Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 14

< January 13	January 15 >

Guide to deletion

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 merge to Hollyoaks. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Hollyoaks characters (1997)

List of minor characters in a certain year, unlikly to grow very much, also mostly focuses on one character, possibly trying to mask non-notability as there are no citations or refrences as well. --Ipatrol (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was essentially a work-in-progress to clean up the clutter on the parent page. As there are no other characters with available data, I'll make a separate article for Holly. --Conquistador2k6 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or possibly merge into a year range. A notable soap opera like this should definitely have character lists, as the characters and interactions between them are what make such shows notable. A single year may have too few characters to sustain an entire article, though. Reading the current version, I note that there's way too much detail on a single character, but wouldn't suggest a separate article for said character. If she really is a minor character, trimming it to just a couple of short paragraphs covering only the most important plot points would be the best way forward. JulesH (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This version of List of minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks from a couple of days ago (now a redirect essentially to a dab page) was just 48kB big. Along with some much needed trimming per WP:WAF, the list is far away from the 60KB "Probably should be divided" level of WP:SIZE. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's worth merging the years into one article. afkatk (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss how to merge this on the talk p. for the main article. This has gone back and forth in several directions. This is not the place to settle this editing question. DGG (talk) 05:26, 16 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 03:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionalist world view (American)

Delete Per nom - clearly fails WP:SYN and can't be salvaged given that it's an essay on a dubious topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire page effectively consists of an essay, born of synthesis, written to reflect the editor's point of view. The title might have the possibility of an encyclopaedia article but none of the content here would be usable - at least not how its presented in its current form. Guest9999 (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not salvagable. Bin it. Alberon (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of excisions in the text, but at heart it's still an essay on one person's theory of American politics. Mangoe (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to salvage here that I can see. JBsupreme (talk) 22:51, 17 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 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Warriors Trial

Non-notable fiction with no sources, and nothing at Google. The original author of the article admits to being the author of the story. Using Wikipedia to get his fame for his non-published story? AnyPerson (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not actually meet and speedy delete category But totally non-notable. DGG (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Camw (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Firestorm (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable self promotion. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete put an end to self promotion. JBsupreme (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, I am unable to verify this article's content through reliable sources from Google Books, Google News, Amazon.com, etc. I agree that Wikipedia should not include articles that are essentially about unpublished stories we editors have written. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously, per nom. Hobartimus (talk) 01:33, 18 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 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Zayas and Matt Walters

no notability, and shouldn't even be in the same article anyway. An easy delete. MrShamrock (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even varsity high school football players, it would take a lot to make a high school player notable, anyway. AnyPerson (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject isn't notable Camw (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Whataworld06 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whataworld06 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not even close... not notable, likely hoax or vanity page. Mitico (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete Possible Oh my god.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 02:00, 19 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 WP:SNOW. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirge (World of Warcraft)

Personal essay, personal opinions, non-encycolpedic. POV is clearly disregarded, and no assertion of notability or even validity MrShamrock (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/nonsense/garbage/whatever. Obvious spam/personal puff piece/Wikipedia is not Myspace/etc. Probably could be speedied as nonsense. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all of the above. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) as pure vandalism, possibly also G2 as a test page. MuZemike 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominators points Camw (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a generic weapon in WoW that really doesn't need the coverage here. Probably should have been prodded instead, as there's no clear speedy criteria, but similarly didn't need an AfD on the thing. --Izno (talk) 02:40, 15 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 rename . –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fast casual restaurants

