Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:AFD/T

Purge

Jump to ToC

If you want to nominate an article for deletion, please read this carefully first.

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

Kept
Deleted per the deletion policy
Sent to Cleanup
Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

More information.

Things to consider:

It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

Add new AfD section

< 11 July	13 July >

Guide to deletion

Centralized discussion

Proposals	Discussions	Recurring proposals
RfC about the "Advisory Council on Project Development" instituted by the Arbitration Committee. Poll: Should <ref>/<references> be modified to allow changes in where reference content is defined? RFC: How do you appeal a DRV? RfC: Editors are invited to propose articles that would not be delinked by the date unlinking bot. Review: Review of English Wikipedia governance Review: Provisional draft #2 of the new arbitration policy. Proposal: Proposal to create user-space redirects. Poll: Should WP:NOT#PLOT be reworded, moved, removed, or kept the same? RFC: Is there community support to change the constitutional relationship between ArbCom and Jimmy Wales? Poll: How does the community feel regarding how the civility policy is applied and enforced on Wikipedia? Discussion: Should notability criteria for pornographic actors be rolled back? Preliminary (userspace) discussion on Wikipedia governance issues. RFC: Should Wikipedia prevent Google and other search engines from searching User pages? RFC. Outside opinions are solicited on self electing groups. RFC: What is the community's opinion on using {{Italictitle}} to italicise certain articles' titles? RFC: What is the community's view of paid editing? Poll: About the preferred usage names as a result of WP:RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria Discussion: Ordering and general presentation of talk page templates. A new page to keep track of discussions throughout Wikipedia has been created: Wikipedia:Coordination A new noticeboard has been created: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch

Purge server cache

[edit] KEE

I'm pretty sure this is an elaborate hoax. Abductive (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Argetsinger

not notable Penschool950 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Yuan

Non-notable political candidate for an Ontario provincial election. Never elected and nothing else in article is noteworthy. Recommend delete or redirect to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election Suttungr (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Per WP:OUTCOMES for unelected candidates, redirect to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Note that a by-election in February 2007 is a subtopic of the 2003 election, not the 2007 election, because it pertained and applied to the legislature that was elected in 2003, not the one that was elected eight months later in 2007. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Koda Kumi Remix Album

I cannot find anything Japanese that says this album remotely exists. The most I have found is a passing mention at ja:12週連続シングルリリース, which discusses the fact that Kumi Koda released a single a week for 12 weeks and then gave a limited download to those who purchased all 12 albums at this dead website. There is no mention of this album anywhere on the Japanese Wikipedia and it was only referenced on other pages here by AaaLOLaaA (talk · contribs). It should be simple enough to find sources for an album, but I can't find any for this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pina Martino

Non-notable political candidate for an Ontario provincial by-election. Never elected and nothing else in article is noteworthy. Recommend delete or redirect to either Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election or Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Per WP:OUTCOMES for unelected candidates, redirect to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Note that a by-election in February 2007 is a subtopic of the 2003 election, not the 2007 election, because it pertained and applied to the legislature that was elected in 2003, not the one that was elected eight months later in 2007. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hosfelt gallery

Business listing for an art gallery, with not the slightest evidence for, or even suggestion of, wider impact. Has a long list of artists it represents, almost all of which are either redlinks or dab entries which don't include artists. Calton | Talk 02:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Themedusacode

Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability for this recently released book. JJL (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF

Original research. While this article is well-sourced, those sources establish that specific facts in the article are true, but the comparison itself constitutes WP:SYNTH. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how this comparison article is any different than:

Your reasoning for deleting this single article can be applied to most if not all articles in Category:Computing comparisons. Ghettoblaster (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia." (See: Wikipedia:These are not original research) Ghettoblaster (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I fail to see how WP:SYNTH applies. The article merely puts two sets of features against each other and doesn't develop any conclusions of its own. — Rankiri (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete The article is very poor quality and I have listed some of the problems on the Talk page. I can't think of an audience that would gain any value from reading the page as it stands. The technologies are too complex to be compared in a simple table. You can't do a comparison consisting of a Yes/No table unless the choice of what things to compare is uncontroversial and that is not the case here. The choice of row labels is very arbitrary and can lead to highly misleading impressions. (For example saying "alpha in color specification: OpenXPS yes PDF no" would give any reasonable reader the impression that PDF does not support vector transparency). Even if I had the time and inclination I am not sure I could write a good comparison article without crossing the line into Original Research. I am doubtful about the notability of the subject as well - who needs to compare these things, for what purpose? I could maybe support a totally rewritten page but am skeptical. Mrhsj (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep No synthesis at all. It isn't making an conclusion, such as, that one is better than the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Abarbanel

Non-notable soccer player. Google News, Scholar, and Books have zero hits. Google itself produced a few soccer websites listing him as a player, but not proving his notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I had the same luck as the nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Iowateen (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete: no reliable sources provided.. South Bay (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Yes, Tried bing as well. Not much luck.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot (Warehouse 13)

Redirect to Warehouse 13, per WP:EPISODE. It is premature to create a separate article for the pilot of this new series, as the main article is relatively small and easily accommodates all of the content in this new article. The only information which really makes the episode notable is the small amount of sourced information on reception, which I have merged into the main article; a sub-article such as this one can be split out later in the unlikely event that there is an overwhelming amount of reception and production info in the main article in the future. — TAnthony^Talk 00:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it's notableGNews, and per WP:UNDUE all the info about it would be too much for the main article. The main article needs some work, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)'

One can argue that the coverage asserting notability exists only because it is a new series, and so is really just supporting notability for the series itself. If there is that much coverage of subsequent episodes, I would see no problem with a spinoff article like this, but as of now it is overkill.— TAnthony^Talk 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

merge Looking at the section on the episode in the combined article, its un-usefully short and is a teaser. The description of a plot must include the entire plot. (the present article doesnt do very well with pt 2 either). Whether the episode list should be split from the main article is a separate decision to the need to include content. I can not tell whether the serious will prove major enough for that, or even more whether it will be important enough for separate episode articles. DGG (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
merge back into the main article. If the show wins an award or gets a second series, then split it out. As it is, assuming that every episode is going to produce a good article may be optimistic.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can make this a good article if you want. I've done it with episodes that have 1/100 the sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt this article can be put together well enough to go GA, but you really can't see it's redundancy?— TAnthony^Talk 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The series has notability. Does this ep have notability in its own right (not just as the first ep of a new series)? Will the next ep? And the next?Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is notable, as we define it. That's just two independent reliable sources that discuss it in detail. Generally these modern scifi shows actually do create enough media coverage to establish notability for every episode. IGN provides a review for just about every ep of every newish scifi TV show, for instance. Some other sites are almost as complete. It remains to be seen if every ep of this show is notable, but they probably will be. The biggest problem is finding editors who can keep up. I was hoping to start a nice little precedent of how the episode articles should look, and if someone else came along and wanted to create one, hopefully they'd do a lot of sourcing as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As an example, check out Parks and Recreation. No one seems to care about the series page, but I think all of its episode articles are GAs (or GANs). One could easily turn the series article into a GA by grabbing the most important parts of the episode pages, putting them in the series article, and giving it a thorough restructuring. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge or Delete and redirect. Since there's only been one (1) episode, what could possibly be said here that isn't redundant with the series article? --Calton | Talk 02:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Konstrukteur

I can't find any evidence that this is a word regularly used in English. There is a German Wikipedia article de:Konstrukteur which indicates it might be a common word in that language, but I can't find many English-language references to it (unlike, for example, Cosmonaut, which is a Russian word but also used in English to refer to Soviet astronauts). ... discospinster _talk 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that de:Konstrukteur interwiki links to design engineer. Uncle G (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to design engineer as above. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect per above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Redirect not an English term, or a distinct concept. I';m not sure design engineer is the equivalent exactly, though--it seems to be more the concept of someone who both invents and realizes a major invention. DGG (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of crooners

