Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< December 31 January 2 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A3 - this is obvious vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Air Force

edit
Ancient Greek Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax, albeit a well-done one. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:51, 3 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geosurveillance

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

WP:SYNTH Plenty of references, but not for the thesis of the article. This is a postmodernist essay. John Nagle (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like OR to me--Wadeperson (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has not gone through my complete edits as yet I need time to complete my edits.As for the charge 'Post-modernist'.Can you explain to me what postmodernist means?Also WP:SYNTH has CLEARLY NOT read any of the references,nor understood(which is not to untypical)the main premise of the article he(WP:SYNTH) cannot PROVE that the references I have quoted were/are not for the article!Can you prove it without doubt WP:SYNTH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardlord50 (talk • contribs)
WP:SYNTH is not a person. It's a shortcut to a Wikipedia policy statement on original research. Reading that may be helpful. --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 2 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Club and the Creatures

edit
Summer Club and the Creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity-press book. As I noted on the article on the author James A. Richards that I nommed for deletion, I googled the usabooknews.com award that the book won, and it appears to be mentioned solely in the context of self-published books. Autobiographical and unsourced. Author has created multiple pages about himself, his book, and his company. Graymornings(talk) 23:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This novel has won no awards, it isn't important or well known, and it has only been nominated for awards by its author. Considering its author obviously created this entry, this article is nothing more than a vanity piece for an unsuccessful writer.69.140.246.145 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Visiting the Lambda page shows that the nominees page is the same as 'books submitted' thereby anything can be nominated. In a deleted segment, he claimed the book wasn't reviewed more because of its poor cover. The publisher claims reviews by X-Factor and the San Francisco Rogue, but I can't locate any references to these publications. The publisher is selling one edition, and Amazon a self-published 'special edition'. Amazon sales rank: 2.6 millionth. Not notable. Self-created vanity page. Delete.
  • Delete - Can we please just dump this article? The fact that it is on this website is insulting to those of us who don't lie their way through life. I know in my heart that somewhere, the author of this book (who put the article up originally) is sitting at this very moment in some counter-culture coffee shop in a gentrified part of town telling some poor stranger that he is an author whose work has been covered on Wikipedia. I am willing to bet a large handful of twenty dollar bills that this guy introduces himself to people as an author first, neglecting to mention the fact that his work is entirely self-published and has never earned any recognition worth speaking of. The longer we allow hacks like this to abuse Wikipedia, the more we legitimize lazily produced art and the shady, lying, halfassed artists who create it.64.32.232.218 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 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. There have been good arguments on both sides of the debate, but what it comes down to is that this is either a borderline notability case, or an article that hasn't had time to develop in order to explain the reason why we need an article on Enrique Máximo García. In neither case is that reason for deletion right now. There is no clear consensus for deletion, though there is concern that the subject of the article hasn't had the notability explained and substantiated. Those interested in keeping this article are advised to help develop it. SilkTork *YES! 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Máximo García

edit
Enrique Máximo García (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable academic as far as I can tell. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Could you point out exactly the problem about this article? Thanks for time and for your advice Klaiver User talk:Klaiver 00: 20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Response - The article must establish notability, for example, according to WP:Prof or WP:N. It is not taken for granted; it must be demonstrated. There is no claim in the article of any major accomplishments. This AfD nomination does not remotely imply he was a bad person or led a life without merit. It simply questions whether he should be included in this encyclopedia. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - As you stated, this is an encyclopedia, and the main function of an encyclopedia is compilating all the knowledge mankind can gather and put it in disposal of everyone who could be interested or need it. Maybe in your environment, the person who my article talks about doesn't mind much, but in my whereabouts, he is an important character in our local culture, and the only reason for me to make an article about him in english is to make this information available for an ample range of people. I would be very grateful if you respected my point of view, so I could share this information with as much people as possible. Klaiver User talk:Klaiver 01: 25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Noone here is disrespecting your point of view. This process is not about points of view; it is about finding a consensus regarding verifiability, which is an objective state. Please review WP:CIVIL, namely where it recommends refraining from "ill-considered accusations of impropriety." Thanks. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the reason for having policies like those I mentioned above is to try to encourage more objective decision making. It's the article's responsibility for establishing notability. If he is a major figure, you should have no trouble finding sources that satisfy WP:Prof or WP:N. As it stands, the article doesn't come close to meeting either of those standards as it's currently written.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He clearly meets WP:N and he also meets criteria #7 of WP:Prof. The source is a major newspaper in Spain and the articles are about his death and the legacy of his work.--Jmundo (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think we'll end up just disagreeing on this, e.g., I have no idea what impact he's had outside his field. Best. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 02:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gonna go with RandomHumanoid on this one. Doesn't appear to meet WP:Prof or WP:N. I don't think inclusiveness has to mean "include every academic who did his job well." I'm an academic, and I do my job reasonably well, I hope, but I can say without hesitation that as of this moment I do not merit a page. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment are you the subject of a national newspaper article? --Jmundo (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As some of those article are obituaries, one hopes not. Regardless, these unquestionably minor articles do not satisfy the criteria outlined in WP:N or WP:Prof.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obituaries (as opposed to paid-for death notices) are amongst the best sort of press articles for establishing notability. Their existence means that the editorial judgement has been made that a subjects are important enough for their lives to be noted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was once pictured on the front page of the business section of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, but that was just a lucky break. Jlg4104 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned, it fails the applicable policies. It was asserted above that the subject specifically meets WP:PROF criterion #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." That is not asserted in either the article or the translated verdad sources. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another national newspaper article highlights one of his investigations. --Jmundo (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how that constitutes "impact outside academia." -Seidenstud (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm wrong but discovering "one of the few musical instruments held in Spain in the period of the Enlightenment" is notable for me. We don't need to argue about if he meets or doesn't meet WP:Prof, because the references from the national media establish his notability per wp:notable. If he was an American professor probably we would not have this discussion.--Jmundo (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chairman of a department at major university is professional recognition of notability as an expert in the subject. But the spanish article does indicate rather well the basis of the notability and the main problem here is that the english article needs to be expanded., DGG (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does anything say he was chairman of the dept? In the obit in La Verdad, it simply says he was "profesor del departamento de Historia del Arte de la Universidad de Murcia," namely that he was a professor in the art history department.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my vote to neutral given the doubt about the named chair. Whether or not he was department chair, that fact alone does not establish notability in my eyes. I abstain until further evidence crops up. --Crusio (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This translated article from the Spanish Wikipedia was created at 23:26 and was nominated for deletion at 23:35 the same day, WP:DEADLINE. --Jmundo (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm on the keep side of the fence for now. "Enrique Máximo García" shows up in Google Scholar [2]; he has published one book[3], collaborated on 4 others and published some magazine articles [4], [5]. Concerning the book he wrote, it can be found at several libraries, including the Smithsonian, the British Library and university libraries: [6], [7], [8], [9] (more can probably be found if needed). So, depending how we define "many", this author has his work in "in many significant libraries", thus meeting the criterion 4.d of WP:CREATIVE for authors. "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."  LinguistAtLarge  22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of substantial coverage in reliable sources is exactly what is required by WP:N. Once the subject passes that guideline there's no need to argue about which criteria of WP:PROF or WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYTHINGELSE he may or may not get through. The editors of the publications cited have made the decision that the subject is notable, and our practice is to defer to those decisions rather than try to make our own subjective judgements. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is not a extreme claim saying he meets WP:Prof. His academic research, Google Scholar, is cited in secondary sources and has clearly had a significant impact in the community 1, 2.--Jmundo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meets criteria #7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.--Jmundo (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently notable for inclusion per WP:N. Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Phil Bridger, I think he has the enough notability required by WP:N --Rocy (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC) — Rocy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete In the end, I am coming down to delete on this one. Of the 4 references given in the article, 3 are from local newspapers (La Verdad and La Opinión de Murcia), 1 from a website of the regional office of "Patrimonio Historico" (I can translate that into French, but not really in English). Two of the journal articles only mention EMG in connection with the localization of a piano forte of a local composer (and one of the few instruments to survive from that time in Spain), one is an obituary. The website of the regional historical office only mentions him in connection with a CD of works of another composer. I find that these sources fail to establish notability according to WP:N and, as already remarked above, there is not enough evidence to meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
La Verdad.es is not your local newspaper, it covers the cities of Murcia, Albacete , Alicante. Population total: 920,000. For an individual you consider non-notable, his actions (like the localization one of the few instruments to survive from that time in Spain) got a good deal of coverage from the local newspaper. More evidence of notability: 1, 2.--Jmundo (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
La Verdad.es is a newspaper from Región of Murcia (1.425.000), Alicante (province) (1.800.000), and Albacete (province) (390.000), not just from that cities. Population total: 3.615.000. Definitely, La Verdad.es is not your local newspaper. --Klaiver (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As anyone who has done more than simply switched gates at an airport in Spain knows, the main papers are national, viz ABC, El Mundo, El Pais. Simply throwing aggregate population numbers is absurd; La Verdad is certainly a respectable paper, but this kind of wanton exaggeration simply weakens your point. Find significant coverage in El Pais and then get back to us. Eusebeus (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that the only source from Spain we can use in Wikipedia is "El Pais". It's like saying that the only reliable source from United States is the New York Times. I agree La Verdad is certainly a respectable paper that meets the criteria for independent secondary source.--Jmundo (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has claimed that La Verdad is not a respectable independent secundary source. It certainly can be used to source information included in an article. However, as it is not a national newspaper, articles in it only contribute in a minor way to establishing notability, IMHO. In addition, from the paper's website it appears that there are 3 separate editions for the 3 regions that it serves, further weakening its impact. --Crusio (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIAS: "Availability of sources is not uniform....Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and no incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic."--Jmundo (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't think that WP:BIAS applies here. Nobody here has complained about the fact that all sources are in Spanish or that sources in English are missing. I am not a native English speaker myself and very much aware of biases in WP against other languages. But I see absolutely no evidence of that here. Please, WP:AGF. --Crusio (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, I should concentrate in looking for more sources. My new search so far: This one is from the periodical "Epoca" describing the subject as a national expert 1; another article says "Maximo has been working in an "important and instrumental rescue" for Latin America 2. More sources are available, and I will continue to look.--Jmundo (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has just been improved, but i´m still working on it. --Klaiver (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep I don't think this article deserves this witch hunt it has undergone. There are thousands of articles about nonsense, thousands of stubs and thousands of articles with false references or information which aren't being persecuted so exhaustively. This article has proved its right to be in the wikipedia, as the articles in spanish and italian haven't caused any problems, as well as the author has received several congratulations for them. It is shameful that some people put such a great effort for this article to be deleted according to some terms of notability, as if it were the score in a contest. All the information given for this article is true an extensive enough, an can be fully contrasted with its sources,so I can't understand the aversion of some people who want this article deleted for a pair of clauses of a bureaucratic form. If you are trying to base the deletion of the article in the failure to fulfill WP: N or WP:ACADEMIC, you must also refer to the non-online sources, because all the complaints given here just cover the information that can be found on the Internet. Looking up on libaries, newspaper libraries and other physical sources I'm sure we can find enough data to fulfill WP:N and WP:ACADEMIC. So, before accusing of lack of evidences, please consult ALL the sources, not only the convenient ones.--Lorgar (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC) — Lorgar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of executable file formats

edit
Comparison of executable file formats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Could be replaced with a single sentence in the PE article Mblumber (talk) 23:33, 1 January 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 Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Zadig Onnasch

edit
Joey Zadig Onnasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A few ghits, both under his name and for "rtnworld", but no secondary coverage that I could see (though some hits were in Swedish.) This may be a hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:26, 1 January 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 Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganking

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

Neologism unsupported by independent references: neither notable nor verifiable. It was put up for proposed deletion in mid-2007. It's now 2009, and the article is still unsourced. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's Somethin' Wrong Here

edit
AfDs for this article:
There's Somethin' Wrong Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Didn't chart, no substantial coverage about the song proper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:57, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Harding

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

Photographer that I don't think (yet) meets our internal notability standards. rootology (C)(T) 22:26, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke and Joe's Crapulent Adventure Or: MTF The Grand Blanc Motivational Task Force

edit
AfDs for this article:
Luke and Joe's Crapulent Adventure Or: MTF The Grand Blanc Motivational Task Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a student-made short film. The article does not cite any sources at all, its main claim to notability is its popularity amongst the high school it was made in, and is full of apparent "trivia" about the film, none of which meets notability standards. This article should be deleted unless sources can be provided that show the subject's notability. TheLetterM (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My reading of WP:MADEUP is that it can be tangible products, too... "If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia." —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:54, 2 January 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, nomination withdrawn. WP:NAC.--Jmundo (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Hassel

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

Biographical subject that upon initial review doesn't (I don't think) meet our notability standards. All of his article's sourcing is essentially made up of his own work. rootology (C)(T) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF criterion 1., but one can also regard him as an author, since many of his works are intended for a popular audience. He has published a total of I note that the use of h indexes for people working in the applied social sciences is not valid; the limit is set by the number of total works, and ignores that books are more important than journal articles. I have added the books and holdings to the article. I did not expect to actually have to meet skepticism that someone with multiple books with around a thousand library holdings each is notable. I should perhaps have anticipated it, for in various AfDs I have seen a considerable skepticism over the significance of those working tin the field of education, as compared to the sciences. There will also be reviews--the author of the article should have listed them; I am only to a limited extent personally capable of making up for the deficiencies of all the editors in this field--perhaps some of the skeptical people ought to help look for these. DGG (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing it up. That's notable enough for me. rootology (C)(T) 16:38, 2 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Samuels

