made on how the article can be improved to meet WP:BK and how to get rid of original research in the article. Extremepro (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no evidence that there are reliable sources treating this character in sufficient detail to establish her notability. Have we sunk so low, MichaelQ, that child-submitted online "reviews" that happen to mention a character's name are to be considered reliable sources? Deor (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing but an extended plot summary, references provided give no indication that they will be able to source anything but more plot summary.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor component of fictional work. The two references in the article consist of a routine announcement of a casting decision in The Hollywood Reporter, and a French translation of the Hollywood Reporter announcement. The Percy Jackson series is notable, but, lacking references specifically about that character, a secondary character in it is not. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as major female character in book and film franchise covered in considerable out of universe context in numerous [Google News results. Coverage in so many reliable sources establishes the character's notability. Moreover, given that the character is the main female lead in a film and appearances in four published books it meets a common sense standard of notability. Also, this particular AfD is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Expanding_the_lower_threshold and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Here.27s_a_frightening_thought as well. Also, we should speedy keep given that a previous discussion closed as an unambiguous "keep" already. In any event, article is without any doubt improveable further than what I have alreadys tarted and clearly per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE worthy of at worst a merge and redirect, which we can always discuss as a compromise. Deletion is obviously not the solution here, so we need to consider if the right approach is a merge and redirect or improvement or rewrite, but that can be all be worked out on the article's talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slightly misleading - the AfD isn't being discussed at all. The only thing within the AfD being referred to was the suggestion that the article could not be deleted even if not notable because the article editors would riot. And then only because I am trying to understand what the issues are that prevent a consensus on how notability applies to spinouts on characters etc. AFAIK, no-one from the fiction notability discussion is remotely interested in this AfD, other than as yet another gauge of consensus (or the lack thereof). They certainly haven't posted here, and I wouldn't expect them to.

As to your other point, the fact that the character appears in the film does not make it any more notable than it was in the book. The fact that they cast a female actor to play the character, does not make the character notable. The film isn't made, no-one knows if it's going to be the biggest thing since whatever, of if it's going to tank and go straight to dvd. WP:CRYSTAL There is nothing in the article that is worth keeping as far as I can see, but I've already said that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD being mentioned there means that there's a good potential participants from that discussion will carry over to here as happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray. Appearing in multiple works of fiction is a common sense measure of notability in that of the billions of characters in novels, only a fraction also appear in film, and as the main female lead in the film. The newly cited information is clearly mergeable to either a character list, article on the film, articles on the book series as a whole, etc. and thus per WP:PRESERVE, these are the options that we need to explore WP:BEFORE considering deletion, which we consider an extreme last resort for hoaxes, copy vios, etc., i.e. stuff that has no potential of any kind. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your concern, and really should have waited before referring to the AfD elsewhere. I have responded elsewhere re your suggestion to add the casting reference in this article to an article about the film version, but I don't think it alters the fact that the character is not currently notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please note that I am actively working to improve the article and as such, more sources and out of universe context are in the process of being added, which can be merged if needed elsewhere, such as at Percy_Jackson_film#Film_adaptation. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could in my opinion more properly have been added to the film page to start with. I admire your tenacity however.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable character in fiction, that has appeared in multiple works, in film and books. There is certainly enough information about her to warrant her own article. Dream Focus 20:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this character notable in accordance with WP:GNP and WP:BK, which are the only actual policies involved here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNP is an essay. That makes it meaningless. WP:BK is a guideline, which are suggestions not something you absolutely have to follow. Neither are policies. Anyone can make an essay that says whatever they want, and the guidelines are constantly changing, and never decided by any significant percentage of wikipedia users. Dream Focus 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, nice dodge. Although did you really say that policies are meaningless, or am I reading too much into too short a comment? I have to say this discussion is fascinating. Reasons for deletion (which is a policy - it says "policy" right there on the top) says that a valid reason for deletion is Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). Now since as you so rightly point out WP:FICT is not a guideline, the guideline is either WP:BK or WP:N. If, as I believe you may have done, one argues that the Derivatives section in WP:BK is not relevant as a notability guideline, then the standard for characters from a book currently falls back on WP:N. When listed, this article certainly failed WP:N (and GCSE English, although that in itself would not of course be a reason for deletion - it could have and indeed has been written better) as it listed no sources whatsoever, not even citations for the book that the character was (at that point allegedly since no citations were offered) sprung from.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, it's useless to point to policies when the Article Rescue Squadron Extraordinaire whips into action. All one can do is quail before their mighty powers of obfuscation. Deor (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to get that feeling:) So many people quoting what I didn't say....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep your slanderous personal attacks to yourselves. Dream Focus 01:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep the nominator quotes Wikipedia:BK#Derivative_articles:

It is a general consensus on Wikipedia that articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability. What this means is that while a book may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case . Exceptions do, of course, exist—see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