Stale fact tagging isn't going to help this directory listing, its based upon a weak neologism to begin with. Delete. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Fast casual restaurant and remove the list. JuJube (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "fast casual restaurant" is a non-notable neologism WP:NEO. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per JuJube. Term does not appear to be non-notable or a neologism. There's a magazine devoted to this industry segment, and another that covers it in depth. Term is used by major market research companies and is referred to in publications such as Food & Drink Weekly and White Hutchnison Leisure News, as well as being used by local restaurant reviewers. Seems to be a term in widespread use to describe a very specific and important market sector, hence both notable and not a neologism. JulesH (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a non-notable neologism, I'm not convinced by the sources and either way it would be something more suited for Wiktionary not here. JBsupreme (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure that a description of a market segment of restaurants is an appropriate article for a dictionary. JulesH (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the term leans towards the idiotic, to be sure, but it has become a clearly identifiable market segment, and a rather popular one at that. Wiktionary is also a poor fit. doregasm —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:33, 19 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funnerific

Declined prod. Article appears to be a dictionary definition of a neologism and "funnerific" does not seem to be a topic that satisfies our notability guidelines. Skomorokh 22:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (neologism) or transwiki to urbandictionary. Oh, wait, we can't do that? Baileypalblue (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trash. JuJube (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as obvious vandalism. Robots? Cavemen? The Jetsons? Come on. Graymornings_(talk) 01:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteriffic — non-notable neologism in the slightest, as well as a poorly-created dictionary definition, which doesn't even belong here in the first place. MuZemike 01:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Edward321 Camw (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. Matt (Talk) 03:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleterrific. JBsupreme (talk) 09:06, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Couvrette