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

Possibly notable under our inclusion standards, but I can't find any indication of sourcing to demonstrate that. rootology (C)(T) 22:23, 1 January 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 Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire schools performance table

edit
Worcestershire schools performance table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD following a previous Speedy deletion an hour or so previously. A similar article has already been discussed and deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worcestershire schools. However, this article is sufficiently different to not be a G4. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sometimes it's so obvious it's hard to find a matching policy. WP:NOT#STATS (Long and sprawling lists of statistics...) in connection with extremely local focus and ephemeral, already outdated, time period of this, so to say, data. 8%. Dissapointing. NVO (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - this provide's usefull information on all the schools in county, this the 2nd one 2 web pages that has this information and its normaly hard to get! liispa809 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.148.189 (talk • contribs) 00:34, January 2, 2009
  • Keep! Why get rid of this? its got no speling mistakes and has correct information. cxal3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.148.189 (talk • contribs) 00:36, January 2, 2009
  • Keep. I have children at a school in worcestershire and it realy helps us parents find out how the schools are performing. i would even reccomend this page to other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.148.189 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that User:81.159.148.189 placed the three !votes above (I have struck out two of them but left the comments) and in doing so removed the header to the page, the nomination and !vote by NVO. Consequently, I have done a little reworking to put everything back together again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 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 G3 as blatant misinformation, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AtP Tower

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

I can't find any evidence of this building being planned, or even of the billionaires that are supposed to be funding it. Even if this wasn't a WP:HOAX, not building it until 2012 means this should fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:35, 1 January 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. John254 00:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Svane

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

Composer, does have ghits but I haven't found any secondary source coverage of note on him. This article has been created and SD'd three times, we should settle whether he meets notability standards, but it doesn't look like he meets WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:29, 1 January 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 without bias as the article does not establish notability as per WP:GROUP. Kralizec! (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Film Producers Alliance

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

I first A7 CSD deleted this a while back. The article's creator complained loudly, and got the article userfied by another admin. The article quickly was returned to user space, and IMHO still does not show notability. Instead of A7ing it again, I tried placing improvement tags on it. And despite extended discussion on my talk page, and now on the article's talk page, the tags have all been removed twice without their problems being addressed. So IMHO it is time for an AFD discussion on the thing. IMHO, none of the links provided by the author serve to establish the notability of the group. The article has other problems (it's all sourced to primary sources, and reads like a press release IMHO), but the core issue is notability, which I still do not see. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TexasAndroid is adding his "already shared" biases to this discussion. He never did a detailed review of the links and information provided. You can view his own admission of this on the Talk page of the article. There is PLENTY of notability and third party support to show that we are legit and should be approved. I ask that you ignore his obvious bias and look closely at the links yourself. It doesn't makes sense to say "come back later", when there is evidence of the legitimacy now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is more evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and ridiculous. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per my comments below about the "Producer's Guild of America" posting, I did not see a third party article about them referenced in that posting about the organization. So, it' safe to say that they were approved on the basis of the famous names that we included in the article. Thus, similar to the example I gave about the reviewer determining notability based on "named actors", it appears PGA was accepted to Wikipedia the same way. Accordingly, I do not find credibility in the position that CFPA has to provide information that is not expected of similar organizations.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The tags where remove because I made changes and NEITHER TexasAndriod, nor ANYONE else on this site, reviewed the changes and provided feedback. If you're gonna put tags on the article, please pay attention to the changes and provide feedback on them. Otherwise, the article is stagnant and its a waste of everyone's time.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The organization is obviously legitimate and has profided notable examples from several sources. There shouldn't even be a debate about this posting.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After a cursory Google and Gnews search, I cannot make a case for this meeting WP:ORG policy for notability.  LinguistAtLarge  21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although the organisation sounds genuine, the refs provided unfortunately don't meet WP:ORG. Wouldn't necessarily be a bad candidate for a future article if suitable references became available, but not until then. Eve Hall (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. In agreement. The organization does seem to exist, the provided references and all else that can be found on google do not pass WP:PEOPLE WP:NOTABILITY. By all means bring it back when there is more. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't makes sense to say "come back later", when there is evidence of the legitimacy now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went through the links. Thouroughly. With respects, I have no doubt of the legitimacy of your organization. I also do not doubt that members of your organization have won awards. That is not the issue. We accept that it does exist and has a noble mission. What is at issue is coverage of your company per Wikipedia's guidelines and protocols to show "Notability". Meetup.com does not qualify. Your organization's own website does not qualify. The little blurb at the bottom of the Reel.com webpage does not qualify. All these do is confirm the organizations existance. They WP:Verify its existance... not its notability. And that's what Wiki is about... notability. Please read the informations at WP:N to see how Wikipedia determines notability. Please read WP:RS to see how Wikipedia gauges the reliability of offered sources. Pay close attention to WP:GNG which are the "general notability guidelines". And please read WP:ORG to see how Wikipedia determines the notability of organizations and companies. When you have press coverage that is more than a simple "Joe Smith is a member of the Chicago Film Producers Alliance"... and more than a self stated acknowledgement that you folks donated crew and equipment.... then please bring it back. The deletion review process is in no way meant to cast aspersions on the company or its works. An AfD is only a determination to see if the article about the organization currently meets the inclusion criteria. If the sources exist that meet Wiki's criteria, then by all means share them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing more annoying to me than not thinking outside of policy. No personal insulted intended. Our group is somewhat private. So, I have not sought outside organizations to write articles about us. We mainly get press through OUR MEMBERS when they got press about their films, as is demonstrated in the references that I provided. just because we don't seek press done not mean we are not important and relevant to other (or notable, as you phrase it). There are other ways for your to determine that we are who we say we are. I can allow someone to join the group, contact our members and verify their success. WE ARE VALIDATED BY OUR MEMBERS SUCCCESS. Your definition does not apply in every situation.--ATurnerIII (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As various people have explained, we do believe that you are who you say you are, we just haven't seen proof that CFPA are important enough to deserve an article in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors are, upon occasion, willing to think outside policy; but you have yet to convince any of us that policy is wrong in this case. If you choose to remain a private organisation who gets publicity only through its members, that is your choice, but you have to accept that as a consequence you will lack the profile to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Eve Hall (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Eve, I have written you on several other talk pages. My point has been made clearly. We operate differently. Wikipedia is supposed to support the public, of which my group is a part of. CFPA is semi private and does not seek news publicity, except when it is done through our individual members and their projects, which I have offered solid evidence of. So, your rule of notability being demonstrated only by a third party writing a direct article does not apply here. You have to get the proof you want a different way. I offered for you to join our group temporarily to find out that we are who we say we are. But, you conveniently ignored my offer because you set on the inflexible position that notability is only acceptable if someone else writes about us directly. This is becoming circular. Either Wikipedia support the public and is willing to look into this further, or they / you are not and are doing the public that you were founded to serve a disservice. The ball is in you guy's hand, many of which have no experience in film or with professional film organizations. Either step up and take a closer look at our organization to get the proof you need of our notability in a different way than you are used to, or continue to remain in denial that our organizational model is different and delete our ad. Either way, I continue to remain disgusted at this entire process. How dare you / TexasAndriod / Wikipedia ask CFPA to change the way we operate just to be listed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here to serve us, and not the other way around.--ATurnerIII (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here is more evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and ridiculous. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons listed above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of notability. "Wikipedia is supposed to support the public, of which my group is a part of". I'm part of the public, I don't have an article because I'm not notable. This argument has no merit. "...your rule of notability being demonstrated only by a third party writing a direct article does not apply here". Wrong. It's a WP "rule", if you can't meet it, then you don't get an article. You can't disapply "rules" because you don't like them unless you get consensus here - and I don't think you will. "you only accept notability if someone else writes about us directly". Correct. And without this, you don't get an article. "..remain in denial that our organization model is different and delete our ad". You clearly say it's an advertisement - time to delete it then. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "ad" was used here to describe our post. You know this. No merit? I have already provided evidence of notability through our members. That's what happens in a semi-private organization. Are you truly incapable of understanding this or do you simply not want to accept it? I assure you, I work hard and have never looked for handouts. Wikipedias inflexible definition does not apply here. I can only guess that you must be one of those people who only follows rules and never think independently. On the other hand, only an untruthful person would draw the conclusion that there is NO merit after all of this discussion. This type of disingenious feedback is one of the negative aspects of an open website and feedback structure. There is no accountability for such intentional attempts to adversely influence the discussion. If you are going to be dishonest, please do not contribute to this discussion.--ATurnerIII (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is more evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and ridiculous. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film. This is in direct contraction to UnusualQuite's position that notability is all about a third party writing an article.--ATurnerIII (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahhh... having myself been part of the quoted discussion and the saving of the article, the proffered quote is about the film Shannon's Rainbow, and was opined at its recent AfD. Please note that THAT article DOES have coverage in Reliable Sources independent of the subject as per the guidelines. I like saving articles. I even wrote you that your article could be of benefit to Wikipedia. But chastising those sympathetic to your view does not help your case. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Schmidt, Where did I chastize you in the reply above? It was written to someone else, Unusual? Quite.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it sure felt like you did after I opined a "delete but allow back"... and over at Eve Hall's page when I made the error of thinking an account with a 2-day history of editing might have been a newcomer. But that was my error if, as you wrote on her page, you've been editing wikipedia for years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition Review Required - Author added another award that the group has recieved. I think this deserves a second round of review.--98.206.216.169 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I just took a look. Yes, another cite was added. You now show that Sean J.S. Jourdan's film An Open Door won a 2008 CINE Golden Eagle Award of Excellence. The article also shows that Vincent Singleton's The Porter was a 1st Place Co-Winner at the 2008 Chase/HBO/Blackfilm.com Legacy of Home Ownership Contest, and that Chris L. Griffin's Partyline won Best Feature at the 2007 Detroit Motor City Film Festival. Those notable facts about these filmmaker's films are not in question. But is there any source that states that Chicago Film Producers Alliance was responsible for these wins? Wiki has a guideline that states notability is not inherited. So the fine works of these gentlemen does not become a notability for the private club of which they are members unless it is documented that the private club was a part of, or responsible for, these wins. Showing them as members is not enough. And I am not being obtuse. I am trying my best to explain the way it works here. Help us help you save this article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And with respects to the author, I just took a go at sourcing the article. I can certainly find notability of the asserted membership, but cannot confirm the (semi private) membership. The article states it has 89 members but one has to be a member in order to view that member list on the Alliance's website so as to confirm. Per "links to be avoided: sites requiring reistration" I am stymied. However I did tag it for rescue so it might be wikified. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can see that Vincent Singleton received help from CFPA on his film by reading the RealCHicago article that list CFPA in it AND by looking at his film, The Porter (link on Blackfilm.com in post) where he gives the alliance credit at the end of the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the article and found the one sentence "Marshalling a small crew of around 20, most of them found through Columbia College and the Chicago Producer’s Alliance, Singleton pulled the film together in four weeks from scripting to completion." I scrolled to the bottom of the page, after the end of the article, where it says "BACKTALK for this article"... that point where readers may add comments... and saw where you commented "The Chicago Film Producers alliance contributed crew, actors, contracts, a vfx consultant, general guidance and the camera equipment. Fletcher Chicago is a member and connected with Vincent through the alliance. —Drew Turner, The Chicago Film Producers Alliance". I went to the Blackfilm.com Legacy Film Challenge page and watched the film by Columbia College Chicago student Vincent Singleton, The Porter, and saw at the end of the screen credits, "Special thanks to: Andrew Turner of The Producer's Alliance". I did not miss it. However, and in the best way possible... and please do not be offended and insulted... it is just not eneough. I think what you guys are trying to accomplish is terrific. I have myself worked gratis in many student films because I believe in and respect your mission. But what you are offering toward notability is just not enough. And I am sorry. You know that I went to the article and began cleanup and sourcing per Wiki guidelines... and if I didn't care, I would not have bothered... but it just too little about the organization itself and so the article is premature... and bit too soon for Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MichaelQ, I appreciate your attention to detail but your rational just doesn't hold up. Your entire position is based soley on the translation of Wikipedia's policy to require more press coverage for "notability" when others on this very sight are defining notability differently. For example, here is evidence that Wikipedia's reviewing process is subjective and a double standard. On the film talk page, one reviewer wrote about notability, "appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project." So, notability there has been determined "just because name actors are in the film" and not because there was an article from a third party on the film.--ATurnerIII (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, I reject your attempt to put words in the author's mouth. The statement is clear on it's face. The contributor is defining notability as having "named actors". Based on his reasoning, CFPA should be justified based on our group's film, Holiday Baggage, alone. As I have said, Wikipedia is hypocritcal and inconsistent. You can not explain this away. Futhermore, your attempt to slight our group because we have a private membership falls flat. We are still of interest to the public because we represent independent producers, of which is a public interest to millions of Americans. The "Producers Guild of America(PGA)" is the top Hollywood organization, has been approved for listing on Wikipedia, and they also do not disclose their membership to the general public. Based on your logic, we should kick them out. I'd like to see you explain your reasoning to Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, the President. CFPA is just as viable as PGA. The only difference is that we represent independent producers versus those in the Hollywood studio system. Just because the membership is private does not void the fact that we create a product that is of interest to the public. Finally, I DON'T SEE A REFERENCE TO A THIRD PARTY ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT THE PGA IN THE PGA POSTING. The requirement of reviewers on this talk page that CPFA provide a 3rd party article to prove notability, when other postings on Wikipedia are being acceptedw without it, is becoming less credible by the minute.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATurnerIII has made an excellent, policy-based case for deletion all by xyrself. Xe has stated that this organization is private and undocumented, and that the only way for a Wikpiedia reader to check facts about this organization is to join it. Thus no article here can possibly be verifiable, and would have to be constructed from primary research (which is forbidden for editors and not what we expect readers to do). That the organization has actively avoided being noted by independent reliable sources has resulting in it rendering itself not notable. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G's position is disingenious. He wrote that I stated that CFPA is, "is private and undocumented." That is not true. I said it was "semi private" and "is documented". The only thing private about it is that we don't make our ENTIRE membership known at any given time. That's to protect producers who do not wish to be swamped by actors and such. Other than that, much of what our members do is in the press. It's just that CFPA has not focused on taking credit for it because members credit each other in their films. I said CFPA is documented in the articles and the credits of some of the films that I supplied. I never said it wasn't documented at all. Again, we have people adding their two cents to this discussion that don't have their facts straight.--ATurnerIII (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The membership may be documented, but it is so only on the "members only" website. In the article, you assert certain notables are members... but your assertion cannot reasonable be confirmed. The minor mentions of CFPA in the few sources provided only confirm its existance and not its notability. We respect that you wish to "protect producers who do not wish to be swamped by actors and such", but in doing so you have tied our hands. That the members are covered in the press does not confer a notability to the organization, as their notability exists seperate and apart from the organization. Their notability does not depend on the organization, and you are trying to make a case that the organization's notability depends on them. That street does not run both ways. Though I myself do not always agree with User:Uncle G, his comment is a quite accurate evaluation of the situation. We do want to help, but your wish to not actively get press for the organization (outside the Wiki article) has tied our hands. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comments above about the "Producer's Guild of America" posting, I did not see a third party article about them referenced in that posting about the organization. So, it' safe to say that they were approved on the basis of the famous names that we included in the article. Thus, similar to the example I gave about the reviewer determining notability based on "named actors", it appears PGA was accepted to Wikipedia the same way. Accordingly, I do not find credibility in the position that CFPA has to provide information that is not expected of similar organizations.--ATurnerIII (talk) 05:38, 5 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Richards