This page should be deleted for a couple of reasons. It is not needed. The main article Crooner gives the names of the important people in the history of crooning. There is also a category "Crooners" for the rest. Besides that the article is utterly unsourced. Nor could it ever be sourced. The whole concept of a crooner is so vague and subjective that once you get beyond the few leading ones, Bing Crosby etc., there is no way to prove someone is or is not a crooner. Even if a "reliable source" says someone is one that is still just one person's opinion. Especially glaring to me was the inclusion of Bob Dylan on the list. I have no way to know if this is a joke or not, but I don't think anyone (despite Dylan's great importance as a performer and songwriter) would call his singing bel canto. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete Superfluous due to the Category. Also, not a good thing to have a list about.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Although not every genre of music on Wikipedia has cleaned up list/category repetition, no need to be repetitive here. Category suffices.--Junius49 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep The nomination's contention that we may not talk of crooners is blatant prejudice against a notable genre of music which dominated the first half of the 20th century. Here are thousands of scholarly sources which show that we will have no difficulty sourcing entries if this seems needed. The other comments that a category supersedes this list take a contrary position in that they assume that we may have an equivalent valid category. But categories can't be given citations like list entries can and so those comments are nonsensical especially as WP:CLS tells us clearly that lists are not superseded by categories. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've done a little work on the list, adding a good source for Rudy Vallee and Al Bowly who were indisputable crooners. Bob Dylan's article doesn't mention the word crooner and there don't seem to be similar sources for him. So, I just took him out. So, how hard is that? Just check the sources and edit accordingly. Sheesh. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. And "blatant prejudice"? Please. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:STAND a list should present an unambiguous statement of membership criteria. This one doesn't. ReverendWayne (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Creature King

Minor fictional character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. — X S G 02:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

merge as the default way of handling these. No reason given why that is unsatisfactory. DGG (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - Merge and redirect is the default way of handling notable characters. When the subject is not notable at all, a redirect is inappropriate. Think about it; if every minor character in every fictional work you ever witnessed had a redirect back to the primary source, Wikipedia would be an extraordinarily confusing place full of disambiguation pages. — X S G 01:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:N, and WP:OR.. South Bay (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Metallus

Minor fictional character doesn't meet WP:N. Prod declined. — X S G 02:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

merge as the default way of handling these. No reason given why that is unsatisfactory. DGG (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - A merge/redirect is the way of handling a situation where a character is notable but not deserving of its own article. In this case, the character is minor, appearing only in a few episodes of the subject's program, and does not warrant even a redirect. — X S G 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete. Unreferenced. Google shows no noticeable signs of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WANG Jianxin

Unverifiable, Unremarkable tripe masquerading as a notable academic. Pushing a political agenda par excellance, this transparent attempt at sino-polemics survived speedy deletion but still deserves a swift death. Baileyquarter (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear that this is "pushing a political agenda" or doing anything nefarious, but Wang cannot be considered notable in the English-speaking world. The entry confounds NWU (Northwestern University, US) with Northwest University, China. While NWU is a major university and the Director of an Institute there may warrant inclusion, Northwest U is a minor Chinese university unknown to most English-speaking Wikipedia readers. All of Wang's publications are in Chinese, and Google Scholar produces no hits. The entry should be deleted, but it would be useful if the submitter could propose an article that provides an overview of Chinese archaeological research institutions, carefully linking to existing articles. Liontooth (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with submitter. -Falcon8765 (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Nominator indefblocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki_brah – iride scent 10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I cleaned up the article, in the process (I hope) also reducing the Northwest/Northwestern confusion observed by Liontooth. Both his romanized and Chinese names get a lot of hits in Google books, but some of them are obviously not about archaeology, so I am not sure from that whether he has had the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete: no signs of notability shown at article. Alexius08 (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Budd