After extensive online searches, I've found that Paul Couvrette is just an average (one among 1000s) portrait photographer. He clearly should not be in the fashion photographer catagory of wikipedia. The claim of "the Canadian Photographer of the Year, Ontario Photographer of the Year and Ottawa Photographer of the Year". My question, is by whom? (Life Magazine, American Photo) Having met and collaborated with photographers like Yousf Karsh, does not make you a notable photographer. My nomination for deletion is base soley on the results of this photographer. Often results are harsh, but always fair. The article reeks of (self-) promotion, it's highly likely that there's been a considerable conflict of interest but it's possible that it could have been written by a fan. Frankly, the entire article reads like it came from the month of an egocentric photographer, looking to create creditability by using wiki. MagazineHound (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the article is a terribly written piece of fluff. There are clear WP:COI issues (the infobox photo, added by the author, seems to indicate it was written by the subject), WP:PEACOCK language, borderline WP:SPAM, and exaggerated claims not matched by the references. However, the 1994 Commercial Photographer of the Year Award from the Professional Photographers of Canada, his covers and photo spreads for Time/Life, Architectural Digest etc., and coverage in Ottawa Life Magazine allows Couvrette to pass notability criteria. The article should be scrubbed of any unreferenced self-promotional POV and whittled down to only factual encyclopedic essence. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to make a start at this job? As I look at the article now, I get the impression that its flatus content is well above 90%. (If I were to "whittle it down", I might end up with about three sentences.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ..... Further, when I google for "professional photographers of canada" "photographer of the year", the first three hits are for pages put up by its organizer but the next two are from Couvrette's website. I like to think that I'm fairly well up on photographers but none of the winners sounds familiar. -- Hoary (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can take a whack at it this weekend. (No rush, I suppose, since it has been wallowing on WP for more than a year). If you want to jump in before then - great - and if it ends up with only three sentences, well, then that's all it deserves. I see his official PPOC page refers to wikipedia as his personal website. Ugh. Some possible refs are [1], [2], [3], [4], although all except the Ottawa Citizen (which only uses him in a peripheral sense but does call him "notable") are fanboy style and leave me uneasy. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The hell with fanboy-style sources; let's have good sources or none. After all, such an eminent photographer must have them in abundance. ¶ I've just gone through half of the article, deeply touched by the high regard with which the SPA authors hold Paul Couvrette, even if occasionally holding my nose. And then, after saving the result, I noticed something odd. Couvrette not only had an article in fr:WP (not surprising for a Canadian for whom great claims are made), but also one in de:WP. Cynic that I am, the thought occurred to me that it might not actually exist: I hesitate to say this (WP:BEANS and all that), but I have encountered puff-pieces bristling with links to non-existent other-language sources. Well, the links existed all right, but indeed they weren't what people might have guessed. Here you see me removing them: two links to categories in other-language Wikipedias. Mmm, tasty! -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo is identified here as "© Jeremy Calhoun for Couvrette/Ottawa". (And here's Calhoun.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CactusWriter has demonstrated notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. First, Hound, you say He clearly should not be in the fashion photographer catagory of wikipedia. Then remove him from it, or in Wikipedia editing terms, remove the link to a category from his article. (This is an option I recommended to you on your talk page hours before you launched this, your latest of a series of AfDs.) Secondly, while I haven't yet examined the other claims made in this fragrant article, I will say that the whole thing has a considerable (and I presume unintended) amusement value. ¶ I'll probably be voting later. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info An earlier paean to Couvrette, created by SPAs Ottawason and Hereinottawa, was summarily deleted by User:NawlinWiki on 11 Jan '08 as "blatant advertising". The article in its current state (unchanged since its nomination by MagazineHound) is very similar indeed to that deleted by NawlinWiki. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on possible motivation. This encomium to Couvrette becomes increasingly fragrant (if in a spammy sort of way) on closer inspection. Google "paul couvrette" and the first hit is his company. The second is his article in, uh, that encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And now, take a look at his "About us": Google the name of the area photographers that impress you… then Google Paul Couvrette… if you really want an objective comparison written by an outside source. Yeah, right. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on what "sourcing" is already provided: I've clicked on a minority of the (few) specific sources. So far, I've only found one that actually said what the positioning of the footnote implies that it said. If an assertion in this article is followed by a footnote, you can't yet infer that the assertion is actually backed up. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unenthusiastic keep. He seems to be a vigorous self-promoter (and I don't see a claim for a single solo exhibition or published book); but he also does seem more than usually prominent among commercial photographers. The article will have to be cut back a lot, and will probably need monitoring to ensure that the spam doesn't creep back in; so whether people think an article on Couvrette should live or die, I'd urge them to put it on their watchlists. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After drilling down this article to the bare (and barely supported) facts, I just don't see the notability. Couvrette has some (minor) claims to fame, but not the notability that I see as required for an article. I don't see the widespread respect from his peers and the well-supported acknowledgments from the mainstream media that the Wiki notability standards request. Yes, he is a skilled self-promoter, but that is not our standard. On my first read of the article, I suspected that under all the wild (and wildly humorous) claims (his studio was used by the Rolling Stones!; his customers at the camera store where he clerked for a few months included Sultan of Oman!; he was the father of digital photography in Canada!), that there was still a kernel of honestly earned, notable respect from his peers. Now that the article has been mostly drilled down (major kudos to Hoary and CactusWriter for their hard work), I still see a bunch of poorly supported claims bolstered by brushes with celebrity that don't amount to a notable article. Couvrette is a wedding and portrait photographer, runs a studio, has photographed some government officials, and has had some photos published in major magazines. Where is the significant critical attention? Where are the significant exhibitions? Where are the inclusions in the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums? The article does not demonstrate notability, delete. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:39, 18 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. Hoax _Gb^T/c 09:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Ariel de Rothschild

Contested PROD. Suspected hoax article, individual cannot be found on the Internet, nor can the billion dollar company he is supposed to be the president of. role^player 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not confuse with David Mayer de Rothschild or David de Rothschild. This one only gets 3 ghits total, including Wikipedia and one mirror site. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. There is no such thing as "De Beers Rothschild Holding Group". AnyPerson (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced article. The crux of the subject's importance and what he would be notable for, being the President of a $2.5 billion corporation, seems dubious. A multi-billion institution that only has two Google hits, one from this Wikipedia article and one from a website that is "under construction" and a president that has managed to escape any news coverage? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete snowball hoax. JBsupreme (talk) 09:06, 16 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 04:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic outline of algebra

Also nominating: Topic outline of arithmetic, Topic outline of calculus, Topic outline of geometry, Topic outline of mathematics for same reasons.