edit
James A. Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-created vanity page. Most of the info in this article is unsourced and kinda spammy. A local article about him isn't notability. Same with the vanity-press book. I did a search for the usabooknews.com award - it seems that most of the books that mention this award or site are self-published authors, so there goes that claim to notability. Graymornings(talk) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Vanity Page. This person is not a notable entrepreneur, hence inclusion of the professional section is not relevant. The Lambda award is a nomination only, and I don't believe anyone knows who this person is outside of his immediate circle. If someone else out there, other than James A. Richards himself, feels this person is notable, he or she can submit an article. Dismayed that this wasn't speedy deleted, as people are not supposed to be able to use wikipedia for personal PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.234.86 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity page. Resumés do no belong in an encyclopedia. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity Page. None of the "honors" are noteworthy. "USA Books News" will call anybody with $65.00 a finalist and his "nomination" into the Lambda thing is hardly exciting considering authors can nominate themselves for that award. This is just some guy off the street, and not even an exciting guy off the street.Cmactaggart (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV. Notability.
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 Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of George W. Bush

edit
Criticism of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a WP:POVFORK of George W. Bush in which information is cherry picked and placed in this article with a bias. As it is criticism it is never going to be possible to achieve WP:NPOV. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, please stop misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines, as I wrote in the other AfD, WP:POVFORK states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit. travb (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misrepresenting anything. Common sense would tell one that negative criticisms (which is all that these articles are in the first place) are best dealt with in the main article and/or other subsidiary articles. But of course, if we want to keep this project amateurish, then sure, let's create negative criticisms of everything. We can start absolute crap such as Criticism of Australia, Criticism of United Airlines, Criticism of Star Wars, Criticism of the PlayStation 3, Criticism of the Washington Post, Criticism of Queen Elizabeth and Criticism of cats (the dog lovers would like to work on that one I am sure). You may be an inclusionist, but at some point common sense should prevail, and I ask mind you not to misrepresent my position again...I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. --Russavia Dialogue 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Keep, but maybe a rename might be in order. To say that the man has received a large amount of criticism in his tenure would be an understatement. Far too much than can be adequately covered in his own article without bloating it to excess. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What could an article full of negative views and criticisms be renamed to? I've proposed that the material be merged into the Presidency of George W. Bush article and/or relevant sub-articles all while adhering to WP:WEIGHT. I've worked on the main Bush article, and it deals prety well with criticisms of the president; nothing from this criticism article should be moved into the main article, rather we should create a better, fairer picture of President Bush by placing the positives right next to the negatives and not lump the bad into a POV fork, which this is. An Obama article regarding crticisms has been deleted twice as a POV fork and rightly so. The same applies here. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I don't know. I'm not sure if "criticism" is a good way of putting it, but I'm not sure what ELSE it could be. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is one of the most criticized U.S. presidents, both domestically and internationally, and the encyclopedic and well referenced criticisms would overwhelm the Bush article. Edison (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my response to the comment right above yours regarding WEIGHT and the main Bush article. Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to comment on this: to say that he is one of the most criticized presidents is not a fact. You have to consider that criticism of a sitting president is going to be intense. The huge surge in the size of the internet as a whole, and a general increase of media and opinion outlets means that much more criticism of anyone is available to each member of the public. The fact that you've seen more criticisms of Bush does not mean that he has genuinely been more criticised than any other president, the huge increase of information sharing since he took office just means more of it has reached you. For example, I'm sure that Lincoln was just as controversial, but the average citizen would see only criticism in the form of an editorial in the local newspaper and word of mouth. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very strong keep, as the best way of keeping the main article under control. Probably we do need a general discussion of this type of article; it is not necessarily a POV fork. I think a reasonable degree of forking by what I wll cll "aspect" is necessary on the really major controbersial topics to keep the articles coherent. Both this and Putin count, as such, for similar reasons: as I said there, otherwise this would overbalance the rest of the article. for historical figures, it is possible to integrate this--see the article on Stalin for a good example--but for contemporary ones this is the best we are likely to manage. DGG (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, whether the subject is historical or contemporary, there is no reason that all articles should not follow the Stalin article example, because that is how one would expect it to read in a professional publication, such as an encyclopaedia. All it takes is for us all to wake up to the fact of what it is that we are trying to build here; we don't see other publications doing things such as this, and it is these types of things which makes WP look like a wannabe and amateurish. --Russavia Dialogue 06:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that 3 of the 15 Criticism articles (all 15 still on wikipedia) which were nominated for deletion were nominated by Sceptre were closed the same day Speedy Keep, WP:SNOW and WP:POINT, another was closed "Snowball Keep, Everyone voted to keep" (Scientology controversies) travb (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per WP:POVFORK:
    "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."
    Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit
    Further, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks, they are WP:Split articles, such as Criticism of Vladimir Putin, Criticism of Tony Blair around 100 more:
I could go on, google list 152 wikipedia pages,[17] but I think the point has been adequately made.
Of the 15 Criticism articles which have been put up for deletion, only one was deleted, and it was recreated two years later (linux). The overwhelming majority of AfDs were closed keep (12), and 1/3 (5) where closed speedy keep.
Not only does policy support such criticism articles, but the overwhelming consensus (15 out of 15 articles up for deletion in the past are still on wikipedia) is to keep such articles.
travb (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If editors are going to cite universally accepted policy and guidelines which they expect other editors to follow WP:POVFORK, then it is reasonable to show that articles such as this one are also universally accepted.
You state that each case is different, yet in the next sentence you use the Obama deletion as an example to bolster your viewpoint. You can't have it both ways.
The Obama speedy deletions are covered more on the this article's talk page.
travb (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not about integration with the main article or whether criticism articles should remain separate or not. The need for subarticles is based on the amount of information to be communicated. Bush has certainly generated enough fodder for an appropriate subarticle. That it's not complimentary is not an issue, witness Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, one of the sorriest examples of bashing (U.S. more evil than Stalin at his worst) which editors defend to the proverbial death. PetersV       TALK 21:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I agree with WP:POINT, you will see that nominator is User:Muscovite99, who voted (may as well not allude that these AfD's are anything but a vote, because common sense is thrown out the window all too often) keep based upon the existence of the very same article that he has now nominated whilst that AfD was running its course. But seeing as there are plenty of merge and delete votes, there is no reason to not let this run its course also, and hopefully some common sense will prevail. --Russavia Dialogue 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'll point out -- again -- that the idea that "criticism is inherently POV" is wrong, both by common sense and by Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, it's obvious to anybody who has been paying attention to world affair that criticism of Bush is a very large topic with considerable notability, with no lack of WP:RS in sight. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to deny that my nomination had been encouraged by Russavia's nomination that he has referred to. But there is a great actual difference between the two articles. Putin's criticism ought, in rights, be named "Allegations about criminal activity of Putin's regime" as most of the "criticism" is in fact just that; whereas Bush's is essentially partisan (party political) bluster and posturing, which is the integral part of any proper democracy's political life. Apart from that, a healthy discussion was generated and broadened, i think.Muscovite99 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Vladimir Putin eats babies for breakfast? We've got a reliable source that says he doesn't eat babies for breakfast, which given that denial there must be accusations out there that he does eat babies for breakfast? As evidenced by Putinism, you only are interested in presenting the most grotesque image possible, at least you have the decency on that article to admit that you don't even allude to maintaining any degree of POV. But funny is that your argument just now in regards to Bush is exactly the same as with Putin - the Putin criticism article is also partisan; i.e. those who are opposed to Putin...where is the 85% Russian POV in that article? By the way, Sergey Viktorovich sends his regards. --Russavia Dialogue 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of criminal activity of Putin's regime is the most minor of transgressions, that's merely about money. It's the rewriting of history taught throughout Russia, strong-arm tactics with the former republics and near abroad seeking to reimpose Russian hegemony, et al. that are an issue. "Criticism" of Putin, "criticism" of Bush are both totally valid as worthy encyclopedic topics.
   Using syllogisms such as Putin "eats babies for breakfast" to advance arguments with charges of grotesqueness and indecency is nothing but a collection of red herrings.
   If you wish to address what is "grotesque" then perhaps you'd like to suggest to Putin he adopt a more critical view of the Soviet past. PetersV       TALK 02:06, 4 January 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. John254 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bait-Ul-Ilm School

edit
Bait-Ul-Ilm School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school article that reads like an advertisment and is a mish-mash of copyrighted material from the actual site. Conflict of interest since the article was created by User:Baitulilmschool. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - incorporates a high school so it is notable. This is a significant two campus school. As with all Indian subcontinent schools it has a negligible web news presence in English so sufficient time needs to be allowed for local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias. The promotional nature of the page is not a reason for deletion rather it should have been tagged for cleaning up. TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 1 January 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 deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning Rotations

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

No sources. It's a hoax Am86 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirkan Aydın

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 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 Withdrawn. He had major roles in three notable productions. Schuym1 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Perrie

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 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. I see no reason for this to stay open any longer because the merge has already taken place. To further discuss this, use the talk page. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaviest land animals

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

About a year and a half ago, this list was put up for deletion with a consensus to merge to Largest organisms. This still hasn't happened yet, and I don't see any reason why this would happen anytime soon. I'm going to relist this to see if we can get another consensus because merging the list isn't going to happen. Tavix (talk) 19:24, 1 January 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. I'm not entirely sure if precedent has been to include articles on losing candidates, even from major parties, but since the subject has been covered in several sources covering the election, I see no way to delete an article if there is no consensus to do so, and in this case, the consensus seems to be for inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Conley

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy96 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Endorsed by major party for Senate seat. Sources satisfy notability per WP:NOTE. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: Multiple mentions in reliable sources satisfy WP:Notability. WP:BIO says "[j]ust being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Judgment call, and it looks like the coverage rises to the level of notability required. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it might not be a bad idea to merge the article with the 2008 South Carolina Senate race. Seems like better practice than every candidate having a page persisting after elections would be to move that material into the election artice. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on Flatterworld's merging of information. Most losing candidates are not notable outside of the election, which is given its own article. Bob Conley's name will, if redirected, link to the article that provides the information about him. All persons who have ever served in their nation's legislature, whether it's the U.S. Congress or the Andorra board of supervisors, are considered inherently notable under Wikipedia rules; and elections for national office (which include mention of all candidates) are inherently notable. However, inherent notability should not be extended to persons merely because they ran for office. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Doesn't coverage from independant sources assert notability? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Point: As I noted above, WP:BIO says "[j]ust being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, we can assume that an individual who is an "unelected candidate for political office" for whom significant coverage does exist does meet the notability requirements. Perhaps in this case we should err on the side of keeping the article, rather than a delete or a merge, and take this issue up for consensus at a higher level, as suggested by Flatterworld. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a lot of colons... It would be nice to have some sort of official policy on this, rather than having to try and interpret the current one. I'm going to make a proposal on the WP:BIO talk page. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more colons, we making big sausages? I'll check it out when you do, because I tend to agree that this needs to be "officially" sorted out. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion seems to be between "coverage from independent sources" and "coverage from independent sources other than about the event". iow, one can have hundreds of articles about Bob Conley, but if they're all in connection with this campaign he's not Wikipedia-notable outside that one event. Flatterworld (talk) 00:41, 6 January 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 as failing WP:N (and any specifically applicable subsections). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hilldale Lutheran Church