Which is not the reality. In fact, WP:FICT has failed three times to gain support, and unlike WP:BK, editors actually decided whether it was or was not a guideline first, and they have soundly rejected this view, three times. The edit history shows that the very first edit on WP:BK the sole editor had already proclaimed it was a guideline.[2] In addition, the book contains 8 different references now. Ikip (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quote WP:FICT. That, as you point out, has failed to gain support as a policy. The policy is WP:GNP and it's expansive offshoot WP:BK from which I did quote "it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." That at least is clear enough, despite the continued debate as to what might actually make a derivative article notable.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing administrator Please not the signifigant improvements in this article since its nomination.[3] Ikip (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Alexandra Daddario, Talk:Rick Riordan, and Talk:Percy Jackson & The Olympians page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
• Comment. There is clearly a difference of opinion on what constitutes significant coverage of fictional characters in books. Any well known book will have many references that mention the main characters. Despite requests, there has not been coverage specifically about the character in question. The casting references are mainly about the person being cast, not discussion of the character herself. It is growing increasingly apparent that there are some editors who seem to take the attitude that any significant character in a notable book is automatically notable. Is this really in line with policy? Also, who determines the notability or otherwise of a book? Is it just notable in wikipedia terms? (As an example Claudia Coulter was recently kept, many of the Keep votes referencing her lead in 'notable' film The Witches Hammer, which was only reviewed in specialist horror websites, and went straight to DVD). If this is going to become the accepted standard then every major character in every book on wikipedia could justifiably have an article. Sorry for the slippery slope argument, but that's the way I can see these things going. Quantpole (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's just the thing, we don't have a consensus on the notability of fictional characters as seen at WP:FICT's talk page. Thus, we mostly focus on verifiability and common sense measures of notability. Moreover, a recent RFC on Not#Plot had a majority opposed to the restrictions on Plot, which resulted in it being tagged as "dubious". Thus, the community has yet to iron these issues out. So, if we go by verifiability, we can verify the article's contents through a variety of primary and secondary sources, included some out of universe content as well, which means that the article is not entirely original research. Then we go with a common sense measure of notability. It concerns a main character who appears in multiple books and is played in an upcoming film by an actress for whom we have an article. It doesn't mean every major character in every book on Wikipedia should have an article, but say characters who appear in multiple books, as well as in a film, and for whom we do have a number of sources, we can justify either having an article or per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE take a middle ground and say merge and redirect the sourced content to wherever useful and thereby keep the edit history so that as additional sources come about, editors do not have to start over. I think deletion here would be premature. We can always for the time being merge the sourced information and redirect with edit history intact and then if the film is a some kind of hit and additional interviews and reception style information comes out, we already have the basis or foundation from which to build available. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Actually, until someone finally comes up with a workable fict, A Nobody's definition of "common sense" remains just that: A Nobody's definition of common sense. Actual guidelines still demand that the topic of the article be examined directly and in detail by multiple third-party sources, and WP:NOT#PLOT remains policy. Until those two things change, deleting this article would appear to be the most reasonable action, because this article is essentially a plot summary, and, outside of plot summaries, the references do not examine this particular character directly and in detail, instead choosing to focus on the overall work.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plot remains disputed and marked as dubious, because it lacks consensus and support. Something marked as such isn't something we're bound by. Because the references examine this particular character directly and in detail, the article is keepable or at worst merge and redirectable, which is why it is being balanced between plot summary and the newer sections on development and reception. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this case I'd be happy for the merge as you suggest it, and thanks for trying to reach some common ground. There's too many of us (probably including myself) who aren't willing to compromise much here. One of the issues I see is that there isn't much of an incentive for those who want to keep these articles to actually agree to a policy. At the moment this sort of debate will often be closed as no consensus, as it is a grey area, which rightly means the page will be kept. Quantpole (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Utterly off topic for the AfD, but I'd be interested to see whether there is a consensus around the simple statement that "as a minimum, a character can be said to have acquired notability if they are referred to in a WP:RS review of the book." It's probably not enough for the hardline notability crew, and too much for the side that wishes to assert notability by some derivative of the "everyone knows" argumentElen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Put simply, main characters in important fiction are notable. WP:PLOT does not talk about individual wp articles, just wp coverage in general. As long as the work of fiction is covered in other aspects somewhere, an article about a character or plot does not violate the present wording. (Obviously, some people have tried to make it apply to individual articles, but that wording to has been rejected as have many other changes. I think there is in fact a consensus that the present wording is not good; what is lacking is a consensus for what to do about it. This sort of situation can prevent action indefinitely. I hope we'll compromise sooner or later. The renomination of articles that have already been kept is to me a signal that those supporting the deletion are not willing to compromise. I agree there is a difference iun opinion, and that means there is no consensus to delete DGG (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think the article as it was when nominated was deserving of deletion under the existing policy WP:N (why all the keepers keep quoting other things that aren't policy, I don't know). Whether journos asking the author if actress X can play the character better than actress Y represents notability of the character is an interesting question for the consensus. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, your argument presumes that there is somewhere an article about this topic that isn't plot heavy. I can't find it. Percy Jackson & The Olympians is primarily plot. The Lightning Thief is 95% plot. The Sea of Monsters is 95% plot. The Titan's Curse is 95% plot. The Battle of the Labyrinth is 95% plot. The Last Olympian is 98% plot. There are plot-heavy articles on multiple characters as well. This series is a poster child for what NOT#PLOT is supposed to put a stop to. If you added all the non-plot coverage in the dozen or so articles together, it would still be a damn short article.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's slightly disingenuous to say that the renomination means an unwillingness to compromise, when the original nominator is not a part of this discussion and none of those voting delete here were involved in the previous one. Quantpole (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep main character across two media and several works. there will be commentary. Casliber (talk ·contribs) 23:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One might ask why then it is proving so difficult to find. The truth is that commentary on the character may or may not exist, but no evidence that it does exist has been shown here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

because there are other sources that (believe it or not) are not online. Check any newsstand to see the huge variety of detailed commentary on all this sort of stuff. Unfortunately, I have not had the time or inclination to check this one out, but someone should. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the burden of producing such a source belong to the people asserting that they exist? Why should an opinion that comes down to "I'm sure the people arguing that there are not sources are wrong, even though I, myself, cannot be bothered to provide any evidence supporting my position" be given any weight in an AFD?—Kww(talk) 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been said before, but it's not my job to prove myself wrong. Whoever 'someone' is, they really need to get on with it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest Keep As I said previously, Annabeth is a notable character. Anyway, the primary concern for the article was its lack of references which has been handled by now. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 07:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the web references. Does anyone have access to these books: School Library Journal 1, Chicago Tribune, School Library Journal 2, Register Guard, Publisher's Weekly, Kliatt, Booklist, Horn Book Magazine 1, Horn Book Magazine 2?

Sorry User:Pmlinediter - does "as I said" meet the requirements of WP:RS? The issue has always been not whether you or I view the character as notable or not, but whether reliable sources confirm that the character is notable. Sources have been added (and the writing improved which you yourself noted as a necessity a couple of months ago) - the question remains whether they are sufficient to establish notability. Is it notable if -

1. Reviewers sometimes mention this character in reviews as being a character in the book (so far none of the reviews have done more than that, and some reviews do not mention the character at all - I personally would have expected that to establish notability, the reviewer needs to say a little more, but I doubt there is consensus on this view.