These articles contain little information, and what information is there is mostly already either in the main articles algebra, arithmetic, calculus, geometry, mathematics or the portals portal:algebra, portal:geometry and portal:mathematics. Charvest (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. They're not really articles; they're navigational pages. As such they serve a useful role. Just because larger Wikipedia hasn't gotten around to creating a uniform standard for this sort of page is not a reason to delete it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate navigational pages. Pages similar to these get nominated from time to time, but t such pages are appropriate in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have indexes.DGG (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all — they're all navigational lists of topics. Remember that mathematics is very, very broad and goes waaaaaay beyond simple aspects that I assume we all know and take for granted. MuZemike 01:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful lists. Definitely encyclopedic. Matt (Talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Very useful navigational pages. See Category:Outlines and Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge —G716 <^T·_C> 04:04, 15 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 List of schools in Chicago Public Schools . MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whittier School

Non Notable School written in an ad like manner. Marcusmax(speak) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ordinary school, no indications of notability. Not only that, but List of schools in Chicago Public Schools is problematic. AnyPerson (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, which is how we handle elementary schools. The List of Schools.. mentioned just above is exactly the way we do things and ought to do things, and not at all problematic. DGG (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's setting up redlinks for potentially non-notable schools. AnyPerson (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect the sourced content per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:36, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Miskulin

No non-trivial sources found. Plenty of hits but they're all one sentence mentions or directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Joey Miskulin is apparently a member of the International Polka Music Hall of Fame, and seems to have had a long, influential career, including work on platinum and grammy-winning albums. I'll be adding some of this to the article, including references. Definitely notable in my book. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Baileypalblue. Won Grammy and part of Hall of Fame. Thus notable. Non-trivial mentions are only needed when the sources themselves are needed to establish notability per WP:GNG rather than just verifying the facts. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:26, 15 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 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowfall in Drybrook 2008/2009

This has been split out from the main article about Drybrook, but there is nothing notable about the snowfall in this or other periods. The PROD was contested. The article is verifiable form meteorological records but it is not notable Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it hasn't snowed in Drybrook in more than 100 years, that can be mentioned in the article. However, this English town isn't exactly in the tropics. Mandsford (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia is not for news reports. In the same vain, I believe this covers weather reports for a small area. This is of strictly local influence, plus it sounds as if a Chamber of Commerce wrote it, then again, maybe it is well-known for its white Christmases! Unlikely... and not notable. Scapler (talk) 02:33, 18 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 03:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Degnan

I'm proposing the deletion of this article and the short articles that it links to. There is no indication of notability here, and I can't find anything but social network profiles searching for Degnan and his work. It appears to be a young writer who's written a few short stories and movies with friends, but nothing that is in any way noted by any source whatsoever. FlyingToaster 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was speedy-deleted as un-notable on 25 December. Nothing here or in several web searches provides any evidence of notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No evidence of notability. Works are unpublished or "currently being written". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has written a few short stories which got published in a local paper, but for which no sourcing is provided, and in any case, that isn't enough for notability. There is no indication any notice has been take of his film work. It both fails notability, and more importantly, fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - the speedy tag was removed by a new IP user, possibly the aticle creator. The subject isn't notable as defined by WP:N and there are no references. I assume that sub-articles such as The Tale of Gregory Lovell will be deleted too. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per DeadlyAssassin. decltype 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Userfy to User:Matthew Degnan. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Done, see User:Matthew Degnan/Bio. User notified on his talk page. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't userfy, just simply delete. Userfying vanity pages still lets the vanity pages stay. There's absolutely no point to that, unless the user is a valued member of the community. If they're only here to promote themselves, than that's just giving them most of what they want. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:27, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-African Ocean

Unsourced entry on something that may or may not have existed. Padillah (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google book search turns up lots of hits and looking at the very first result indicates it is a valid concept in geology and is suitable for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like you've done more for this article in five minutes than anyone else has done in two years. If it hadn't been nominated, it certainly would not have improved on its own. Mandsford (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Speaking as a member of Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, with the unreferenced articles going back as far as August 2006, I suspect that some improvement could be projected to occur in 2013 or so. But that's crystal balling. :) Whpq (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Whpq. Edward321 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is now sourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more sources available using Google Scholar [5]. -Atmoz (talk) 19:13, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layng Martine, Jr.