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

This article is about a church that does not establish notability. The article was previously nominated in August 2006 and closed with no consensus. Many of the keep arguments were that there appeared to be potential for notability. However, in over 2 years. I realize there is no deadline. However, my own search to find sources turns up only event listings that one would expect of any church. There no articles about the church. In particular, one area that the previous AFD referred to for potential notability was being a bilingual Finnish-English church, but that fact hasn't really generated coverage. Whpq (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability appears unprovable, so fails WP:Notability. Length of existance and bilingual nature do not establish notability, many churches are biligual or have existed without mention for long periods of time. The key here is the lack of information establishing notability. Unless presented with such information from a reliable third-party source, I must concur with the nominator. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: found one Gnews result for an event at the church. http://lakesuperiornews.info/LifeStyles/Arts/Music/MusicalMavens/tabid/867/Default.aspx Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The church is often used for concerts (search: "Hilldale Lutheran Church" music), with several articles mentioning its excellence for this purpose, so has some notability in the community outside its normal function. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Checked the articles and could not find much beyond the fact the church is used for performances. Nothing notable about the building itself. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Change, Weak Keep: I wasn't thorough enough in my initial searching. There are a number of articles and mentions of the facility being used as a music venue, and for other purposes which push it right to the edge or slightly over the notability requirement. The mentions in these references are questionable as to proving notability, but the volume of them pushes me to where I'd be comfortable keeping the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you point out some of these references? It would be useful for other editors taking part in the discussion. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I just googled the search suggestion of Aymatth2. (See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Hilldale+Lutheran+Church%22+music&start=30&sa=N). One thing I read that may be useful for more sources, and is a questionable actual source itself (probably not third-party), is a long report that seems to have a great deal to do with the Bilingual arguments brought up in the previous Afd. See: https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/3028/faithful.pdf?sequence=2 Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis - I still don't see how those sources establish it as a notable music venue. The first result returned is a university paper, and appears not to be independent as the preface states "First I would like to thank the faithful and committed members of the congregation who called me to be their pastor." The second result is a Thunderbay tourism guide and merely mentions it as a venue where the local symphony orchestra sometimes plays. Acoording to that "...the TBSO present inspiring Masterworks and entertaining Pops concerts in the Community Auditorium; intriguing Classical Plus concerts at the lovely Hilldale Lutheran Church; Cabaret evenings in the relaxed setting of the Italian Cultural Centre; and Family concerts at the Thunder Bay Art Gallery." As such it doesn't appear that the location is anything special, and no mention is made of any acoustic quality that would separate it from the other venues such as the community auditorium and the Italian cultural centre. The third and fourth results are event listings that say nothing beyond the church being the place where the event is taking place. The fifth links to a wiki user's subpage. The sixth has the church being part of music event listings. Note that it is not the only church mentioned in the event listings as many music events are held in churches. The seventh and eighth are obituary listings. And the last is a wiki mirror. Aside from the first result, none of the search results show anything more than a mere mention of the church, and certainly nothing to distinguish the church as something special from the point of view of being a music venue. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am quite uncertain about this one. There are a great many places of worship in the world, but most of them have no special historical or architectural interest, and no particular controversy. They are ordinary buildings used for the purpose for which they were built, and not at all notable. A good test for any article is whether the content is or could be entirely backed-up by independent sources. With this article as it is now, none of the content qualifies...
But there are quite a lot of independent sources that describe the qualities of the place as a music venue. It could be rewritten from this viewpoint, based on solid refs. But would this make it truly notable? Not sure - and not volunteering for the rewrite. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you provide some links to specific articles that describe the church as a music venue? The search result list Jo7hs2 provided doesn't establish this. See above analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Here is one page that talks about the qualities of the facility... http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:J8R6qrLpHKIJ:www.tbso.ca/_docs/TBSO_Brochure_2008.pdf+%22Hilldale+Lutheran%22+%22thunder+bay%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=222&gl=us quote: "Ou rClassical Plus series once again intrigues with familiar favourites and new discoveries in the intimate atmosphere and wonderful acoustic of Hilldale Lutheran Church."Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the source is sales brochure from the TBSO, so it's a little dubious as a source, and is only quasi-independent. It's a very weak source to hang any sort of notability on. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Good question. When I made my "weak keep" vote I had just noticed 7 pages of search results for the church name+music. When I work through them, they describe past or future events, but not the church itself, apart from the occasional "beautiful.". I have changed to "delete". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - note that the university paper is not an independent source. See above search result analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - it is a very serious piece of research using a well defined methodology - I think we might stretch a point to allow it as a source - but even allowing it, I still agree with your move to delete this article. Off topic- perhaps we might hope for an article on Transition from an Immigrant Congregation, if anything else has been written on it? Springnuts (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I'd say it is useful as a supporting reference if other independent reliable sources could be found. But at this point, it appears to be the only source of substance, and it really can't stand alone. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Springnuts (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/Springnuts: That article is a serious research paper, or at least attempted to be one, and were there another source that met the notability guidelines, I would be more than comfortable considering it a valid source. However, no such source has been found. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Change again Delete: Per above, changing to Delete. Shear volume of sources outweighed by shear uselessness of them. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep (another change): In light of a recent discovery (discussed below), I am changing yet again, to weak keep. I just found a mention in a published source, Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples, pg 518. (http://books.google.com/books?id=dbUuX0mnvQMC&pg=PA518&lpg=PA518&dq=Hilldale+Lutheran+Church+immigrant&source=bl&ots=K6y3oCc1jM&sig=ZOEklR5kd2AimFpo193cnV8sVmI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA519,M1) Which states "Today the Finns of Thunder Bay have five congregations...Hilldale Lutheran (formerly Finnish Independant)...". (This is confirmed in an online copy of the book at: http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/Encyclopedia/A-Z/f2/5) The Leo Glad source from the University of Helsinki, "Faithful to the History Faithful to the Future. Transition from an Immigrant Congregation to an Ethnic Congregation" is a clear case of a valid source proving notability. I have no question as to the reliability of the paper. It was published as a paperback, it is well researched and written, and has heavy coverage of this church. It does have a third-party issue, because the author appears to have been a pastor at the church. However, I would argue that this is a case for a good source deserving some wiggle room. The Canada's Peoples encyclopedia is admittedly a weak source, but a mention in an encyclopedia has some measure of extra weight in my mind. Sure, it isn't an article, but paper encyclopedias are constrained by page limits, and we aren't. With the shear weight of material suggesting the church is a concert venue, the academic article which has a heavy focus on the church, and an encyclopedia mention, I feel there may be merit to this article, so I cannot vote for deletion. However, it is still a weak case. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would disagree that the characterisation that there is any weight to of material that attests to the church's notability as a concert venue. Churches commonly host music events, and there are no articles that I've found, or that have been found by any others participating in this discussion beyond a directory listing. If directory listings for music were to be the metric by which we could measure a church's notability, I'm confident that we can manage to include almost every single church in the world. I can agree there is some wiggle room with the university paper (and have said so above). But the encyclopedia mention is literally that. A mention. It isn't even the sole subject of the sentence in which it is mentioned. Yes paper encyclopedia are contrained by space, but I would still want to see more than that one mention in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thunder Bay, Ontario. This is usually the best solution for churches, primary schools, etc, which are only of local significance. This preserves the content (or a summary of it) without having an articleon a NN subject. Jo7hs2 may have provided evidence of notability, but in that case the artile needs to be expanded taking into account the book's content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge; I have considered this before but haven't gotten to it because my contribution level has declined lately. I grew up in the area of this church and it wasn't even very notable there, the article isn't very necessary. Thunder Bay has many other notable religious landmarks this would be a good addition to a subsection about them in the city's article instead. Also, there are many churches in the city that have concerts, including a 100+ year old church that plays host to the local symphony orchestra, and it doesn't have an article, so... vıdıoman 07:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Thunder Bay#Places of Worship. A decidedly arbitrary list; I hope other editors will clean it up and add detail. There are well over 100 places of worship in Thunder Bay, mostly not at all notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 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 Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus: 2012

edit
Nostradamus: 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unaired programme, Wikipedia is not the TV Times and there is no indication of intrinsic external notability outside the TV schedules Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Multiple mentions in third party sources, most of which reliable. Much as I'd love to see cruft like this show deleted, and stay off the History channel, I have to vote keep because the show meets WP:Notability. Sources follow:

I think the Cinemablend and NPR articles together, discounting the others if they are too close to blog-like content, satisfy WP:Notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While The History Channel is generally very sophisticated, it also has to air bullshit programs about Nostradamus and UFO sightings and the Bible Code as part of its reach to everyone. The article and the nomination effectively combine to alert us that this will air in a few days, but we're not TV guide. Nostradamus 2012-- Don't fail to miss it! Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 1 January 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 Deleted, G7 by Thingg. Lenticel (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urth trading card game

edit
Urth trading card game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and non-professionally-published trading card game, with no sources listed let alone ones that would pass WP:RS. I'd speedy-delete it but unfortunately no speedy criterion seems to fit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for helping me and giving me a part of your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) ok dudes you can burn this page delete the article i dont care —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateia2 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) --Mateia2 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)DELETE THE ARTICLE CAUSE I DONT CARE[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 Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Chater

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

Autobiography written by editor with possible conflict of interest. Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability as the notability of this person or his works are not established by the claims in the article or the references provided. =Axlq 17:48, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eprocks

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

I haven't found any significant coverage of this institution in google news, books, or web search. I can't find any independant reliable sources even mentioning EPRocks in the passing. Thereby it fails notability guidelines. It will also have a hard time supplying verifiable encyclopedic content, failing WP:V Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2008 (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. — Aitias // discussion 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Married to Music

edit
Married to Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete: I can find two sources that push it to weak delete.
The rest of what I can turn up is mostly wikpedia knockoffs, so with only one reliable article, squeaks below WP:Notability and should be deleted. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 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 Conjoined twins. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conjoinment

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

Contested PROD, "Non-notable neologism; article is orphaned; previously taged with non-notability." Additionally the articles has no sources and an attempt to find any came up with nothing. BJTalk 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Conjoined twins. There are several issues here. First "conjoinment" is not (only) a fictitious process, as the article states, it also refers to humans or animials that are joined from birth. See Conjoined twins. Secondly, a Gnews search turns up some sources for the term "conjoinment". It appears that most of these refer to conjoined twins, not a fictitious process. Given that, the use of the term "conjoinment" to refer to a fictitious process appears to be a non-notable, and thus inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I might also be open to a section called "Fictitious conjoinment" within the Conjoined twins article.  LinguistAtLarge  17:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Wikipedia should not delete this article because it's a distinct subject and serves to help real people find communities and support. Articles such as this are an important lifeline to people who could be experiencing unbearable stress over what they feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.49 (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A process that the article explicitly tells us to be "fictitious" requires a support group for real people? I think not. You'll find that closing administrators won't take such an argument seriously. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Conjoined twins. I didn't find much on conjoinment as described in the article, and the uses of conjoinment that were significant were related to conjoined twins. -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see why the admins are so motivated to remove the article. It covers a subject important to thousands of people around the world. As is stated at the top of the page, wikipedia is paid for by the users, is created by the users, is maintained by the users, and should have the content that the users want. Wikipedia is a public commons. If this is about any specific wording in the article or any other failing, then I have and will continue to make edits to bring it up to acceptable standards. There are few links in the article because people who would add such links are probably associated with the groups the links would be to and therefore refrain for fear of violating the spam policy. It must also be pointed out that the removal of articles such as this from sites such as this (not that there are many!), creates a negative feedback loop where a topic, no matter how important, is simply not covered anywhere because it is not covered anywhere. I don't claim that this topic is special in its importance, not at all. only that it deserves a few hard disk sectors along side all the useful anime trivia. I'm not making any claims either for or against anime trivia, nor am I equating this with anime trivia (though it contains some), only that I'm concerned that the subject is being targeted for removal without good cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.49 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone has an agenda to remove the article. However, Wikipedia has standards as to what content is allowed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of material, rather it is an encyclopedia and the criteria for inclusion is verifiable notability. In other words, the subject must be notable per Wikipedia policy and that notability must be verifiable via reliable sources.  LinguistAtLarge  21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong on so many points. So here are just two: Wikipedia is a public commons. — No, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It must also be pointed out that the removal of articles such as this from sites such as this (not that there are many!), creates a negative feedback loop where a topic, no matter how important, is simply not covered anywhere because it is not covered anywhere. — Hard cheese. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. If something has not escaped its creators/inventors and entered the general corpus of human knowledge, and hasn't been documented in published works by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy, then it isn't appropriate content. See our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. If someone wants the heretofore undocumented documented, xe should use the proper avenues for documenting new knowledge. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It's not an academic journal. It's not a newspaper. It's not a WWW hosting service. It's an encyclopaedia. Please read Wikipedia:About and learn about Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your argument is that because conjoinment has not been studied scientifically it can't be described at all? A reference I posted to a list of links to conjoinment sites was removed from the article, the reason for this removal was not stated. I can only conclude from this that primary sources are not acceptable reference material for Wikipedia... My statement above about the circularity of non-inclusion definitely holds in this case too. Since you won't allow it on Wikipedia for not having papers written about it, scientists won't learn about it and write papers about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.168.49 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't get the sense that this fetish has anything substantive to do with conjoined twins and would not redirect there. The article's problem is failure to convey any notability. The connection to Vorarephilia seems more apt-- i.e., a kind of fetish or fantasy involving massive bodily transformations. Without some kind of media coverage, though, it's not gonna stand up to the notability test. So as it stands, it's original research. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original nom, what should have been an uncontroversial delete but oh well; at most, redirect to conjoined twins Zero sharp (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it stay This fetish is real and I am one person who has it, and yes it can really influence your life because it is something you have to deal with just like being homosexual or heterosexual. And this fetish does not have anything to do with Vorarephilia. While some people may have both fetishes, a conjoinment fetish means you get mentally/physically aroused by the idea of conjoining with another human being, or witnessing a conjoined human being. And Vorarephilia is not anything close to that. Also, while right now it is impossible/near impossible to realize a real life conjoinment due to technological barriers, in future decades this may not be the case and you may see people become conjoined with one another. While millions of people do not have this fetish, enough do to warrant the article to remain up for the people who do have this fetish(which remains in the thousands at least), and for people who are curious to find out what this fetish is. Also there are many sites that have to do with this fetish that have not been linked to the article, for reasons I do not know. These websites could be used as a source to find out more about this fetish that is very real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madden2themax5 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 January 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. John254 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Lipson