2. Since the book is being made into a film, it is necessary to cast an actor to play the part, and the casting process has attracted some media attention. The question here I think is whether the notability attaches to the actor, the book or the character. Can you establish that it attaches to the character?Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable fictional character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when not true. Please be honest in these discussions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst WP:JNN certainly applies, saying someone is not being honest is not helpful. Quantpole (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The account in question indiscriminately says to delete everything, because he thinks we have too many articles and so never argues to keep, even when articles are improved during the discussions; thus, pretty much all of the votes from this account are of the WP:PERNOM or WP:JNN variety that never actually addresses the article under discussion. It's essentially akin to the copy and paste "oppose per too many admins" we see at RfAs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears to have the minimal references required for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to pretty clearly meet the notability requirements. The plot-summary-ish/in-universe content is an issue, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Robofish (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there is any worth information for this character found on the future then add it to the list of characters. There is a list of characters and I think we don't need lengthly details for characters, apart maybe from one or two. We can create very good summaries of the books in their page. Creating articles for characters won't offer any more good. So, it's a matter of organising the information we have in an optimal way: Good articles for the books that have summaries and list of characters to give profiles and/or highlight of the characters and more important present how this characters are realised in other media, press,books, etc. All this can fit in one article for each book and one list of characters article (with always the exception of the protagonist character which may need an additional article). If we have more information we can think if something judging by the WP:SIZE but until then no reason to create article like that. A more reasonable expansion of information, depending of the material we have every time, helps in adding more quality information and helps readers to read articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember, though, if we merge any of it, then it cannot be deleted per the GFDL. As usual, I am not opposed to working on a character list. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect I'm surprised to find myself saying this, because I thoroughly dislike deletionism, and the character seems to be effectively the co-star of the series. However the changes to Annabeth (Percy Jackson) since its last AfD in Dec 2008 have moved the article further towards being a near-duplicate of information in Percy Jackson & The Olympians. OTOH I'd want the redirect for this and other character articles because I can imagine readers arriving by looking for info about Annabeth. I suggest the editor(s) of Percy Jackson & The Olympians and the articles on the individual books should improve these articles as much as possible, and then break out separate articles when info on sub-topics such as major characters that is well-supported by good references becomes too lengthy to fit in the existing articles. This is the pattern one would expect in other literature articles, for example: there's an article about Shakespeare's Hamlet, and Hamlet (legend), analyses trhe historical basis of the play's leading character; and the process of improving Hamlet may well produce enough info for a separate article about significant aspects of the character, e.g. whether he was insane and whether he had an Oedipus complex. PS I think at present "merge and redirect" is also in the interests of the editor(s), since having a lot of articles means they have to do more work to keep updates consistent, protect the articles from vandalism, etc. - articles, like puppies, are for life. --Philcha (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking on the stress on the editors, but I, as a principle editor of the article would be pleased were the article kept and later promoted to a good article. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clearly, all the article needs is time. Either give WP:PJTF a month to improve the articles sources or just delete it right away and then let us start from scratch.--(NGG) 11:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been present for a long time, but it's been tagged with {{primarysources}} for most of that time, except when Stephen Mallory removed it. It's been repeatedly readded. The article is based entirely on self-written if not self-published material, because as far as I can tell, no reliable secondary sources on the guy exist. Most of the people who bothered to criticize him were on web forums like Bullshido.net or Encyclopedia Dramatica, which I'm pretty sure we can't cite. So either we need sources that comment on what he says, or we just have a vanity page which is not allowed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 11:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable figure in the online martial arts community. The page has been a constant BLP problem but that doesn't change matters. JJL (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't assert notability; show it. But in this case, it can't be done. Fences and windows (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached--clearly the first week is not enough to get the necessary attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notability is established but most of the article is unverifiable. Unverifiable information should be deleted. Anyone who re-inserts unreferenced information after being warned is a vandal and should be banned. Drawn Some (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How has notability been established? There aren't any secondary reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only part conceivably notable is his writings. As a novelist, the only work held in a worldcat library is held by one library only; his self-defense books exactly the same; not surprising, since they're self-published. DGG (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Without any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to show notability it's hard to vote anything else. --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find myself respectfully agreeing with Drawn Some fairly frequently of late but this is the first time I've rebutted his keep vote. However notable this guy may or may not be, primary sources are not sufficient for WP:N or WP:RS, this seems to be purely a vanity page that cites more vanity pages. Creating lots of webpages on oneself does not make one notable" HJMitchell You rang? 15:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There were various (uncited) claims of importance through having somewhat notable alumni, but notability is not inherited, and User:Kelapstick makes a persuasive argument. That said, as always, I'm willing to userify if somebody thinks that they'll be able to locate some sourcing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was speedily deleted, then contested. Prod was added, then removed by article creator. Organization is not notable outside of the University of Southern California. Claim to being first special effects group is neither sourced and even if it were, probably wouldn't make it notable. TM 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had done some GNews serches (I was going to nominate it but was too late) and all came up with nothing, they were:

1. SCFX +university +california
2. +university +southern +california+ special +effects - this came up something about supercritical fluid extrusion at USC Davis
3. +USC +scfx

There was a mention in the school newspaper (included in the article) but it looked like passing mention and in my opinion a school newspaper reporting about an organization based at the school is hardly independent enough to establish notability.--kelapstick (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hangon. We've already established that the speedy deletion was unfounded (mistaken) as article asserts importance (see Speedy_Delete#Articles #7). Internet sources are not going to be easy to come by, but I'll try to find some sources. To summarize the reasons why this group is notable, it's the premiere academic group for special effects in the #1 film school and is the student ground zero for the special effects industry. The group's existence as an academic venue for the promotion of technical learning in the field of special effects predates any academic program in special effects, which are now commonplace, the field having evolved into a major commercial and artistic industry. Long history, many notable alumni, active both in terms of student development and work production, well known in the industry, group alumni regularly return to give lectures for the group, or invite the group for tours at major special effects studios, such as Stan Winston Studios or Digital Domain or ILM. The creator of Photoshop (also a major figure in special effects, having directed the effects for the Star Wars prequel trilogy) was a member. Robert K S (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I had originally speedy-deleted it,but reverted it to give time for sources to be added to show importance, which I think remains necessary. Looking at it again, there is perhaps evidence for notability in the distinguished alumni, though sources for each of them being there are needed. Ideal would be sources for their talking about its importance in their careers--as far as I'm concerned that would be proof of notability. I almost always say to delete student clubs, but this may be an exception. DGG (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no independent references are available to establish notability and to verify the content of an article. Notablity for an organization cannot be inherited from its members or former members. Drawn Some (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The criteria should be no different to anything else, i.e. coverage in third party reliable sources. If there have been notable members of an organisation, then that is a sign that the organisation may be notable, but doesn't prove notability. Having notable members means that it is more likely that this coverage will exist, but there still needs to be the coverage! I'm pretty sure that pretty much every student group will be able to claim a notable person as a member. Even if sources are found to say so-and-so was a member of such-and-such a group, unless the "sources address the subject directly in detail" it is not enough to establish notability. Quantpole (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or merge appropriate content to USC. If User:Robert K S wants, the page could be userified until he and or others can find reliable sources that comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. tedder (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If deleted, this should redirect to South Central Florida Express, Inc. --NE2 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with that assessment. The appropriate redirect to that organization is SCFE. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "X" is often used for "express", for instance by the DOT and several news articles. The reporting mark is SCXF because marks ending in X are used for non-railroads only. --NE2 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FX As in effects. As in special effects. As in Keanu Reaves dodging bullets in The Matrix y/n?Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have said this could be notable. Yes, every frat, society and what have you must have famous alumni (damn right Skippy - sorry, Doonesbury reference) but this soc. seems to have a programme to bring on new special FX guys, which might make it more notable. More evidence about it's support/placement programme needed to convince me though - otherwise it's just the same old school tie that powers every other Greek, which isn't notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - only significant author has requested deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod; prod tag was removed without comment by the article’s author. Original prod reason was “No claims of why it should be included. Reads like marketing copy, or a presentation in a management meeting. Cannot find any copyviolations, but it reads like it possibly is (possibly.) No context and just doesn't seem encyclopaedic." I agree - the article doesn't assert notability, it reads like an ad or a promotion of some sort, and it provides no meaningful context. Note that it is likely self-promotional and possibly original research, see this blog about "decision alignment" written by a Mark Chidwick, and the author or the Wikipedia article is User:Markchidwick. "Decision Alignment" has about 100 Google hits, but they don't all seem to be about the concept as described here. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as person who put the original Prod on the article, for the comments listed above. Canterbury Tail talk 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as obvious advertising that can never be neutral, and because this kind of writing is patent nonsense: Decision Alignment, commonly abbreviated "DA", is a methodology, standards and best practices for management consultants, focused on empowering business leaders to have confidence in the decision making process. The markets are changing the way organization are approaching their decision-making processes due to the availability and richness of information, the availability and depth of domain experts and the need to respond rapidly to market conditions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not yet a notable concept. It needs secondary articles first, then it can be added back in. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: This is my first Wikipedia and I should have started in the sandbox - live and learn. The article does read like marketing, I agree. I need to work on it further and learn how to "encyclopedia speak". The concept is much the same as PMI or ISO, so I believe it to be a worth while article.