This person is not notable. He is just a Creative Director of a non-notable company in the UK. Furthermore, simply being a published author does not automatically entail notability (in this instance, neither listed book is notable either). This article is an orphan because no other pages would link to it since it's trivial and not Wikipedia worthy. Jrcla2 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete--weak, since there is a bit of coverage (not incorporated into the article), though not enough, in my opinion, to warrant inclusion. Budd is cited twice in an article in The Independent, and is cited as an expert in a brief article on Web 2.0, on the PopSci website. Not enough, though, and they don't amount to in-depth discussion of our subject, as WP:N requires us to find. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep Evidently notable commentator. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Evidently"? What evidence is there for that? --Calton | Talk 02:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of any real impact aside from weasel-wording. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophanes (Omar Rodriguez-Lopez album)

Insufficient detail and waaay to early. One for the WP:CRYSTAL WP:HAMMER Astronaut (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Omar Rodríguez-López. (FWIW, WP:HAMMER doesn't apply because this has a name). Notability not asserted (and probably won't happen before the release), but the search term is valid so help the reader out with a redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment An Eminem album is also coming out in later part of '09. It has it's own article. So does that mean that article will get deleted too ? Just wondering. --Roaring Siren (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The big difference is in the sourcing. Xenophanes has just one source listed, and the rest of the article is entirely unsourced. On the other hand, Eminem's Relapse 2 has several sources such as MTV news and Rolling Stone magazine. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policy on albums, and in particular what it says about future releases, and then decide whether Eminem's ahould be listed at AfD as well. Astronaut (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Hume

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

Delete Purely a vanity page, does not meet notability guidelines and has few relevant sources. Remove. Parkerparked (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Pure vanity page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. The article is a horrible one to be sure. However, the is teh co-writer of a hit rap song, [[1]], confirmed with an ASCAP writing credit for the song, and even has some material written about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete not enough 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability for inclusion Nja²⁴⁷ 12:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep As was already mentioned above, he is one of the writers of one of the biggest hip hop songs of 2008[[2]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.51.199 (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete: the subject was described only in a few paragraphs, then the long Discography section followed. It's becoming a very long article laden with original research. Alexius08 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Metal Madman Radio Show

I am not convinced that there is sufficient notability here. Many of the references are no good at all. The Blabbermouth ones are the best but even they are not much more than passing mentions. If they had an article about the show in itself then that would be better but they are primarily articles about bands that mention them being on the show or having coverage on the shows website. Google shows little real RS coverage. The theme tune by Drover being the only significant thing and even then they are interested in Drover, not the show. DanielRigal (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Question. What happens if nobody votes or comments? Do we treat it as an uncontested PROD or just keep on relisting it? Is there any way to drum up some interest without breaking the canvassing rules? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Cab's sources seems to address the concerns over notability and verifiability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] British Armenian

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Plus there are some major BLP concerns here. The one individual on the list of supposed Armenians I checked out appears to have one Armenian great grandparent and there is no evidence that person considers themself be Armenian. I42 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Rename Armenians in the United Kingdom. British Armenians isn't a valid topic, but it is clearly established that the inhabitants of one state in another is a worthy article topic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep or rename. It doesn't matter if there's one or one million British Armenians. It's still just as notable as the British Chinese or British Indian articles. Spiderone (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete, the topic of the article isn't notable. There's no inherent notability for this type of article as Spiderone and Deacon of Pndapetzim would have us believe. We have standards of notability and verifiability and this subject fails WP:NOTE as stated by the nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ There is not enough evidence to support this article.--NovaSkola (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Striking duplicate !vote. Tavix | Talk 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Insufficient notability to meet guidelines.--LightAtmosphere (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)— LightAtmosphere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep and rename/snip list of people where required. Two minutes on google books found tens of thousands of words printed about this topic:

Talai, Vered Amit (1986), "The circumscription of ethnicity: a case study of the London Armenian community", Ethnic and Racial Studies 9 (2): 211–18
Talai, Vered Amit (1989), Armenians in London: the management of social boundaries, Manchester University Press, ISBN 9780719029271
Malik, F. (1990), A Survey of the Armenian Community in London, London Research Centre, ISBN 9781852611002

Thanks, cab (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep and expand - Very notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] A Squared Anti-Malware

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete. No indication of notability in the article as it stands but Googling shows a few mentions in RS sources although I am not seeing really significant coverage (e.g. dedicated reviews). This comparison article is about as good as it gets: [3]. It is not a major player in the anti-malware market in English speaking countries. If there is evidence that it is a major player elsewhere then this needs to be added, otherwise it is a delete.
Note: Despite being Austrian, there is no article about the product on the German language Wikipedia. They do have a two articles on the parent company though: de:Emsi Software GmbH (poorly referenced) and de:Emsi Software (short, unreferenced)! Perhaps somebody who speaks German might like to pop over there and sort this out. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I removed all WP:PEACOCK content.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2347031,00.asp

http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/a-squared-Anti-Malware-Review-39757.shtml

Google News:

http://www.ixbt.com/soft/a-squared-anti-malware.shtml (English Translation (Google)) — Rankiri (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. We may as well document it, as we have well-written articles for other well known anti-virus/anti-malware software, such as Avast! and AVG. Wandering Traveler 02:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep: per the reliable sources with significant coverage that Rankiri found. Iowateen (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Goodman

WP:ONEEVENT Avi (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coromandel Cricket Club

Delete. Notability not established, club plays below national or state level. Fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. if 1862 establishment date can be referenced, will have some notability (Epistemos (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Table of development periods

Request AfD for article I created. This article is completely redundant now that the original tables have been replaced by two svg-images that are incorporated in other articles where appropriate, rather than having to go to this article separately to get the overview. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Douglas (stand up comedian)

An article with many claims to meeting WP:BIO. Unfortunately, despite searching, I am unable to find a single reliable source to back up one claim let alone all. As such, the subject is non notable and unverifiable. Nuttah (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete. The article has no citations, and no references. The URL for the website quoted in the initial version does not work. It is over two years old, so there has been plenty of time for people to have added citations and references. Maybe the article is a spoof.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete. He exists per a couple of Michigan newspapers that list some stand-up shows he's done (one called him a crowd favorite), but nothing to show notability, and I can't find anything to verify most of the info in the article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consequence of Sound

Non-notable music website, fails WP:WEB. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Liquid nightclub

Non-notable nightclub chain. A7 was declined, but this fails WP:CORP by a city mile. Blueboy 96 00:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete. Quite a lot of hits on GNews, but they seem to generally be about events or news stories that happen to be on or near these nightclubs. Having said that, a chain of thirty clubs may well have notability somewhere. For me, the tie-breaker is the overly-promotional tone of the article. As always, will reconsider if shown evidence of notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] POHMELFS

The 2 refs are to a blog (wp:rs), the external links fail encyclopedic notability (wp:n). -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-05t20:19z 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep - It is included in the Linux kernel. -- Frap (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- All of the reviews on there are done by members. Iowateen (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete: The only reliable source with significant coverage that I can find is this Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Catalonia