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

This article appears to be a resumé of a postdoctoral student or professor who has published and received honors like many other professors. I see nothing particularly distinguishing about this one. We don't need an article on every person who has published in a journal, received a Fulbright fellowship or NSF student award. The only significant claim of notability ("...was considered an important step...") is unsourced. Article was prodded, removed by editor who suggested further discussion in AfD. =Axlq 17:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the "important step" part, her work seems to have gotten a reasonable amount of news coverage, although admittedly the scope of the coverage (which barely focuses on her, and is rather about a particular discovery) might mean that the technique is a better subject for an article than the researcher. --Delirium (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is now a keep per Nsk92 and Crusio below. Meets WP:PROF.  LinguistAtLarge  21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Both GoogleScholar[19] and WebOfScience show significant citability of her work, particularly the Nature papers. In addition to my general comments regarding the CAREER award above, here is a news article[20] specifically about Lipson receiving this award. There is also significant regular newscoverage of her, even if one filters out the Science Daily Press releases, e.g. [21] (where NSF characterizes the work as breakthrough), [22][23][24][25][26][27], etc. Nsk92 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Although Career awards certainly are prestigious, they aren't hugely useful in distinguishing notable from merely research-active faculty: The NSF has given out around 2500 of them in the past 5 years, which is a pretty significant percentage of total research-active US-based junior science faculty. --Delirium (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mostly agree, but I did want to point out that the CAREER grants are not student awards, as the nom seems to have thought, and that they are more prestigious than ordinary NSF grants and thus can be considered as valid contributing factors towards satisfying Criterion 1 of WP:PROF. I would not !vote keep simply based on the CAREER award; as I said these grants are not prestigious enough to satisfy criterion 2 of WP:PROF outright. And I should say, speaking from personal experience as a professional mathematician, only very few and the very best of the research-active junior faculty get CAREER grants. At least that is the case for math, maybe things are different in more applied sciences. Nsk92 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, OK, let's not lose focus over a distraction. I struck out the word "student". I originally assumed that due to the "youth" context in the article. =Axlq 02:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fulbright is also highly selective and prestigious. Here in France, Fubright fellows are welcomed in the Senate by the secretary for education and several senators, as well as (of course) the US ambassador. But apart from that, all sources found by Nsk92 are obviously sufficient. Meets WP:PROF and WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about that. Lots of American professors get Fulbright grants and fellowships and are welcomed practically as royalty in foreign countries. It's a distinction, yes, but still below the notability threshold. A close relative of mine is a Fulbright fellow (and more published than Michal Lipson) but I wouldn't write an article about him. The only legitimate claim of notability in the article doesn't have a source. =Axlq 02:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that someone at this relatively early stage of their career would have to have achieved something special to deserve an article, but I think this is the case here. How many scientists at any stage in their career can boast coauthorship on three Nature papers? I don't know the area at all, but the citation record appears impressive, with two papers having over 200 citations (294, 246), three more over 100 citations (158, 115, 104) & a further 8 papers having over 50 citations per Google Scholar.[28] Meets my understanding of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:52, 2 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babilon

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

In the unclear notability category since September-07. Non-notable group/band. The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:02, 1 January 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 Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009

edit
United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Legislature failed to change the law to allow this election. Chances of this election happening are now very slim. If, somehow, the law does get changed and the whole Blago/Burris mess gets changed to a special election after all, THEN this article can be recreated. But right now it's gone from being slightly speculative to a violation of WP:Crystal.—Markles 14:50, 1 January 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. Independent coverage appears to be lacking. Although WP:N is a guideline which can be ignored, no compelling reason has been presented why it should be ignored in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropedia Foundation

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

Notability is asserted by inheritance from the board of directors, but not established. 31 unique Google hits, including Wikipedia article and categories. The creator is a single-purpose account, behaviour indicates a conflict of interest. Article is entirely self-sourced and comprised mainly of laundry lists. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Anthropedia claims to be a "health education" non-profit, not a scientific research organization, so it is understandable that it would not show up on Google Books or Scholar. However, various members of the Board and Institute have published in peer-reviewed journals. As for Google News, this organization clearly is young and has not garnered much publicity, but the same could be said for other organizations/institutes with pages here. Given that the language is neutral and generally informative, I would recommend maintaining the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.47.66 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to echo the abovementioned comment that responds to the use of Google Scholar, etc. as a litmus test for legitimacy in this particular case; a search of members of the Institute and/or Board of Directors reveals hundreds of entries of peer-reviewed publications. Additionally, it seems that the organization meets the two alternate criteria outlined in the notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations: its activities are national/international in scope, and information about the organization can be verified by reliable third party partners and collaborators. Inquiry,enquiry (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This foundation has many notable members on its board, which is more than can be said for many of the small non-profit pages that appear in the wikipedia database. A quick look at its website also shows that it is not a local enterprise and that they have been active in various communities around the world. For example, they have given workshops and lectures on their programs in both the national and international circuits (see, for example, http://www.aidwellbeing.org/site/PageServer?pagename=programs_healthconf). They work with the Center for Well-Being at Washington University in St. Louis and host the online version of the TCI personality test, which appears in the Wikipedia database (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperament_and_Character_Inventory and http://psychobiology.wustl.edu). --Stevericks (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the "keep votes" come from brand-new accounts and unregistered IP addresses, and since accounts are free on Wikipedia, this naturally will make some people wonder whether all of these comments might be from the same person. It also suggests that the "keep" supporters are probably unfamiliar with Wikipedia's process for deleting articles. Since this is not a majority vote, I'd like to clarify for our new editors (welcome!) that what we need for an article on an organization is a bona fide independent, third-party publication (e.g., a story in a major newspaper or magazine) that is about the specific organization. Note that an article about the organization is different from an article that merely happens to mention the organization, or that is about a single person or member of the organization. One detailed profile in a major media outlet trumps all "delete" comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page for Wikipedia and appreciate all of the input to this discussion. As noted in the initial post, this was my first article on the database; I have done some volunteer work for Anthropedia and thought it was well-deserving of an entry. I followed the guidelines mentioned above; namely, that an organization needs to be national/international in scope and have third party partners that can verify information about it. Anthropedia meets both criteria. I guess I could have added (and would add), for example, an external link to Project Rebirth, which is one of Anthropedia's partners (http://www.projectrebirth.org/partners.php), though I did provide a list of partners. I could have also provided a link to an article on the foundation published in Excellence International (http://www.excellence-international.ch/), a high profile lifestyle publication (http://www.aidwellbeing.org/site/DocServer/excellenceinternational.pdf?docID=129). Anthropedia is a young organization and does not yet have a strong presence online, but, while often a good way to learn about an organization, this is not a criterion according to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Anthropedia has partnerships with highly reputed organizations such as the World Health Organization and Project Rebirth, and has participated in international projects. In addition, as someone already noted, the members of the board and institute are extremely notable, and they are the basis of the foundation. In sum, while I am new to this and respect the judgment of those who are more knowledgeable about the Wikipedia community, I do not think it is appropriate to delete this entry. I do not believe the article is biased, nor does it try to sell any product. Moreover, the page will be of interest, if not immediately to a mainstream audience, certainly to researchers, health specialists, and other organizations. Thank you for your consideration.Volume28 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium Indulgence

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

Self published, non-notable book Blowdart | talk 13:56, 1 January 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. MBisanz talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryans In India are the survivors of Trojan War

edit
Aryans In India are the survivors of Trojan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

disputable claims(no scientific standards), no reference to any academic work, reads like a fantasy story Wandalstouring (talk) 13:33, 1 January 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.  Sandstein  17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional places in G.I. Joe

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of fictional places in G.I. Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless list consisting of plot summary and unsourced analysis. Notability has been in question since October 2007, but to date no reliable independent sources have been found. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above--Wadeperson (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is sourced, I added in the sources myself. Was there some editing I missed? And plot summary seems to be said as a bad thing, which confuses me. A list of names by themselves -would- be pointless. Lots42 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further examination reveals a bunch of 'Country X is meant to stand in for Real Country Y'. I can see how this contributed to this very page. I deleted the speculation. But the rest of the sources I added in are still there. Lots42 (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reliable independent sources in the article. Apart from the speculation you mentioned, the article is plot summary (sourced to the original work of fiction), which should be avoided in this form per WP:NOT#PLOT. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:14, 1 January 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. I don't think we need to wait for the full AfD to finish for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George kostaki

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

Article created October 2007 and no development since then. Almost certainly created in error - note mispelling of surname and lower case - given that there is a major article on the same subject: George Costakis, predating this page. Indeed, the first line of this article appears to be an attempt at a redirect to the real page, though given the misspelling it is probably unnecessary to redirect anyway. Emeraude (talk) 12:38, 1 January 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 G4 delete per previous AFD (hadn't realised when I nommed the article) Nancy talk 12:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Corey

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

.American actress and university lecturer. I just declined an A7 speedy on this one as there are mentions of Broadway roles etc however I am not convinced there is enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Roles appear to be minor although she has once understudied a lead. Nancy talk 11:59, 1 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Progressivism

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

Unclear if this neologism is notable enough to warrant an article of its own. A simple redirect to Culture Warrior would probably be ok. Soman (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete: I was half way through writing a PROD rationale on this article when the AfD appeared! First up, it is an unreferenced neologism. O'Reilly is notable but the terms he makes up probably are not. If they gain wider, mainstream, currency (outside of his fanbase) then that makes them notable. No evidence is provided that this is the case here. It seems unlikely that a meaningless neologism who's (unreferenced) definition seems to boil down to "whatever annoys O'Reilly" is really of any use to anybody but O'Reilly himself and maybe his fanbase. Exactly how conservative Islamic groups can be considered "secular" or "progressive" is entirely beyond me. No evidence is supplied that O'Reilly really does include them in his definition. Secondly. the article is written in a horrendous POV style and would require a complete rewrite if it were to be kept. The author uses "far-left" as a meaningless term of abuse which he incorrectly applies to mainstream US newspapers. He has also vandalised the article on the Nazi Party trying to repaint them as a "far-left" group. The most charitable interpretation is that he doesn't know what the far-left really is. Less charitable interpretations would be that the author is only here for propagandist purposes or that this is a ill-conceived parody possibly even intended to make O'Reilly look stupid. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per DanielRigal. Sharveet (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not because it is unnotable but in its current shape the article is not getting the job done. Creator's motives should not play a factor here as much as his behaviour on Nazi Party was annoying. Str1977 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR. Shot info (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I noticed this article when I checked the contributions of User:Nickidewbear, to see what else he was doing. Well, at least this explains where he got his views from, that he added to the article: Nazi Party. Probably the material shouldn't be deleted but moved to Culture Warrior, but then, on the other hand, it is certainly not written from a neutral point-of-view and doesn't use any secondary sources, so I have to say: delete.
  • Strong Delete - I killed off the wp:BLP violations that I could see, but it still looks like an attack article.sinneed (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe redirect to an O'Reilly article. Croctotheface (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - It's bad enough that the article is simply a neologism (unreferenced and with no claim of notability), but it's quickly turning into a mere list of things the author doesn't like. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If my critics watched The O'Reilly Factor and the Fox News Channel as well as read Culture Warrior, they would understand that, among other things, Bill O'Reilly did refer to Soros, Lewis, and others as secular progressive, far left, etc. I also have a suspicion that some of my critics are themselves far left and secular progressive.

Nickidewbear (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also could be possible that you are confirming everything that other editors above (aka your "my critics") have just stated? Shot info (talk) 02:27, 5 January 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 Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TerrainView-Globe

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

This article fails wikipedia's notability standards, I do not see why this specific program is notable besides all other programs out there that do the same thing. Wikipedia is not free ad space. The only sources so far are not even independent from the subject.