Some notable songwriting credits, but absolutely no reliable sources. Only source is his own website. No hits in Google News or Books, only lyrics directories found in Google search. Seems to fail the notability guidelines due to lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:MUSIC, he passes as a songwriter having been the writer for several songs that have charted. The lack of sources has been identified in the article with an {{unref}} tag but sources are very likely available. A quick search turns up this. I'm sure more can be found. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all songwriters who have written notable hits are notable. Especially if no non-trivial sources can be found — and that source only covers "Way Down", just one of the songs he wrote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC establishes that songwriters of notable compositions meet the criteria. This guy has written at least one which I have provided a source for. So I would argue that alone is sufficient. However, the article lists other charting songs that he has written. All that needs to happen is get references for that. The article is very new being created in November 2008. And tagged for references a couple of weeks later, so time needs to be allowed for references to be added. BTW, the backlog of unreferenced articles stretch all the way back to August 2006. -- Whpq (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the results from this google book search. [6]. Unfortunately, they aren't available with online preview but the snippets of text displayed from books such as The Great Song Thesaurus clearly show the assignment of the writing credit. And the fact that the song is listed in a compendium of "great songs" indicates that the composition is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the song is notable, but there's NOTHING to say about Layng besides "He wrote such and such song". Do you really think that's enough? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is enough. That's why we have stub templates so other editors can add to the article. How can we expect to collaboratively expand an article if we kill off viable stubs? The fact that I haven't expanded this article beyond a stub is not relevant to whether it is kept. What is relevant is notability and that has been established. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Whpq. Multiple charting songs, references exist, clearly notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the reasons given above he co-wrote a grammy nominated song. [7] Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A Grammy-nominated songwriter. Please let's not remove viable stubs from the encyclopedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:09, 18 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 cancelled. I'm cancelling this AfD as the argument made by 78.52.239.148 is for a move rather than a delete and that move has been done. Many thanks to Whpq, Eldereft and Rklear for their research. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zelleleiter

Being a german native speaker I don't know the word. There are no sources given in the article. "Zelleleiter" has hardly any hits. The word doesn't sound grammatically correct in my ears. That would be rather "Zellenleiter". --78.52.239.148 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 20:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Zellenleiter. It does appear to be a mispelling. this would seem to indicate that "Zellenleiter" is the correct term. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zellenleiter is also found at Ranks and insignia of the Nazi Party. Rklear (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at Zellenleiter (so moved). Current title is probably an improbable typo. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:40, 15 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 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GreenroomGlossary

This was nominated by an IP editor with the less-than-helpful rationale "screamingly unencyclopedic". That said, they may have a point: an article about a temporary exhibition at a college doesn't sound all that notable. Community input would be welcome. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a reasonably good buy 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article appears to be original research and the stated purpose in the article is in contravention of not a web hosting service -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried google searches for three variations of the title, and always came up empty. The article itself seems partly promotional (WP:COI), somewhat blog-like (WP:NOT#HOST)and overall non-notable. Since I can't see how it can ever be improved, it should be deleted.– sgeureka ^t•c 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor local thing, non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:31, 17 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