If there is a way to take the article off of the published area and into the sandbox, please advise. I have tried to find a way with no success. Then I can improve, remove the marketing speak and have something worth while.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markchidwick (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In my opinion, the problem isn't so much the writing style, which could be fixed, but the lack of evidence that this is a notable concept. (Mine is, of course, just one opinion.) The "management-speak" tone of it isn't helping, but it's a secondary point. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Until I can improve the content to demonstrate a notable concept, can I ask that this article be deleted. I thought I would be able to do this myself, but cant see how. - Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markchidwick (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Screens of Death. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screens of death on video game consoles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orginal research on the color of error screens Passportguy (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not original, as it had been there for a while, and was confirmed by other users. If sources is what you need, I can put some up. — Supuhstar * § 19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Original research. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seen, applied references.— Supuhstar * § 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Largely original research with but one source to back it up. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not that I have that much attachment to it, it just seems like something that should be on Wikipedia: an article with information and images that the world should know and see for free. — Supuhstar * § 00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol Wikipedia hasn't been about that kind of thing in a very long time. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merely existing does not justify inclusion on Wikipedia. To qualify as notable, articles must be reliably sourced and verifiable, and therefore should not contain original research. As it stands, this article cites only one source and therefore very much fails those policies and guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Screens of Death— Supuhstar * § 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Screens of Death as this may be a fork of the article. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep If no one doubts the subject exist, then there is no reason to run around looking for references to prove it. A more scientific name might be preferred, but its called the screen of death everywhere. Windows 95 had an often mentioned and complained about blue screen of death. Dream Focus 01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Screens of death since its the same thing and there isn't enough information to warrant its own article at this moment in time. As long as ALL of the information is preserved, no reason not to shift it on over. Dream Focus 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Existence" isn't a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Unless reliable sources can be proven to exist to show its notability, an article shouldn't exist. As it stands, only one source exists, and that is far from enough to comply with the notability guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should all the information be preserved? It's almost all original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per The Junk Police. Tomdobb (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge information with Screens of Death, per The Junk Police Taelus (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable person. Subject apparently wrote article about himself. No sources of any kind. Promotional in nature. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No references provided. Possible speedy? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried that. It was declined because of the claims of notability in the article, which are spurious at best. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability from various searches online. There are, in fact, other Shane Mitchells who appear to be notable, including P. Shane Mitchell, but this guy's not. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; non notable individual. — Jake Wartenberg 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Musician which may not meet WP:MUSIC, news articles about her are trivial and she hasn't has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. Holkingers (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to List of YouTube celebrities. Don't see any points of WP:MUSICBIO fulfilled. Hekerui (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What about all the citations to reliable sources? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The Rolling Stone blog post is a commentary on internet marketing and info about Rose is trivial. This is true for the other sources (they make similar points about independent music). Rose has not produced notable work and the coverage with her is about marketing. She could well be notable in the future, but right now I don't see criteria fulfilled. Hekerui (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whoa, that is a snap judgment, and it is not correct. The reference to the Sun gives a brief article but it's legit; the article from The Age is absolutely legit (pretty obviously so); and the Rolling Stone reference leads not to just any blog--Elizabeth Goodman is, as far as I can tell, a staff writer for the magazine, and the article is long enough. So, there is independent coverage, at least two of those are not trivial and they certainly are independent--she passes WP:N. This "Child of Midnight" person seems, possibly by complete chance, to have hit the mark and found the bacon in the pigsty that is sometimes AfD. ;) 207.157.121.50 (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the articles are genuine but they are simply of the format "Person X" is hoping to make it big, which I considered trivial. Holkingers (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read the articles more carefully. The article in the age opens with, if you'll pardon the long quote to establish non-triviality,

"THE new indie dream is sexy and free. This week her name is Mia Rose. She was nobody when she opened her YouTube account in late December. Within three weeks she had more than 200,000 fans making her the "Most Subscribed (YouTube) Musician of all Time".

Even Rolling Stone knows her name. Actually, the American music magazine calls her "a disturbingly well-packaged 18-year-old singer-songwriter", which suggests they also know her game.

The pretty acoustic balladeer is the latest overnight sensation bridging the credibility gap between the independent bedroom and the Big Time. She seems too good to be true with her dark, silky hair tumbling over her guitar, her girl-next-door spark and her TV Idol voice (http://youtube.com/user/miaarose).

That's because she was most likely signed, coached and groomed by management and marketing experts well before posting her latest videos about (surprise!) flying around the world negotiating with record companies.

Rose is one of the new generation of faux internet indies, acts that use social networking sites such as MySpace and YouTube to fabricate a groundswell of popular support as part of a carefully orchestrated debutante publicity campaign."

All this starts a 2000-word article on the phenomenon of virtual fame, or YouTube fame, or whatever you want to call it. Maybe you think the coverage is trivial, but I am sure (and hopeful) that other editors who will weigh in here, and the closing admin, will think differently. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (sitting at my own desk now)[reply]

So what you are saying is she is notable for being an example of a "faux internet indie" which is someone that has an choreographed internet campaign to hype them. It's a pity she hasn't had commercial success. Maybe the article should make this clearer that that is the reason for her inclusion. Holkingers (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying she is notable because she passes WP:N. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm with Hekerui, I see no notability here. She's just somebody who's gotten fairly well known on Youtube. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the articles on Rolling Stone and The Age are significant coverage, which is enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines, if the GNG is met, there is no need to pass WP:MUSICBIO. For those who do not consider the articles to be significant coverage WP:ENTERTAINER includes people with:

a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" --kelapstick (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