What a program is capable of does not make it notable. — Dædαlus Contribs 11:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is about the 3th time that ViewTec is trying to sneak in an article about their product TerrainView-Globe or TerrainView-Lite into Wikipedia. The original author user Interactive3d (talk · contribs) was tagged as sock puppet of the user Viewtec (talk · contribs) or vice versa. The last time when the article about TerrainView got deleted the author of the article (Viewtec (talk · contribs)) claimed to be the CEO of ViewTec. So the only person behind those accounts can be Dr. Michael Beck. Another sign of that ViewTec them self are behind this article can be found in the edit history of the article. The IP 91.138.108.44 resolves clearly to app.viewtec.net and I bet that all the changes are coming from this IP address or from AS41715. Every monkey and his dog are writing today Geo or Geo aware applications. TerrainView might be the best invention before or since slice bread but it is not notable. When TerrainView becomes so popular and significant as Google Earth or NASA World Wind or Microsoft Virtual Earth 3D then users will automatically create a Wikipedia entry for TerrainView. No need for you to be so penetrative. In short: Enough of this pushy behavior! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.36.184.177 (talk)
  • Keep TerrainView-Globe article is not a new article. It was listed in wikipedia in 2007. Worldwide it exists just a few 3D Globe geo solutions of big players. The open system architecture and the Virtual Reality based features e.g. CMAX are notable enough. Interactive3d 14:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interactive3d (talk • contribs)
74.63.221.234 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G7 and R3. --Oxymoron83 09:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_United_States_Senators_in_the_11st_Congress_by_seniority

edit
List_of_United_States_Senators_in_the_11st_Congress_by_seniority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Misspelling in Page Title Dunstvangeet (talk) 08:24, 1 January 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crixás UFO Incident

edit
Crixás UFO Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Do not think this was a notable event. Does not seem to have any third-party reliable sources which discuss it that are not UFO-fansites. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:27, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Bennett (writer)

edit
Colin Bennett (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Do not believe that this is a notable author. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Notability derived from an appearance at a convention and publication of three niche-paperbacks and a few articles in Fortean times? Doesn't seem to pass the muster with me. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:19, 1 January 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 Taken. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Freedom of Information

edit
Coalition for Freedom of Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe that this orginization is essentially WP:ONEEVENT. It was set-up as a promotional stunt for a television program. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article considerably including a number of additional references. The claims that the organization is a mere PR ploy are just that, allegations, and it would be inappropriate in the context of this AFD to deal with this as established fact. I might add that I had no problem finding relable sources using Google search and I did not exhaust the available hits, so anyone who wants to expand the article even further should be able to do that. __meco (talk) 11:07, 3 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin C. Girvin

edit
Calvin C. Girvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Complete and utter obscurity. The article itself admits that he is the "most obscure of the 1950s contactees". Sources generally mention him off hand in single sentences! (E.g. the Look magazine account.) Definitely fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 1 January 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 Steven M. Greer in order to preserve merged information edit history per requirements of GFDL. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSETI

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

This particular organization excites the passions of various UFO-enthusiasts, the ZetaTalk crowd, and those who believe in Ashtar Galactic Command, but unlike other organizations who seem to have renown enough to have many third-party independent sources which discuss them, this particular group has received no notice from anyone outside of the parochial community. It is impossible to write an article on them for a mainstream neutral encyclopedia. What's more, the organization appears to fail our organization notability guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:47, 1 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess of Du'val

edit
AfDs for this article:
The Princess of Du'val (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book, if even extant. Only Google hit I found is for a website from which the book can be ordered. Also note that I have left intact the article creator's line: "UNDER CONSTRUCTION", which he placed there two days ago. He has not returned to the article since, though a prod placed by another editor has been removed. Unschool 05:40, 1 January 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 per G3, G7 and this discussion. --Oxymoron83 09:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotypical syndrome

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

It appears to be an article about a disease, but no references are cited, and a "joke alert" image appears in the middle, making the article look like a joke. —macyes: bot 03:58, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peafowl (software)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 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 Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanon Wakeshima

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

Unnotable singer. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Just debuted this year with two minor songs in an anime series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Most of article is unsourced or from promo sites. CSD person removed by self-proclaimed fan whose user page notes that he is "in love" with her, but as he is not the article creator, did not restore. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - she is signed by a major label, which has set release dates for 2 of her albums (see this and this). I believe this is enough to satisfy the spirit of WP:Music. Óðinn (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um...that is the same album. Same tracks and everything, which fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Yes, indeed. Changing to delete. Óðinn (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep With the combined fulfillment of WP:Music criteria #10, almost-fulfillment of #5, and her small roll in Vampire Knight, I think she is notable enough. The cited sources are pretty bad, though. If necessary, the article should just be redirected to Vampire Knight so that if she becomes more notable in the future the article can be more easily revived. Theymos (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until either her second album is out or she charts, her only claim to notability evidenced is based on WP:MUSIC #10, and that guideline suggests that if this is the only claim, then mention in the show's article suffices. If the first album was actually out, I might say keep anyway, but instead redirect to Vampire Knight without prejudice against recreation if she ever meets another criterion of WP:MUSIC. Kind of a shame, as a good job has been done writing a basic start-class article with info beyond the singles/albums; maybe the text can be userfied to save it? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I draw your attention to criteria #2 of WP:MUSICBIO. She has landed a charted position on a national chart (#22 w/ her first single Still Doll on the Oricon daily), and therefore is a notable artist. She must only meet one item for her to be included as a notable artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.241.44 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your source for this is? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G12 and G11. --Oxymoron83 09:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Nursing Practice Network (NNPN)

edit
National Nursing Practice Network (NNPN) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:53, 1 January 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.

Nick Pope

edit

The result was unanimous snowball keep. Non admin closure. --Terrillja talk 16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is written like a fan page. Only very recently got any outside third party sources at all, and those are not enough to establish notability per Wikipedia standards. I had prodded this, another supported the prod with, but prod was challenged with the claim that it was notable. Looking for broader input than just the page watchers. DreamGuy (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been fixed now, and a few more references added. IMHO "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:N has more than met (probably was met before the AFD, TBH) and I'm now just looking for sources to cite for specific claims, as well as doing a little bit of tidy up. Artw (talk) 05:51, 1 January 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JODIE WELLS

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

WP:NOT a place for school book reports. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:35, 1 January 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drone Forest

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

Stub with insufficient context to identify the subject; no assertion of notability. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I have added a link to drone music that provides some idea of what the context is but I can't see notability or verifiability. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--and given that this is barely sensible, perhaps a speedy. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam drive by User:Davieblint see also [29], [30], [31]. No evidence of notability; though far from the only offender in this regard. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • thank you for this DanielRigal, yours is the only positive response and it's both constructive and welcoming. However, I believe user Drmies needs to a) respect that I have been here for about five minutes and b) remember the rule "no personal attacks" and personally (speaking as a person) I find the comment "this is barely sensible" extremely hurtful and insensitive. Back to the original objection from Kurt Raschke, again, without compassion for a novice user, he slates my first-ever article for instantaneous deletion, the article is based on factual information and I wrote it in good faith, but, he rejects it out of hand, and damns it less than five minutes after it was born. That's not welcoming either. And how on earth am I to just "suddenly understand" "assertion of notability" (surely one of the most subjective concepts ever conceived) or know HOW TO provide these assertions for the chosen topic? Also - generally, I feel it would be more constructive, not to mention more courteous, to HELP me make this article a SUCCESS instead of standing around criticising! I think that both the "welcoming" rule and the "no personal attacks" rules have been at least bent, if not broken, by your various unthinking, callous remarks. TELL ME HOW TO FIX THIS SO THE ARTICLE CAN STAY. Please. Thank you. Davie Blint, New Year's Day, NOT a happy editor. By the way....what the heck is a "spam drive" and why am I accused of it? And I see you have so kindly pointed out my other contributions, which suggests you would like to delete those out of hand as well, WITHOUT thinking or considering that they, and I, have VALUE. Less criticism, more helpful, welcoming, kind remarks would be nice. I believe that by calling my contribution "spam", and not trying to help, and being nothing but critical and even mean, that you are acting like the Wiki police, not like members of a helpful, CO-OPERATING, editing TEAM. Am I wrong? Please discuss. 86.158.66.233 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)(talk) 15:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)]]) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're protesting a too much. Clearly from what you write in your final few sentences there you actually do know what Semitransgenic means. And a comment that an article is barely sensisible says nothing about you as a person at all. To assert otherwise is a distraction tactic.

      Notability is far from subjective, as the explanation already linked-to above (Wikipedia:Notability) explains. What you need, per the definition of notability, are multiple independent published works that discuss this subject in depth from identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Show that they exist, rather than trying to play the much-overused "Your comment on the article is a personal attack." card. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I meant nothing personal--'sensible' here means 'intelligible'; this article is not encyclopedic in that it doesn't have the organization of one, and I simply don't understand what it is trying to say. I'll not rub salt by explaining how; suffice it to say that the article does not meet the requirements. But that is not a personal remark; we have all had criticism leveled at our work here. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 January 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer prg

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

No references, no assertion of notability. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:29, 1 January 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missosology

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

Thinly-veiled references to a website that studies beauty pageants. So-called references include the site itself, a blog, a comment on a Wikia site referring to a Harry Turtledove satirical piece that has nothing do with this subject, and a comment on a Wikia link that refers to the previous ref. It borders on WP:BOLLOCKS, but it's mainly a neologism with no usage outside this one web site. All ghits are either to the site itself or links to it. Not notable in the least. (Contested prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neo at best, no reliable sources, no notability (and badly written to boot). Unusual? Quite TalkQu 01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to tell tyou the turth, this article was created as a repsonse to Miss Tourism World; in tha tarticle, the article refers to "missologists" which according to my resaerch on Goolgl indicates that this might be soemthign connected to the world of beauty pagenats. If at all possible, i am humbly requestiong assistance ine stablishing notability; al ot of prominennt places seem to reference this concept so i thought it was notable. please dont be angr y with me i was only working on improving the flourry of red lnks prevalient throughout certain sections of the Wikipedia Smith Jones (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not angry at all. We've all had articles up for deletion before. Keep on trying, and don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well this was a bad choice of where to start helping with that, given that it isn't actually a word. In the future, please bear in mind that people red-link all sorts of rubbish. That doesn't necessarily imply that a valid article can be written at the red-linked titles. Sometimes it means that the content of the article with the link in requires serious attention. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • thats a fair point and i thank you for your exepertise/advice. I googled Missosology and it hoguth it was some kind of tehcnical term that was used in the beauty pageant agency/industry. and then i saw this really professional looking wwebsite here which indicates an affiliation to several prominent modeling competitons liek Miss Universe and Miss Earth and Miss World which was all having their old articles remainder. Smith Jones (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unusual, you are being kind. Article lacks coherence and, most of all, verifiable and dependable sources to establish the notability of its topic. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There might be an entry here, but as written this should be deleted. AniMatetalk 17:40, 1 January 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical fellow

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

The article's notability is in question since September 2007, and there's some dispute in that respect on the talk page. In my opinion, the topic does not meet WP:N. Namely, no independent sources have been provided to back up that "Technical fellow" is a term or concept in general use (apart from naming coincidences). If, on the other hand, this concept relates to one company only, I don't think it's worth an article - there's no point in hosting there staff list or organization chart on Wikipedia. B. Wolterding (talk) 00:51, 1 January 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 G10. This page was created to disparage a specific racial group. TerriersFan (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original settlement of Sri Lanka

edit
Original settlement of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced attacks of other groups Eeekster (talk) 00:45, 1 January 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Overstreet

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:42, 1 January 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. John254 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic Economics Magazine

edit
Chiropractic Economics Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable magazine with no references. Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Author did article no favours by not attempting to establish notability. However, a quick scan on Google suggests that this is a serious long-standing publication, and the fact that it has been running for fifty years (as suggesting by GNews search) counts in its favour. I think this article is rescuable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 January 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) 06:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace duraflo

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

Non-notable permastub with no sources. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:44, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 January 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of political organizations whose name include "Marxist-Leninist"

edit
List of political organizations whose name include "Marxist-Leninist" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate listcruft. It is a violation of WP:IINFO and WP:LC, items #2, 5, 7, 8, 10. Tavix (talk) 00:11, 1 January 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. MBisanz talk 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eustacius de Yerburgh