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment -- This could be a legitimate article, but each of the sections woudl need a paragraph of text following the "main" or "see" link. I am not convinced that the article is completely hopeless, but at present it is a waste of space. Tag for expasnsion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment -- Contrary to the nom, the area did have a military history. For example, from the 8th to the 12th century, there were various armies marching all over the region. However, this article as it stands seems to have been configured with POV pushing of Catalan separatism in mind, with some of the links provided having little or nothing to do with military history. It might be better to blank it and start from scratch than to start with a 'Separatist history of Catalonia' article and try to fill it out into some sort of true military history. Agricolae (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the region had a "military history" in the sense that wars occurred there, but if we had to include every region's "military history" then we would end up with endless useless articles. That way we could have the articles Military history of the Basque Country, MH of Andalusia, of Galicia, of Murcia, Cantabria, Aragon, Northern Castile, Military history of Emilia-Romagna and Military history of the southern half of Sicilia. Well, doesn't make sense, does it? Something different would be, for example, Military history of the Holy Roman Empire, the Crown of Castile or the Crown of Aragon, since those former states actually DID exist, they obviously had an army and, well, a reason for having an article other than spreading separatist propaganda. --Taraborn (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically agree with that. I guess it should be checked if other regions have this kind of article (and at first sight, they don't) and/or wether this has been discussed before. If not, probably the best thing to do is delete this article, in order not to create a bad precedent MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 14:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to do with making sense. If there is sufficient notability and verifiability with regard to the military history of the southern half of Sicily, then yes, there could be an article on it, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Slippery slope arguments need not apply. There are numerous small regions with published military histories, describing the local militias, battles and conflicts fought in the area, regiments raised locally to serve in national wars, specific soldiers and heroes, etc. (And by the way, we can argue about semantics, but the medieval state of Catalonia actually did exist, and had an army.) The problem here is that the topic is potentially valid, but the article is being used for something different, and doing that different thing badly at that. The article is rubbish, a misuse of namespace, but that need not necessarily negate the namespace. Agricolae (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think that Wikipedia "has nothing to do with making sense" then you fail to understand how Wikipedia policies or guidelines work at the most basic level. See Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules and Wikipedia:Use_common_sense. Wikipedia's rules are loose and general, and are especially in need of "making sense". I'm pretty sure that there's enough "notability and verifiability" to make a great article about the military history of the southern half of Sicily, but why the southern half and not the southern quarter? Doesn't make sense, does it?

Indeed, if there is sufficient reliable published material written on the Military History of the Southern Quarter of Sicily, why not? If there is sufficient RS (without OR) on the topic to make it notable and verifiable, there should be such a page. As to 'making sense', I don't see the same common sense as you do in invoking Wikipedia:IAR to throw out the WP:N and WP:V cornerstones in favor of a WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing argument that if we have this article we need every other. I have seen a published military history for a small Massachusetts village. It appears to be reliable, and the topic has also been covered in other regional histories. If that satisfies the reliability and notoriety standards, then this represents a valid topic for a page, and that there are thousands of other towns or regions has no bearing whatsoever. 'Sense' has nothing to do with such decisions - ~~notoriety~~notability and verifiability do. Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, if you think that there was a medieval state encompassing modern Catalonia, you're deeply mistaken because there were a lot of smaller states in the region at the time. And considering the County of Barcelona as the former "state of Catalonia" would be like considering modern Russia as the new Soviet Union (though it's the most important part, there are major differences). --Taraborn (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sort of begging the question. The namespace we are discussing is not "Military History of the Area Encompassed by Modern Catalonia", but "Military History of Catalonia". The term Catalonia is used by some medieval scholars to refer to the state controlled by the counts of Barcelona, which included not only the County of Barcelona but also various adjacent counties under their feudal hand. I have seen it argued that to call this simply the County of Barcelona is to make the exact mistake you are decrying, like calling the former Soviet Union simply Russia, to use your analogy. I told you we could get into the semantics, and now we have. Now maybe we can get beyond it, because it just doesn't matter. A region or place or people that never had it's own army can still have a military history, and several such pages exist: Military history of Oceania, Military history of Europe, Military history of Birmingham, Military history of African Americans, Military history of Nagorno-Karabakh, and even Military activity in the Antarctic (redirected from Military history of Antarctica). Agricolae (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You made a horrendous spelling mistake. --Taraborn (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ Delete -- Basically agree with the bottom line of the nominator. Still, as Peterkingiron says, maybe the article is salvageable, but for that it does need, per Agricolae, to be blanked and started from scratch (dont agree with the latter, though, in the need for a "Separatist history of Catalonia", there is Catalan separatism already). MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 02:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not proposing a "Separatist history". I was saying that the article currently reads as a "Separatist history" and as such it makes a poor starting point for a "Military history" article. Agricolae (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Dog Called Ego