200,000 registered fans (the Most Subscribed (YouTube) Musician of all Time) is enough for me.--kelapstick (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage adequate for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Kelapstick regarding the large fan base. No prejudice should be allowed against YouTube compared to traditional networks. The number of people subscribing is normally much smaller than the number of viewers. Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meeting an important criteris of WP:ENTERTAINER... the cult following and fan base... one which leads to repeated coverage in reliable sources. Its a lock per guideline, as guideline does not quailfy nor limit what constitutes a fanbase or cult following. Large is large. Rewrite the guideline if you wish, but she meets it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage adequate, fan base/cult status exists, and she was one of the first people who got 'fairly well known on YouTube' and prompted significant debate between the YouTube purists (i.e. corporate sponsorship sucks, it's about the community) and YouTube brand builders (i.e. corporate sponsorship isn't actually the work of the devil and it's okay to promote yourself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.176.12 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the sources provided demonstrate that she meets the notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Nicole Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No strong assertion of notability; quite promotional in tone. —Bkell (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spammy and I didn't see a good indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No proof of WP:COI but it sounds like a page intended to promote a not so notable model. Only external ref on here is Ms. Lee's webpage. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No proof of notability, clearly promotional in tone. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Tomdobb (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Hospital of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete another one-line unreferenced article for a hospital basically telling us no more than it exists. No indication of notability, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--I don't believe hospitals are inherently notable, and I find no significant coverage of this hospital whatsoever. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of reliable references are available to prove that the hospital is notable and to support a verifiable article, as has been demonstrated by Eastmain. Stubs shouldn't be deleted just because they are stubs if there is potential for them to become articles. We don't have a deadline. Drawn Some (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I get 750+ results on a Newsbank search. See the work I did on the similar Larkin Community Hospital article, I'm confident the same work could be done with this article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major hospitals are notable. There is one substantial article about it, serving as proof, a source from whioch the article could be improved. I wouldn't go by a count of other news stories as they are likely to be passing or trivial mentions, such as the other 3 references in the article. . DGG (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not asserted. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin Community Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this hospital is notable, no sources, no apparent significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Here also, no significant coverage (not even a press release that I could find); this entry is appropriate in a directory but not here. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'd be inclined to call speedy for lack of content, but wish to give a chance to make it work. It says it's a hospital in Miami, that's it. Nothing more than that. Somebody do us something?--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. Keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because an article is a stub is no reason to delete it. I have edited the article incorporating multiple reliable references and it now certainly more than meets notability requirements not only in theory but in reality. It is important to look for information before deleting. Any hospital or large corporation in the U.S. will have sufficient independent references to establish notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this hospital has a wacky and well documented past, involving no less than Jimmy Hoffa. I have also added several sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting stuff, better than what I found. I started a new category, Wacky hospitals and medical centers. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of stuff that isn't encyclopedic but is just utterly bizarre about this hospital... among the doctor's they've had on staff have included a registered sex offender who assaulted a patient at the hospital and a heart surgeon who claimed to suffer from ever-increasing memory lapses, who agreed to turn himself in on charges of fraud and perjury but kept working at the hospital. At any rate, the muslim student incident in 2002 appears to have been a relatively major news story, with over 150 stories in Newsbank about it, many of them criticizing Larkin Hospital for its actions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the ER doc/child molester should be included? I didn't actually read the articles about that but I did see them. Drawn Some (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah the article is about the hospital, not the individual doctors... unless they somehow effect overall operation of the hospital, I'd think. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No specific claim to fame other than a couple of local scandals. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CORP, the applicable guideline here, says "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". The article demonstrates that. What guideline are you basing your argument to delete on? At any rate, I find it unlikely that the nation's leading newspapers universally reporting on an event means it's just a "local scandal". --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if hospitals are not considered inherently notable, the references meet WP:GNG. Erik9 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable television series; no sources (third-party or otherwise). KurtRaschke (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest a Turkish Wikipedian be consulted. Article suggests it's been aired. At the very least it should be moved to all caps I would think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per common outcomes. Legitimate television series broadcast internationally by a major network is notable. Currently listed in the MBC 4 programs schedule. Article should have been tagged for cleanup, not AfD. ChildofMidnight's suggestion is correct, article should be moved to The Lost Dream, which already has a redlink at MBC 4. Sarilox (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nice research by User:Sarilox . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This about-to-be first-time DP does not appear (to date) to have a claim to notability. See this all-date Google news archive search and this general web search. The former turns up zero hits. The latter generates no hits that appear to be both significant and from reliable sources. Who knows? He could win an award for his cinematography on his first try—but as of now, he doesn't seem to meet the guidelines.