edit
Eustacius de Yerburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources for the existence of this person. Even if the Arlington Cemetery site is a reliable source, which is debatable, it just mentions this person in passing. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep being the founder of a noble house is obviously notable. Saying sources are non-existent is dubious unless paper references have also been perused. - Mgm|(talk) 20:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not my responsibility to look for paper references. There are only Ten Google hits, period, and none of them is a reliable source. Find references, and I'll reconsider, until then, this violates WP:V. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is your responsibility to look for sources. Per longstanding policy, doing so is expected behaviour of Wikipedia editors. If you don't look for sources, you cannot honestly state that you have followed the procedure for checking verifiability, and cannot honestly state that something is unverifiable. Looking for sources is not Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is ample evidence to support his existence. The Arlington National Cemetery website is the same thing as an obit column in a major newspaper. This person is directly mentioned on that website which is proof enough to have an article about him by every rule on this site. E.de Y. is also mentioned in several peerage textbooks from the College of Arms in England. The Lord Deramore School in England also has some paperwork on him, donated by the Lord's family whose nobility claim came from the Yarborough branch founded by E.de Y. Very clearly keep this article. -OberRanks (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also just added two sources from the College of Arms which mention the Yarbrough/Yerburgh/Yarborough line and speak of both Eustacius and his own Danish ancestor going back to Germund. I think that should be good enough to keep the article. -OberRanks (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Considered the 11th oldest noble house of England? By whom? When the only titles noted originate in the 19th and 20th centuries? Something doesn't quite fit here. I'd like to know if the sources cited actually say anything about this person's life, rather than just say whose father he was. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. There is nothing in this article that is accurate and notable. Every 19th century English noble family invented such ancestors for themselves, and there is absolutely nothing special about this one (one of thousands of such concoctions). The article tells us that Eustacius de Yerburgh was an Anglo-Saxon, but Eustacius is not an Anglo-Saxon name. It says he was a war lord, but no such status existed. It says the family came to England in 800AD, but this is just invented nonsense, there being no records of such migrations, nor records that allow families to be traced in the Anglo-Saxon period. It says he is famous in genealogical circles, but he isn't: again, there are thousands of such inventions, each famous to their own family, but to no one else.Contrary to what is suggested, a recent analysis of Domesday people has no Eustacius that can be matched with this supposed Yerburgh ancestor. That the family was the 11th oldest is a made up statistic. There is no such ranking, and at least 9 of the older 10 are also likely made up, as I know of only one family that can be reliably shown to trace to the Anglo-Saxon period in the male line. All of the discussion of descendants is just names-the-same speculation, and further, it does not provide notability, which is not inherited (or in this case extrapolated backward). As to using the College of Arms to bolster this claim, it is a red herring. That someone's nonsense pedigree happened to be deposited in the College of Arms is no particular distinction - the CoA has in its collection material of a range of accuracy, from fully provable to completely bogus, and they have such material on thousands of families, so again this does not add notability. As far as I can tell, this man only ever existed in the imagination of the Yerburgh family, itself one of thousands of such families with bogus ancestry traditions. There is nothing in the article worth preserving: as a historical individual he is unsupportable and non-notable; as a mythical progenitor, he is non-notable. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well, I can assure you that I did not make up this article or insert false facts. Most of it was based on 50 year old documents that my Aunt had obtained from the College of the Arms during a trip there in the 40s. Sadly, most of that is in a storage unit right now and I cant get to it. It is very possible that some of the facts need correcting, but we have three sources that mention his name: Arlington Cemetary + two books from the College. When I can ever get to some of my family history papers, I can scan in letters and charts directly out of peerage texts to speak of him. For now, perhaps a cleanup tag or a citation needed tag but certianly not a deletion of the article. That will simply led to an undelete debate when I get the family papers out of storage. -OberRanks (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not saying you made it up, but someone did. That being said, even were it all true, Eustacius would be one of thousands of similar people of his time, with nothing whatsoever that makes him stand out among his peers. He would not be notable even had he existed. Agricolae (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is also of extreme interest [32]. I think the book mentioning his name was actually the one my aunt had a copy of but the article goes on to say another historian challenged it. We shoudl perhaps merge this article somehow since there is ample evidence of this person being mentioned in several texts about the family and that should be preserved somehow on Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because a prominent genealogist took time in his work to lambaste the family over its invented pedigree does not make the invention notable. There are hundreds of thousands of family histories, claiming ancestors. Does that mean every one of them merits a page? Agricolae (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or convert into article on Yerburgh family. Burke's peerage, s.v. Alvingham traces ancestry back to one Germund who occurs 1084/1112 (presumably in an undated charter). The surname 'de Yerburgh' is not used until Hamelin de Yerburgh (died 1195). I have removed references to the Barons Yarbourgh, because the surname is different. This is a typical piece of the worst variety of genealogy. The author has strung together a series of thinly connected facts, and called it an article. The title is a mere WP:COATHANGER for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although there's another possible article here. Family Origins and Other Studies by J. Horace Round:

    THE YARBURGH PEDIGREE

    THERE are degrees of iniquity in the methods of the pedigree-maker. One of them may assert an affiliation which is nothing but a guess of his own ; another may tamper with the evidence or even forge a document to prove an alleged descent; a third may invent an entire pedigree, lock, stock, and barrel. But this last is a dangerous game and most dangerous of all when there is mention of facts or dates, or worse still, of records. They give, no doubt, vraisemblance to a tale, but the cautious artist should eschew them rigidly, and as a matter of fact he usually did.

    Mr. Freeman, who dealt with Burke's Peerage in such merciless fashion,1 insisted that a mere glance at Domesday was enough to blow to pieces some of the fictions it contained. And it is to the Domesday Book that I must refer in the Yarburgh case.

    The statement under ' Deramore' in Burke's Peerage, as to the origin of the Yarburghs, is as follows :

    The family of Yarburgh, is one of great antiquity, and can trace an authenticated (sic) male succession, from the time of the Norman Conquest. At that period, Eustachius de Yarburgh was Lord of Yarburgh, co. Lincoln, which manor, together with the patronage of the living, still remains vested in his representative, the present Lord Deramore. .. .

    Edmund Yarburgh, . . . son of Francis Yarburgh, sergeant-at-law, and the lineal descendant of Eustachius de Yarburgh, lord of Yarburgh, temp. Conquestoris, etc., etc.

    The statement, we see, is quite definite and the descent ' authenticated.' Moreover, if words have any meaning, it is distinctly implied that the manor of Yarburgh has descended from 'Eustachius' to his 'representative the present Lord Deramore.' Infinitely rare as is a proved descent, in the male line, from the Conqueror's day, the continuous tenure of a manor is a thing rarer still, but such tenure would give the most convincing proof of the descent.

    When, however, we turn to Domesday, there is no ' Eustachius de Yarburgh ' to be found : Yarborough (Gereburg), which is assessed at 2} carucates and 1J bovates, appears only as an appendage of the royal manor of Gayton. We are reminded of Freeman's fierce attack on Sir Bernard Burke and his Peerage :

    The tale is sheer invention, it is mere falsehood, which might at any time be confronted by the simple process of turning to Domesday. . . . When the pedigree was invented, Domesday was still doubtless in manuscript, but is it possible that there is no copy of those precious volumes in the library of Ulster King-at-Arms.*

    But let us investigate for ourselves the manorial descent of Yarborough. About a generation after Domesday, we have what is known as the Lindsey survey. In this survey, Yarborough (Yerburc) appears with the same assessment (expressed as 2 carucates and 5 J bovates) but the great soke of Gayton-le-Wold, of which it formed part, is now in the hands of the Count of Brittany. Passing to the reign of Henry III, we find that Yarborough ( YerdeburgK) was held in 1242-3 jointly with its neighbour, Grimblethorpe, of the Honour of Richmond (representing the Count of Brittany), as half a knight's fee, by Richard, son of John, and Alan, son of Walter, together.8 Some sixty years later, 1303, we find this half fee split into two quarters, one of them held by Philip Fraunke, the other by the Prior of Alvingham.4 By 1428, Philip's quarter, after being held by Robert Darcy, was in the hands of Patrick Skipwith 6 (less a third of it, held by John Skipwith's widow). The Yarburghs have not yet" and that's all I can see at [33] dougweller (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would recommend transferring the bulk of that text (good material too) to the article talk page as it makes this page somewhat difficult to read. We could add a link to where the material can be found. -OberRanks (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have done some further investigation. The take-home message is that Eustacius only appears in two types of records. First, in traditions of these families, apparently based on a 15th 16th century pedigree in the College of Arms; and second, the writings of scholars laughing at the ludicrous invention that this pedigree represents. Specifically, he is said to have accompanied William the Conqueror, but no record of William's companions includes his name. He is said to be in Domesday, but actual surveys of those whose names are found in Domesday do not include him. He is said to descend from Danish royalty, but there is not a single historical record of him or any of his supposed ancestors. He is supposedly ancestral to famous families, but even if he was, so was his son and so was his father, so what about him makes him the appropriate subject for a page? He is said to be ancestral to the Yerburgh family, but actual records that document the earliest generations of the family show a Germund in the generation in question (this based on a 13th century foundation charter, so its reliability is subject to doubt, but at least it is 200 years 3 centuries earlier than the first mention of Eustacius). He is said to be ancestral to the Yarlborough family, but this family (which is distinct from the Yerburgh family) apparently descends in the male line from Domesday tenant Landric de Horneby. Simply put, Eustacius de Yerburgh is a 15th 16th century invention. He never existed. Neither did Beowulf, and he has a page, but as an ancestral myth Eustacius is unknown outside of the family in question. He is not "famous in genealogical circles" any more than the invented ancestors of the hundreds of other English families are (the archives of the newsgroup soc.genealogy.medieval, in 12 years, has not mentioned him once). He didn't do anything important, he didn't found any family, and he is not a mythical hero known outside the family that invented him. We have discussed him more here, in this AfD, than all that is said of him in Google Books. He is a non-notable non-entity and does not merit a Wikipedia page. Agricolae (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've convinced me that there is some fakeness in him but perhaps there should be some record on Wikipedia of at least what you just said. For one, this myth has obviously fooled people for five to six centuries, including Lord Deramore who I knew personally and told me of his famous ancestor. For another thing, we want to have some record on Wikipedia of this (other than this delete page obviously) after the article is gone. I wrote this based on some very well established family paperwork and I am sure others in this world have access to the same material. This all would prevent another deletion debate when and if someone comes along, maybe even in several years after this conversation has faded from memory, and gets the idea to write the article again. -OberRanks (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know where to start; fortunately I don't have to, since Agricolae makes an eloquent case. Let me note that Anglo-Saxon warlords didn't really exist, that if he did exist as an Anglo-Saxon warlord William the Conqueror would most likely have removed him (or his head), that there was no wave of Danish immigration into that territory around 800AD (though there were Danish invaders--hardly the same thing), and that the Arlington Cemetery website is not an expert on Anglo-Saxon or Danish history. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My initial scepticism about this has been justified by the discussion above. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator --Yopie 14:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Like Phil, I was originally sceptical. Based on further info, it appears this is a non-notable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 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. The consensus here seems to be that the issue over sourcing has not been adequately adressed. After reading through the discussion, it appears that the prevalent opinion is that the citations mentioned by Davidwr are not sufficient to establish notability, since they are not about the subject, Delirium has a reasonable sumup of the situation. Hence, I am closing the discussion with a deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backslash paper

edit
Backslash paper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete as not notable. Additionally, the article is only linked to from one single article, Slashdot effect. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The underlying paper has been cited over 100 times. Citations include papers on web servers, P2P, ddos-handling, and other applications. I don't know if the papers citing it actually implement it, for all I know they may cite the paper as the wrong way to go about doing things, but at first glance it's enough to make me say "not now" to a deletion request. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading WP:NOTE, I do not believe mere citation in other papers comes even close to qualifying as the "significant coverage" required for notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, we don't know if these are mere citations or if other scholars are relying on this paper in a significant way, at least not without looking at a sampling of the 100+ papers in question. I'm more inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt than spend hours digging through and in some cases paying for access to those papers. However, if you or another editor were to pick a dozen of those at random and come back and say they were near-trivial citations, then I'd be inclined to no longer give the benefit of the doubt. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is up to the article to demonstrate notability, not for us to give them the benefit of the doubt. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precisely. I attempted a quicker deletion method, but there was one objection over how apparent its (non-)notability was and that user gave it the benefit of the doubt, thus necessitating this discussion. We are now here to decide the fate of the article, not to further leave it in an ambiguous state with regards to its notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no "maybe"; either it's notable or it's not. Mere "benefit of the doubt" is not a notability justification. Further, if the concept is truly notable, there'd be an extremely high likelihood it would be covered at least once or twice in something other than a scholarly paper. Googling for "backslash protocol" gives the WP article as the only relevant hit. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • One of the papers citing the source cited by this article devotes exactly one sentence to this subject: "Backslash [31] is also a peer-to-peer caching solution, but it replaces the current Web servers and proxies to make deployment of distributed caching transparent to the clients." Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until sources that meet Wikipedia's standards of notability are met, and then it can be recreated, assuming it ever gets there. Mere citations on other pages do not establish notability, mentioned in a conference proceeding (which list all sorts of gunk, a lot of that is basically paid press releases) doesn't help either, and blogs etc. are no good. DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per davidwr reasoning aboveOo7565 (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename into "Backslash (software)" and then improve; The paper itself is not covered in this article, only the software is. Also, the paper might not be notable but the software ismightthis is closer to what I meant. --Pgallert (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the article is about the concept which the paper describes and which is presumably embodied in software somewhere. It might be better titled "Backslash (communications protocol)" or something like that. One of the improvements the article needs is some links to implementations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't like the idea of calling everything a protocol that has been designed to become one one day. As long as no-one standardised Backslash it is barely software (but this might be my personal fringe theory as I'm not sure how many experts would agree). --Pgallert (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence do you have for the software being notable, keeping WP:NOTE in mind? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My rationale (as member of the networking working group) generally is not to have too much deleted that would have to be recreated later. But with the suffix (paper) I believe it cannot stay in WP. Or do we really want to have an article about each and every academic paper of some quality? So no, I don't have much to corroborate the importance of "Backslash (software)" but as this thread is not unanimous I think it will likely end with a keep, and if it is being kept, it should at least be kept pointing to the software, and not to the paper about the software. --Pgallert (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a more general level: WP:NOTE imho generally fails in the case of academic papers because these are automatically cross-referenced multiple times, use reliable sources, are sometimes written by notable people, and still often have no general importance. If you want to get rid of them, likely WP:IAR or WP:DUCK is all you can pull out. --Pgallert (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it doesn't. You simply aren't applying it properly. Referencing a paper as a source in another published work is not the same as writing about that paper. It is published works written about the paper itself that would establish notability of the paper as a subject. Published works written about the same topic as the original paper, that reference the original paper, establish notability of that common topic, not of the published works that cover it.