Meets none of the notability criteria per WP:BAND, except maybe for the coverage subject has received ...though the works cited as lending notability to the band all have questionable reliability, and none meet preferences of WP:EL (all are in German and some require registration) Third-party sources that do not fail to meet these prefs couldn't be found through Google web or news search. SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. While it may not meet WP:BAND, it does meet the WP:GNG, which should prevail in this case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Fosco

Non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Guy just happens to be a plaintiff in a civil RICO lawsuit against boss of the Chicago Outfit. The few refs provided are to a Linkedin profile and Mr. Fosco's personal website. Appears to be nothing more than a vanity page.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete Too much a COI and just not notable. Propaganda. Parkerparked (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AdeS

The article does not indicate in what way this product is notable, it is a minimal 2-line stub. The single reference given is to an article which briefly mentions the brand as being acquired by Coca Cola some years ago. It was prod'ed, but the prod removed with a reference to a google search which mentions the product some archived Google news articles. I did not check all of them, but the first one is again a trivial mention which merely lists this brand among many other brands in Indonesia. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep I understand the nomination argument, but a $20 million subsidiary of Coca Cola is something the world may wish to know about. Chutznik (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Coke is a $30 Billion dollar company. $20M is drop in a bucket (excuse the pun) in that context. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Carlin Ross

Non-notable activist, accomplishments are primarily associational, not coverage of the specific person for things they have done. MBisanz ^talk 07:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rufino Pablo Baggio

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Limited number of Ghits and GNEWS hits. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Add new AfD section

[edit] AfD footer

This section describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases.

Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III.

To list a single article for deletion, follow this three-step process:

I.

Put the deletion tag on the article.

Insert the {{subst:afd1}} tag at the top of the article if it's the article's first AfD nomination, if the article has been nominated for deletion before, use {{subst:afdx}} instead.

Please do not mark the edit as minor.
Please include in the edit summary the phrase
AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]
replace NominationName with the name of the page where the nomination will be- this is normally the same as the article name that is up for deletion (PageName).

(But if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the AfD tag is removed by a vandal or a new user unfamiliar with deletion policy.
Save the page.

II.

Create the article's deletion discussion page.

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page.

Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page. Some preloaded text and some instructions will appear.
Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions will be on the page).

OR

Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page.
Insert this text:
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion, Category with one letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Reason... with the reasons you think the page should be deleted.
Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination.
Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.

III.

Notify users who monitor AfD discussion.

Open the articles for deletion log page. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:
{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}
replacing NominationName appropriately, (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.).

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]
replacing NominationName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName}}.

To list multiple related pages for deletion see this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] KEE

[edit] Peter Argetsinger

[edit] Alex Yuan

[edit] Koda Kumi Remix Album

[edit] Pina Martino

[edit] Hosfelt gallery

[edit] Themedusacode

[edit] Comparison of OpenXPS and PDF

[edit] Neal Abarbanel

[edit] Pilot (Warehouse 13)

[edit] Konstrukteur

[edit] List of crooners

[edit] Creature King

[edit] Metallus

[edit] WANG Jianxin

[edit] Andy Budd

[edit] Xenophanes (Omar Rodriguez-Lopez album)

[edit] Billy Hume

[edit] The Metal Madman Radio Show

[edit] British Armenian

[edit] A Squared Anti-Malware

[edit] Douglas Goodman

[edit] Coromandel Cricket Club

[edit] Table of development periods

[edit] Jason Douglas (stand up comedian)

[edit] Consequence of Sound

[edit] Liquid nightclub

[edit] POHMELFS

[edit] Military history of Catalonia

[edit] A Dog Called Ego

[edit] Joseph Fosco

[edit] AdeS

[edit] Carlin Ross

[edit] Rufino Pablo Baggio

[edit] AfD footer

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Interaction

Toolbox

Languages