This nomination is without prejudice— I realize that there may be more sources in other languages that I am not capable of identifying. If so, could someone please point them out. Bongomatic 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think an assistant cinematographer is notable, and the only work as main cinematographer hasn't even been released yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. As an assistant, this isn't likely. No established body of work as the primary cinematograper. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. Under the different Engli-fications of his name (Prashanth Misale, Prashant Misale, Prasanth Misale, Prahant Misale, Prashanth Mishale, Prasanth Mishale, etc.) he does have an impressive history as a respected cameraman. Can anyone find non-English sources toward awards or recognition? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable biography. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources.. RadioFan (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I declined the speedy as the article asserts significance or importance, but at the time I wasn't sure if it would survive AFD. However I've now googled him and added one of the links that I found and IMHO he meets WP:ACADEMIC clause 8 as editor of Organised Sound. Plus with his publications and citations in various places including Wkipedia he probably meets other criteria as well. ϢereSpielChequers 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was informed a few days ago that academics with more than a couple of published books are notable, he fits. Drawn Some (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Radio Fan keeps nominating adequate articles like this I will be filing an ANI about him. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn Initial article did not give much indication of notability and references weren't easy to find on this subject but sufficient references have been added to indicate notability. --RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was previously deleted under A7. Listing AfD to generate a more thorough discussion. Seems to go by the name Steve West nowadays. decltype (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just does not meet the actor requirements listed at WP:BIO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per best known as chaffeur in seeds of chucky. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. Beware the second coming. Drawn Some (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Drawn Some (talk) --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice and be kind as userfy to author. The actor Lawton/West has done more dancing and chorus work than acting, but as yet has not enough verifiable credits. The assertion of he being best known as the limo driver in Seed of Chucky is verifiable... and his character IS one of Chucky's main targets... but when searching for him in multiple reviews of the film he is "best known for", all I can find are bare (no pun intended) mentions of him in context with the plot... as the reviewers pay far more attention to Jennifer Tilly. Sorry Steve. Get some more going for you and come on back. We'll be here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is nothing more than a list of works. Symplectic Map (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable song. Never charted, no reliable sources. Only consists of a list of artists who have covered the song, with none of the covers having been released as a single or achieved any form of notability. Suggest deletion and moving Dead Flowers (Miranda Lambert song) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rolling Stones songs are notable, no matter which one. This one in particular was part of one of their albums which made the List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time so there's no question it's notable. Agree that the article needs some sources though, but that shouldn't be hard to find. Laurent (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No song is automatically notable, regardless of who sang it. Where the heck did you get that from? Also, simply being on a notable album that made a Rolling Stone list doesn't make the song notable either if there are no sources specifically about the song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources. Laurent (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One source for a simple fact that can be merged into the album's article. Songs only warrant articles when you can bother to write more than three or four sentences of facts plus four or five more sentences that are all clearly WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NSONGS, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." The article shows that a number of notable artists, like Cowboy Junkies, Gilby Clarke and Poison have covered the song, which would mean that it meets this guideline. Disclaimer: I know it says "probably" in the guideline, so I wouldn't view a merge with the album's article as unreasonable. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A merge would work. I would suggest merging the verifiable content to the album's article, then moving the Miranda Lambert song to just Dead Flowers and leaving a hatnote for the album on her song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with that is that we'd lose the edit history from this article if the other song is moved to this title, and as I understand it, if we're doing a merge, we need to keep that history intact per the GFDL (I could be wrong on this, and if I am, feel free to correct me). Perhaps a merge of this article into the album, with a redirect to the Stones' album set up, with a hatnote on that album saying that Dead Flowers redirects there, for the Miranda Lambert song, see that article]]. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history can be fixed by moving this article to Dead Flowers (Rolling Stones song) then redirecting, can't it? Then the redirect left behind can be G6'd so the Miranda Lambert song can be moved. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A widely-covered and famous song that has been credited with giving birth to Alt-Country (Austin American-Statesman Oct 19, 2006). Plenty of Google News (mostly pay-per-view) and Google Books coverage of the song.--Michig (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is this a serious question? It is widely covered and appears on soundtrack of the famous cult film The Big Lebowski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claygate (talk • contribs)
• Comment. I'm not convinced the Miranda Lambert song merits an article, let alone taking this article's title.--Michig (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At least her song is a chart single. I would've redirected hers for now, but I didn't really want to make any more confusion than necessary. I usually redirect singles that are below Top 20, but Lambert's song has a couple more sources, so I'll let it slide even though it just cracked Top 40. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – ("Dead Flowers" + "Jagger") gets 125 hits in my library's database of newspaper and magazine articles. Several writers describe the song as a Stones "classic". I also found the "birth of alt country" reference that Michig noted above. Other examples: Jay Miller of the The Patriot Ledger calls it an "alt country anthem" (Jan. 26, 2009; p. 19) and Rick Mitchell of the Houston Chronicle writes that the song "predated the current crop of country punks by about a quarter century". (Nov. 12, 1995; p. 6). Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone writes, "'Dead Flowers' is possibly the best country-style song that Jagger and Richards have ever written" (May 15, 1997; p. 54). As for the covers, the Cowboy Junkies version got some press, and the Steve Earle one did as well, including in this book. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. — Jake Wartenberg 00:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scouting Nederland. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting gijsbrecht van aemstel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wrong language. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait it out - Subject seems notable, though I can't be sure. I have tagged it as an article needing translation. According to policy, if it is not translated in 2 weeks, it will be listed for deletion. NOTE- If anyone knows the language, please Google translate. Thanks. AvN 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - The language is Dutch. Google translation. Seems notable enough. The translation is also accurate, so it can be kept if no one rewrites. I !vote keep, rewrite/translate. AvN 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I translated the article, and can find no references whatsoever anywhere. The Dutch article is also at their AfD, and it has just as little as ours had (I deleted some info I deemed trivial). The link provided by the editor above gives nothing about our club. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean references in the article, that's not a reason to delete the article itself. A Google search throws up a plethora of third-party references, implying that even though it might be of local significance, it is quite notable. AvN 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the main Scouting in the Netherlands article. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting and Guiding in the Netherlands redirects to Scouting Nederland as the only national Scouting organization. As best I see, this is a local group of Scouting Nederland. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but being the first such local chapter in the Netherlands would make it notable enough for its own entry. The real issue is that it needs independent verification because it's an exceptional claim that could be countered. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the main Scouting in the Netherlands article.-Phips (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• merge even if notable, the oldest Finnish and Indian troops went back into their national articles. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the rationale behind merge even even if notable ? Isn't notability the main criterion? AvN 17:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Concept car with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Just 10 gnews hits[4], several of which appear to be the same story in different papers. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article indicates it influenced a production model and a racing series. So it seems quite notable. If not worth an independent article could also be merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we had some independent, reliable sources that showed it was a notable influence, I'd have no problem keeping the article. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any. Is there a logical merge target? I didn't see one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Nissan vehicles. It's verifiable that this vehicle exists, so information about it belongs on Wikipedia; but it's not notable so it doesn't get its own article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added some sources. Unfortuantely a lot of the content is not free. It's also a Japanese car so a source check there is needed. The car inspired a racing series and was put into production as a racing kit car. So it seems quite notable especially considering this is something from teh late 80s. There's also [5] and [6] and [7]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on CoM's talk page, nationmaster.com is a Wikipedia mirror.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My mistake. But I believe that article (1 of the three I posted...) mirrors a different article on Wikipedia than this one nominated, but one that is also related to this car line? So merging those two would make more sense than deleting either in my opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the car did go on from being a concept car, it became a racing car for its own one-make series. Kyosho even made a RC car of it which a friend used to own. Donnie Park (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that the limited number of sources is an issue, but there are enough to confirm its existence and confirm the basic details; I just added a 1987 German newspaper article as a source for a partially-filled in infobox about the vehicle. There's enough to suggest its notability and influence, and it's in decent enough shape that future editors can improve it using offline sources or the inevitable expansion of more free archives by Google and others. 68.167.253.27 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Even without an significant actual production run, it appears to be notable. If there were actual cars produced, then certainly. DGG (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed (endorsed) PROD. Non-notable neologism. 9Nak (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, no references.--Iner22 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds cool, but I couldn't find any hint of the term in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NEO. Used to be called "surfing". Drawn Some (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 07:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:MADEUP as no references found anywhere. Jll (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism.--Unionhawk ^Talk 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gibbs (animator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability: few google hits, two of the edits correlate with someone who also edits DreamWorks pages; vanity, vanity, all is vanity. moof (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, hoax? Hekerui (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would say speedy as there is no indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How many animators are there on those films? What makes this guy notable? Dream Focus 01:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been nominated for speedy delete and {prod} by different users and I think it should be discussed. I don't know about "sugar balls" but can find reference to them [here] [here] [here] there is reference to the god Ganesh eating sugar balls and but also articles on the internet refer to him eating Laddoo so it is very possible sugar balls are Laddu but there are other indian sweets rolled into balls so someone maybe be able to advise. Holkingers (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Laddu and redirect. "Sugar balls" is perhaps not the best translation to English. (Yes, I snickered.) Drawn Some (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it This article is at least as notable as Chocolate balls and a lot tastier. Google pulls up many hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More expertise is needed. But I've been informed that people don't give laddu when they fall in love, although they are given on happy occassions, including the birth of a child. And that the writing in Hindi for this article is "Cheeni Genden", which literally means "sugar balls". (cheeni - sugar, gend - ball, genden the plural of gend). So it seems like ummm it could be something. Let's all do more checking and see what we can come up with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are certainly sugary ball desserts including galub jamun and laddoo, but the content of this article seems bogus and I can't find anything suggesting it's accurate online and the terminology "sugar balls" doesn't seem standard. So I would perhaps boldly redirect to Indian sweets and leave it at that. But deleting works okay too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A google search of "sugar ball" (in quotes) shows nothing remotely related to this article, sugar balls in India, or laddu. A google book search is even worse, in which "sugar ball" relates entirely to dendrimers, chemistry, and a piece of land in the U.S. Priyanath ^talk 16:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Priyanath notes, there are no sources that indicate "sugar balls" is a name of any particular Indian dish, and most of the article is certainly WP:OR/idiosyncratic family lore. Merging with Laddu is also unjustified, since I have yet to see any reliable source refer to laddus as sugar balls (which would be akin to calling cakes "baked sugar"). Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep This afd was created by an SPA and initially said nothing but "don't". The IP has been trying in vain to argue for deletion when there is clear evidence of notability. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

don't

it's a neologism... get rid of it. 67.198.55.10 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is well documented.[8] Is this a joke? Edit: The page could certainly use more citations though. --99.175.64.134 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-documented by whom? Anywhere I see either is a link to or cites Wikipedia or the damn-interesting article. Both refer to a very specific coining by a single entry at a medium-sized newspaper's bulletin board from 1986. Since it has been reinforced by links and references to Wikipedia and Damn Interesting. the only reason it has gained any prominence is because people notice the phrase with the type of salience that the term attempts to describe. There are already entries for similar "phenomena" and cognitive biases with more established origins. Wikipedia does not get to be a citation unto itself. Corroboration from one other website and a long-defunct bulletin board is hardly authoritative or grants this terminology the type of significance to warrant a wiki entry. I am not a Wikipedian, but I know a neologism when I see one, and I know Wikipedia avoids entries that are unnotable neologisms. 67.198.55.10 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you remove damn interesting and wikipedia from that same search it starts to come up very empty of references to this purported phenomenon: [9]