          Such discussion is irrelevant in this instance. The word "paper" in the title of this article is clearly a misnomer, as the article is about the protocol, not the paper that discusses the protocol. Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this came up at Proposed Deletion, I looked to see whether it is rescuable. It isn't without a lot of work. The article is about one protocol proposed by one set of researchers, to solve a general issue. The general issue is flash crowds, and how HTTP content servers can be constructed in order to handle them. Our article, of course, gives no indication that there has been any scholarship whatsoever into that aspect of the subject. ☺ In all of the papers that I read, this particular protocol gets little more than tangential mention (akin to the example given above) as one of a laundry lists of ideas that people have had to address this problem. There's ample scope for a general article on how content HTTP servers handle flash crowds. But this isn't it, and as something that magnifies a miniscule aspect of the real subject out of all proportion, it isn't a very good start to a proper article. It would require renaming, refactoring, and almost complete rewriting. It would be pretty much the same effort to start from scratch with a redlink as it would be to start with this. In sources, this subject is little more than a 1-sentence aside in discussion of a general subject. This can be refactored into a non-stub article, though, so by strict application of deletion policy deletion is not required. But in reality we don't gain much with either outcome of this discussion. This is effectively a footnote to a real article, without the rest of the article above the footnote to go along with it. Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an academic, I'd hardly claim that a paper being cited 100 times makes the paper itself a notable subject suitable for its own encyclopedia article, especially if many of those citations are in passing. As an article on the concept (or protocol, or whatever), the main problem seems to be a lack of secondary sources: I can't find anything anyone has written about it that isn't either: 1) by the authors themselves; or 2) a brief related-work mention. No writeups in a survey article, textbook, or other such secondary source that would indicate it's considered generally worth noting in at least some research community. --Delirium (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no indication of substantive third-party coverage (citation hits don't count -- many are likely to be mere mention in literature surveys, etc) establishing notability. HrafnTalkStalk 10:16, 4 January 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. Stifle (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Malick

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

NN movie director... google, google news find almost nothing that isn't a fansite of one sort or another. roux   06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he had directed english-language music videos of similar popularity, this wouldn't even be up for discussion. AfD hero (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone concerned i am Aamir Malick and i am an AD film maker from Pakistan i have directed over 75 Tv commercials and couple of Music Videos of Famous Pakistan Singers which includes "Jalttheband" and Fakhir both top singers in Pakistan and you can find me on Pakistan top advertising website brandsynario here is the Link "http://www.brandsynario.com/ShowCategory.aspx?CategoryID=4 " and you can see my work on you tube as well here is the Link "http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=aamir+malick&search_type=&aq=f" i own a company called Cloudnine Films in karachi we have worked with Clients like Procter & Gamble , PEPSI , Colgate Palmolive Mobilink etc ...looking forward for a positive response —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.24.200 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 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 Userfy (to User:RI/Alfredo Zardini). Stifle (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Zardini

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. DimaG (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps we could userfy the article to give Rl the time to find the relevant reference? If the event indeed had the effect of large numbers of workers taking the day off, than his attack is notable (and I don't think there's a better title to put an article on the attack under). - Mgm|(talk) 16:47, 1 January 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. Consensus is that the cited sources are largely trivial and insufficient to establish encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerraud Powers

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

To the extent that I understand WP:ATHLETE, people are not notable solely for playing university football and getting bitten by dogs.  Sandstein  22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added some references and notation of the Zeke Smith award. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His notability is established by substantial coverage from reliable sources and a notable award for being the defensive player of the year at Auburn University. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: WP:Athlete suggests that no amateur athlete is notable enough, unless they compete at for instance a World Championship (or a BCS title game, I imagine?). (That means no Rashad Johnson or Andre Smith, since the Tide is only in the Sugar Bowl?) Anyway, I would like someone to weigh in on this, since that's the rub. Despite one editor's hard and diligent work on the article, I don't think this athlete is notable enough--the Zeke Smith award didn't even make the paper here, and I live an hour and a half away. Now, getting bit by a dog, I remember it well! But then, I'm a Alabama fan... (so, I'm leaning toward delete...) Drmies (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ample media coverage of Powers in a variety of settings seems to meet the more general notability guideline. And I would think getting an award as the best defensive player on your Div 1 team (Kevin Greene got it...)is competing at a pretty high level of Football. But I agree it's not a slam dunk. I would like to point out the extraordinary conflict of interest regarding Drmies being a Bama fan. :) Should he be blocked from editing any Auburn related articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the most blatant accusation I've had to face since I got out of walking the dog yesterday (bad hamstring...war wound...). What's with the biting, Child? Got a jaw-fetish? Just to show you what a good sport I can be: here. (Hope the link works for you--the archives for the Montgomery Advertiser are not accessible to me, strangely.) Now, in the interest of full disclosure, my paycheck actually comes from Auburn. There. And I'll see you at arbitration, if my dog doesn't bite you in the hand first. Oh, grudgingly, I might stop leaning toward delete, if only because, as the Bear used to say, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. (OK, that doesn't really apply, but come on, it's not a bad find.) Drmies (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more sourced content. He's been covered extensively since high school, including in USA Today, the New York Times, regional papers, recieved honors etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 1 January 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 Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82 Hudson

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

Non-notable bus line. DonaldDuck (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Wikipedia is "timeless", and thus something that was once a trolley route would be as important as a current trolley route. It may belong as part of a larger article about the Public Service Railway in Hudson County, for which the book "The Public Service Trolley Lines in New Jersey" would be useful. --NE2 06:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WE do not need articles on bus-routes. I am not sure that we even leave lists of them. While in some places bus routes nay be stable over long periods, they are liable to change with little notice. Bus operators will maintain theri own websites but will not do so for WP. Such articles are essentially unmaintainable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 4 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalitstan

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

Tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 but asserts notability and has a fairly busy edit history. That said, the article is almost entirely self-sourced and the claim of notability might legitimately said to be unproven from the content. The article has been tagged for cleanup for over two years and is still well below standard. Was a "keep and cleanup" a year ago, but has not been cleaned up. Much of the content appears to be the work of Hkelkar and his socks. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I removed the OR passage, weeded out the assertion that it is 'hate group' and moved the page to dalitstan.org in order to clarify that the article is about the website. Notability is asserted. Keeping the article is important since the website has repeatedly been used as a reference across wikipedias. --Soman (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Soman. A somewhat prominent hate group, that has been cited by leftists and others opposed to the Sangh Parivar in various ways. Definitely notable and important.Pectoretalk 23:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important enough for a major government to ban. This was roundly defeated the last time the nominator tried and is heading that way again. Dance With The Devil (talk) 09:46, 2 January 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. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette substitute

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

Unnecessary article with a non-notable topic. Basically only describes one particular cigarette substitute, the electronic cigarette, for which there is already a more extensive article. Lists patents for some other devices, however those listed actually don't fall under the definition of a "cigarette substitute" given by the article. Sources given are just links to patent descriptions. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:31, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article that only contains a few facts is a stub. We don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And given that this article doesn't mention the many other cigarette substitutes that have been proposed over the years, including lettuce-leaf cigarettes (not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, and clearly a subject to be dealt with here) for example, this is a stub with potential for expansion. I encourage Equazcion and Bearian'sBooties to remember that writing is also an option for articles, and is our reason for being here in the first place. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the content of the present article is mostly unusable, it's generally the practice to delete until someone wants to re-create it with new content. As it stands presently I don't see any potential for "improvement" per se. You're correct that there's probably a lot that could fit under this title, but as it stands the title is about all that's actually useful here. Unless you'd like to edit the article right now and replace its content, I think it's better to delete it for now, since it doesn't presently meet Wikipedia's standards, with no prejudice towards future re-creation (as always). Equazcion •✗/C • 07:16, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
      • Wrong. When the content of the article, as here, is a stub containing a few facts about the subject, both Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy state, and have always stated, that the article is not deleted, but is expanded. The rest of us are not your tame editing service. You want this article improved? {{sofixit}}! We don't delete articles for not being cleaned up, and we don't delete stubs for not having been expanded yet. Your attitude towards article development is completely wrong. You are supposed to be writing and expanding articles where you see scope for improvement, not trying to push the burden of that onto others by mis-using deletion nominations. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So much for good faith. I seem to have stepped into a war that I wasn't privy to. Lay down your arms for a minute. To answer your accusations, I'm not misusing a deletion nomination and I'm not trying to push any burdens on anyone. I nominated the article for deletion because I think it should be deleted, and I don't expect anyone to fix it, that is of course unless they feel compelled on their own to do so. I don't remember telling anyone to edit the article for me. In fact I'm pretty sure that's what you did, above. I want the article improved? No, I'm suggesting it be deleted. You want the article improved. We're here to write articles, not delete them, right? Your words. So go for it, and stop telling everyone else to. Otherwise, I think it should be deleted.

          If you're referring to my mention of replacing the article's content, that was merely my presenting what I think is the only alternative to deletion. In other words, I feel the present article should be deleted, but that the topic still has merit, so replacing the content entirely would accomplish the same goal -- but if not that then I think it needs to be deleted.

          I'm not against expanding stubs, but this doesn't seem to just be a stub. It seems to be useless content, which is usually deleted, no matter the length of the article. Just in case there's any confusion, I again want to stress the fact that I'm not commanding you or anyone to do any editing. I'm just presenting the general options for the article, as I see them. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)

          • I'm not the one complaining about the article. You are. {{sofixit}}! Pull out your editing button and actually write content. And you most definitely said "Unless you'd like to edit the article right now and replace its content […]". Stop treating other editors as your personal editing service, and stop abusing AFD as a hammer. Verifiable facts on a subject are not "useless content", and this article, whose first sentence explicitly defines the topic, most definitely is a stub. You need to bring your approach to this project in line with its long-standing Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, because you are completely out of tune with this project's ethos and policy. Not only do we improve stubs rather than delete them, we aim to preserve information, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've sure got this confrontation thing down. You should look into blood pressure medication, sir. If anyone with a more calm demeanor would like to express their thoughts to me on this subject please feel free. I'd like to have an actual discussion about this. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
              • Resorting to baseless innuendo about the state of one's interlocutor is the classic last resort of people who want to avoid addressing an argument that they know that they cannot refute. We even have an article on ad hominem arguments. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is our explicit policy to keep such articles with good potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The idea that we must keep all such articles is certainly not explicit in that policy -- it just says article don't have to be perfect, it doesn't demand keeping imperfect ones around. It gets tiring seeing you make that argument over and over.

    Delete I'm sick of the wikilawyering to try to keep bad articles. It's better to remove ones that can't be salvaged then keep them around. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This article can be salvaged. You could even salvage it yourself if you were willing to write content on this subject rather than complain about the poor state of the article and about other editors who point out what this project's article development policies have been from the start of the project. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a dicdef and I don't see how it's unsalvagable. (It could be expanded with information about how the law of different countries treat cigarette subs (pay smoking tax, does smoking ban apply, etc?) Link to different notable devices that are cigarette substitutes, discuss whether it helps get rid of the addiction, scientific studies. Plenty of potential.- Mgm|(talk) 16:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I first saw the title "Cigarette substitute" I didn't envision a specific product. I thought it would be a list of substitutes or alternatives for smoking cigarettes. I would turn this article into a list of cigarette/tobacco/nicotine substitutes, and rename it appropriately if desired. This patent for a cigarette substitute may be included in that article. Possible names: List of cigarette substitutes, List of alternatives to cigarettes, List of nicotine delivery mechanisms or something to that effect, and include this article, the electronic cigarette, nicotine patches etc.  LinguistAtLarge  22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Nicotine inhaler. It is not clear from the article text what counts as a "cigarette substitute". Does it have to look like a cigarette? The Electronic cigarette article states that the electronic cigarette "usually takes the form of some manner of elongated tube" and that "many are designed to resemble the outward appearance of real smoking products, like cigarettes, cigars, and pipes", more-or-less implying that some are not. 88.235.147.36 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I don't have a source for it, but many electronic cigarettes take other shapes -- the most prominent shape after the imitation of smoking products is the shape of ballpoint pens. The definition in this article is a mistake. It was taken from the patent description in the reference, which describes one specific product that happens to be shaped like a cigarette. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:44, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
        • And you could have corrected that mistake with less effort than it has taken you to write the above paragraph. Please bring yourself into line with this project's ethos and policy. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to look up in sources what constitutes a cigarette substitute, and expand the article with what you find. That's what we are actually supposed to be doing here. Deletion policy is, and has always been, that our task here with stubs is to expand them, by writing. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worth keeping--too narrow. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement that it is too narrow is directly contradicted by what LinguistAtLarge writes above. Please remember what a stub is. It isn't necessarily comprehensive. So basing an agument on the asumption that its current treatment of the subject is comprehensive is highly flawed. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sometimes deletion and starting over is better. Other times, converting it into a category, if it doesn't already exist is better. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, writing to expand a stub with scope for expansion (which has even been laid out above) is always better. It simply requires editors to learn the ethos of the project and put our Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy into practice. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep mentioning that ethos thing, but what you're really saying is that everyone else should get in line with your views. You should know by now that people have different ways of interpreting those "ethos" you keep referring to. Yours isn't the only view. Please get in line with that, as the spirit of open discussion and debate is what's paramount on Wikipedia -- not this "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:28, 4 Jan 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to answer the whole "expand the stub" thing: This article isn't a little bit of good material that can be expanded upon -- Everything about this article is wrong. The most glaring example is that the title is generic but the first line describes a specific product. This is a blunder that needs to be completely replaced. You could still say that no editor should request deletion in the case of bad content, and should instead write new new content, but that's not something we currently demand of editors. We allow the deletion and the new content to come in separate steps and from separate editors. You could make the argument that we should demand otherwise, but I think that's an argument to be made elsewhere, as it goes against the current general practice. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:38, 3 Jan 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: article on a specific patent, lacking any third party or non-trivial sourcing. An article on 'Cigarette substitutes', generally, might be a good idea -- but this article ain't it, and never will be (without a complete recreation from scratch). HrafnTalkStalk 12:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Smoking cessation. Normally one should merge the content, and Smoking cessation—not Wikipedia's greatest article—could use a section on Smoking cessation aids, but there is really nothing worth retaining here. 88.233.36.11 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 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 nomination withdrawn - doesn't appear to be a hoax.. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sher e bangla medical college

edit
Sher e bangla medical college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 1 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_1&oldid=1081071519"