Keep; If a neologism, it's a notable one. It's strange how I hear this mentioned somewhere, and within a day or two I'm seeing it again in my watchlist, where it's slumbered for months. htom (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The term is referred to frequently on talk-radio show/podcast "TBTL" on Seattle's KIRO 97.3 FM IMHO, this demonstrates that it's part of common parlance even if it is a neologism. I came to wikipedia to find out what it meant - where am I going to go if the article is deleted? Charliearcuri (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep I'm not sure, but I think nominating articles for deletion is limited to registered users only--Unionhawk ^Talk 14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term seems to be a neologism and might be more appropriately defined with a wiktionary article. The most convincing argument that it is notable enough to keep is its usage in a radio talk show, and the salience of the term itself. However, the term seems to be salient only because noticing of the term is an example of what the term attempts to describe. There is no scientific literature on the "phenomenon" and no notable reference in popular culture outside of internet posts : "Listen to this term I just learned because I read about it on DamnInteresting.com (or a site with a link to DamnInteresting.com) and verified its significance through Wikipedia (or a site that linked to Wikipedia)" types of references. It is an infrequency illusion. There is already an articles on salience. There are also articles on synchronicity, serendipity and coincidence. Perhaps a merge with one of these articles would be more appropriate than deletion... if so, I would suggest "coincidence."

It seems that the term itself has been elevated beyond its actual significance by the nature of the term itself and wikipedia's ability to artificially reinforce a false sense of importance via inappropriate editorial decisions. Cnkimpel (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Department Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

`Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There do seem to be plenty of sources however bad the article might be [10]. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand per Hobit's sources. Plenty of non-trivial coverage, and probably even more centering around its merger with Gottschalks, another notable chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S., why is it that all the retail articles on Wikipedia suck? Quit slacking off, people. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not just retail; business articles in general. Our weakest area. DGG (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides country music (hint hint). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep nom by a single purpose account (literally). (NAC)--Unionhawk ^Talk 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle Rock-Malibu AVA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spam. Not Notable. --Addedemptylatd (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Article contains sources and asserts notability. I fail to see how it's spammy, and I think this nom smells a little fishy given that it's the user's first edit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable reservation; Google returns less than 159 hits, almost none of which relate to this topic. I'^mperator 12:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under A7. Not notable, and doesn't even try to prove notability--Unionhawk ^Talk 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would have nominated it as A7, but it only applies for real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.. Cheers. I'^mperator 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under G7 (multiple times). Failing that, delete this article and Goravan state nature reservation (the author's replacement) per nom, Unionhawk, and comment by ImperatorExercitus.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've found some useful refs (under the name "Sands of Goravan"), and will add some of those. Tim Ross (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The references in Goravan state nature reservation establish notability. The article needs inline citations and it has some problems that appear to be due to being written/translated by a nonnative speaker of English, but those aren't reasons to delete it. This ecosystem and its associated protected area surely are notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Goravan State Nature Reservation. Nature Reservations are, I think, inherently notable, but we don't need two articles. I've added co-ordinates and another reference.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All government-designated natural reservations are notable just like all government-designated historic landmarks are. You would have to prove that it isn't, not challenge others to prove that it is. The designation alone establishes notability, just like winning a Grammy or a Nobel. Drawn Some (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Move to Sands of Goravan per this on pg. 194 from the Ministry of Nature Protection of the Rep of Armenia's Third National Report; per this on pg. 14 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; and per this from the grida/UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) website. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hmm... I'm not convinced about the proposed renaming. (Clearly a rename is needed, if only to fix capitalization, but I don't think "Sands of Goravan" is the right name.) All of these names are translations from Armenian, so some variance is to be expected. However, looking at all sources, it appears to me that "Reservation" or "State Reservation" is a part of the official name. The 2004 government of Armenia document on "Specially Protected Nature Areas of Armenia",[11] which looks like the most official source, calls it (on page 45) "Goravan Reservation". Page 194 of the 2006 government of Armenia report that you cite refers to the "'Sands of Goravan' reservation". The UN Economic Commission report you cite actually calls it the "Sands of Goravan Reservation" (the sentence refers to "the Margahovit, Juniper forests, Sands of Goravan and Caucasian Rose-bay Reservations"). Similarly, the UNEP website[12] entry says just "Sands of Goravan", but that's part of a list entitled "List of State Reservations," which indicates to me that "State Reservation" probably is an implied part of the name, making the full name "Sands of Goravan State Reservation." Based on what I've seen, I'd go with Goravan State Reservation or possibly Sands of Goravan State Reservation. Has the article's creator weighed in yet? --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi, thanks for all your valuable comments and suggenstions! As Orlady mentioned above, there is indeed no agreement on the English name. The brochure, published by the Ministry of Nature Protection of Armenia (Khanjyan, Nazik. 2004. Specially protected nature areas of armenia. Ministry of Nature Protection, Rep. Armenia) i referred to, translates it as Goravan Reresvation, but in another place, says Sand of Goravan State Reservation. I guess the most appropriate name would be indeed "Sands of Goravan" State Nature Reservation. Please consider movement if appropriate. Another issue that bothers me, is that there is no agreement on the English name for the former USSR "zakaznik" regime. Such terms as reserve, preserve, reservation, refuge or sanctuary are used interchangeably in numerous sources as well as throughout Wiki. I have a plan to write articles on specially protected nature areas of Armenia and would research this issue more, in order to introduce some unification in this issue. I would really appreciate any help or suggestions.

Regarding wheather to Keep or Delete, i strongly believe that any kind of specially protected areas are notable by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be specially protected. Google gives less than 159 hits, since the knowledge about nature in Armenia and in the Caucasus in general is not widely reflected in the Internet. And in my opinion, this is not the reason to delete an article, but on the contrary, keep it and improve it, promoting popularization and dissemination of knowledge which is not yet widely presented on the internet. Thank you once again for you help. --Lusinemarg 11:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep specially protected areas are indeed always notable. Any problems, including duplicationofcontent, can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A low number of google hits is not a valid reason to delete. What really matters is the content of those pages. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe nv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Intelligent Interweaving technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per discussion at DRV [13] this article has been restored and listed at AFD to allow a discussion of sourcing. As this listing is a procedural action by the admin closing the DRV, no opinion on the article is offered. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. No evidence at all of third-party coverage, let alone substantial third-party coverage in reliable sources. I'm adding Intelligent Interweaving technology to this AfD, as it's just a brand name of this company. Tevildo (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe nv sells products to the sign industry, third-party coverage is done by sign related sites. It's not a mainstream product because of it's specialized usage. So the online sources are limited, but the company has a fair market share in it's industry. It's important within it's industry, so that makes it notable. The I² technology is not just a brand, it's an innovation much like the iPod wheel interface when first released on the iPod. It makes that prints are of a higher quality and it's invented by the company, thus they get the credit. Again it's of importance for the sign industry. .IT (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's important within it's industry, so that makes it notable." I'm afraid you need to _prove_ that it's important in the industry, rather than just _asserting_ it. We need substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, not just press releases. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, it's hard to find online resources on the sign industry. Most coverage is done in magazines, which rarely publish their articles freely on their websites or trade shows and then it's again a press release just like here. This makes proving me point to you difficult. It's not a standerized product for mass market, so the coverage is limited to the things mentioned above. .IT (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That, unfortunately, means that it can't pass our notability guidelines. The firm I work for (which I hope you'll forgive me for not naming) is a major player in our particular field of industry, but virtually unknown outside it, and it therefore doesn't have an article. Mutoh seems to be in the same position. Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for: Mimaki, Roland and Océ. Their merit is questionable too. However I²'s relevance is for the entire printing industry as it deals with bleeding and banding. Mutoh Europe nv is the company behind an innovative technology, it also has in some segments of it's industry a 30% market share. Sure the general public doesn't know the brand, but which printers do you think make the large ad's like those of the release of the iPhone. This is an enclopedia and because one brand is only known to a specific industry, shouldn't mean it shouldn't be included. Only a hand few people know certain species of animals excist, is that a reason not to include them? I am dissapointed wich such an argument. .IT (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference rules don't require that resources are available online, only that they exist. Kate (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable. I would move the aritcle to Mutoh Holdings and include this unit in a broader article there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep there are apparently awards. Probably move and expand as CoM suggests. DGG (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPSC Geography Syllabus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete A specific syllabus should not have a place in Wikipedia. Not notable, and too narrow a scope Dougofborg^(talk) 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is either Original Research or a copy-and-paste job. Resurr Section (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: FYI This is the syllabus for one subject in the UPSC Exam, the entry point for any aspirant into India's administrative services. Does't deserve a WP article. --Deepak D'Souza 12:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Salih (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject is not encyclopedic and there appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a webhost for the syllabus's index. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Conway Stewart. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steinway Fountain Pen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't appear to meet WP:N. A search for sources on Google news revealed nothing with this specific name; nothing came up on scholar; and a general search reveals promotional links from the company and this Wikipedia article. The only source cited on the page appears to be a website where you can buy the fountain pen. It might meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but I thought it better to err on the side of caution in case it has some special prominence I've overlooked. Alexrexpvt (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect – to Conway Stewart under Models 1990’s to present, as they are the actual manufacturers of the item. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect – to Conway Stewart and maybe include a link from the Steinway page.THD3 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if reliable independent references exist for verifiability or delete if they do not. Drawn Some (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Conway Stewart. The Steinway pen is already mentioned in Conway Stewart, therefore this article should be merged to the Conway Stewart article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afl challenge (psp) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable computer game Passportguy (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- though article is currently weak, game is covered in several articles including [14], and [15] Dialectric (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although a weak article, i did a little cleanup. For a future game it seems to have received some attention (per above) which would pull it away from being non-notable. Salavat (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One news article is not the attention an article needs to be created. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article has already been created, plus the release is only like two months away. Its bound to get reviews as with most video games these days and would seem to be pointless deleting the article. Its not like its a game that is so far of in the future that it could end up not happening. Salavat (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Salavat. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since a simple Google search clearly shows that the unreleased game is sufficiently notable, I fail to see any reason in this AFD nomination. Why didn't you just tag it with {{Refimprove}}?

Random results from http://www.google.com/search?q=AFL+Challenge+PSP :

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/05/first-look-at-afl-challenge-for-psp/

http://www.qj.net/AFL-Challenge-and-Rugby-League-Challenge-confirmed-for-the-PSP/pg/49/aid/131071

http://pspupdates.qj.net/AFL-Challenge/cid/5651

http://psp.ign.com/objects/143/14347503.html

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/76306/default.aspx

http://www.gamespot.com/psp/sports/aflchallenge/index.html — Rankiri (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as really, really blatant advertising: a Danish consulting firm focused on maximizing the use of a company's external resources and relationships, typically suppliers and outsourcing partners. TReLLIS' mission is to help clients to build strategically cooperative relationships to enhance and drive innovation and growth at their companies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable company. As far as I can see, Google gives only links to unrelated companies with the same name elsewhere Passportguy (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed as per above Dougofborg^(talk) 12:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. References provided only qualify as trivial. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Autobiographical article to promote a company. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod; prod tag was removed without comment by the author, User:Deansaluti. Autobiography, fails notability, lack of signifant coverage in reliable, 2nd party sources. Some Google hits but it's all blogs and directories like LinkedIn. Two Google news hits, from 2002 and 2004, and coverage there is incidental rather than substantial. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. CEO of a company for which I am unable to find reliable sources despite a Google search, and the article shows no assertion of notability other than that for this man. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although the article makes only a peripheral assertion of academic notability (by saying he was once a prof), I did check Web of Science for notable publications. The loosest criterion, "Author=(saluti d*)", turned up precisely one hit: ANALYSIS AND REDESIGN OF A MILITARY ORDERS PROCESSING SYSTEM (1986) by SHIMSHAK DG and SALUTI DJ, Comp. Ind. Eng. 10(3), 237-243. This paper has never been cited, moreover the db entry says that Shimshak is the corresponding author. I also double-checked notability from the commercial/business perspective (Google: 'saluti “process flow”') and indeed found it to be as Dawn Bard says: either "linkedin" pages, or pages whose URL begins with "saluticahn" (saluticahn.com/profile.asp, saluticahn.blogspot.com/, saluticahn.wordpress.com/, etc.). There appears to be an aspect of PR in this case too, for example the saluticahn.wordpress.com/ page says "[Dr. Dean Saluti] has published numerous articles and scholarly papers on “Process Flow,” and is considered a national authority on this subject" (emphasis mine), but this seems to be refuted by Web of Science. I think the verdict on this article is a clear-cut delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I don't think he's notable from an academic standpoint and as owner of a small consulting company.Johndowning (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Agricola44’s analysis, plus very low citation impact suggested by this search. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 1. the fullest bio information seems to be at http://saluticahn.com/founder.asp. 2. WoS does not cover well the practical side of engineering, and especially not for someone working in the 70s and 80s. DGG (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]