寸

Delete essentially a dab page for various translations of this Chinese character - it already appears in Wiktionary, and none of the links here are proper nouns such that this character is someone's name in his/her native script, so it really doesn't belong here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have alot of non-English titles in the English Wikipedia. Just look at the German articles. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - 寸 is not used in English discourse. -- Whpq (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - And English keyboards don't have this character either. How could anyone search for it? 23skidoo (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have alot of articles that have non-English lettering, for example, everything with an accent on it. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It probably is used, since alot of people have weird tattoos, and people talk about those tattoos in English. If such a character were a tattoo, and a conversation about it were to ensue in English, then it would have been used in English discourse. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's rather specualtive. Going by that rationale, every Chinese word could be justified for a Wikipedia entry. -- Whpq (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I voted to "delete" this article, BTW (see entry below this thread). No, since dictdefs belong on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. So they would be transwikied if they weren't already there. I'm just saying that just because it's using Chinese characters for a title, doesn't mean that a dab page should not be there. (I think proper articles (as opposed to dab pages and redirects) should always be at an ASCII only title). 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a dictionary definition. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even an English language search term. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef, even if one ignores the non-English/non-Roman character aspect. 23skidoo (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This already exists at wiktionary. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 18:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition in the sense of wiktionary, which is specifically scoped to do this kind of thing, only better. DAB pages are not supposed to be pages of sister projects. I also question whether any users are likely to search the wikipedia looking for it, which is the stated purpose of a dab page. Overall it seems to be little use to have this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:12, 16 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. Confirmed hoax. Not verifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalepsy

Suspected hoax; zero hits on Google Scholar or PubMed. Only Wikipedia clones on Google. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too can find nothing but web mirrors on this, and zero results at Pubmed is as close to a conclusive negative result as you can get for a medical term. Regardless of whether it is a hoax or not, it is unverified and appears unverifiable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first edit on this page was User:Bzoo's only edit, so it could be vandalism (the erectile dysfunction comment is suspicious), or perhaps an attempt at writing an article on epilepsy? Baileypalblue (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a clear hoax to me; there's nothing on Medline so the only other options are a misspelling or neologism. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Myoclonus. Very much fits the description of myoclonus. Tatterfly (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you merge something without references? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what information would you want to merge? Caused by playing video games, symptoms include erectile dysfunction? I think the Myoclonus article is doing just fine on its own. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. No redeeming features, not a candidate for merge. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and oppose merge. There is no evidence that this term is being used to describe Myoclonus. In fact there is no evidence for this term at all. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "[...] said patient lost the will to fornicate. Also, said patient developped a severe case of Yellow Fever which was detremental to his self-esteem" clinches it for me. Anyone see a chance of snow for tonight? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another example of how Wikipedia has changed over the years. Back in 2006, unsourced nonsense like this would have been speedily caught. I think the only reason this lasted for more than two years is because nobody looked at it until recently. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, from the article history it looks like at least three editors looked at the article and gave it a pass; but hey, it's a big encyclopedia and not everybody is in a position to bring down deletion on articles that deserve it. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very common for editors doing routine maintenance to do just that maintenance task and not actually examine the article generally. It would be a good idea encouraging them to actually think about the article, but on the other hand many beginners just want to fix details, and it is a reasonable way to start. DGG (talk) 00:49, 15 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 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America

Non-notable video. The sourcing for this article seems based on primary sources & non-RS blogs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The documentary is popular on the web, but there seem to be no reliable sources to validate its notability. WP:SOAP and WP:COAT are not problems because the article describes what the documentary says, rather than advancing its own independent argument. WP:FRINGE could be a problem, however. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NF: "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after (1996) the film's initial release": 2006 by G. Edward Griffin; >2003 by STWR; 2008 by Chris Masterjohn; and [^{[deprecated source?]} 2008] by Alex Jones --Prius 2 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People (Griffin, Masterjohn and Jones) writing things on web sites that they operate is not the kind of "publication" needed. WillOakland (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G4 if applicable, possibly salt. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tired rehash without any reliable coverage. WillOakland (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepthis documentary explains everything about the current financial crises and as this documentary was released in 1995 it was not known.its only after the financial crises that it is becoming popular.I urge that this article be kept.It explains a lot about the financial sitution.hell you have zeitgest which is outright extreme but you want to delete this scientic documentary.

manchurian candidate 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

Zeitgeist was determined to have reliable third-party coverage. That a certain set of editors consider the content of the video novel or groundbreaking is no reason to keep, particularly since it essentially repeats material that circulated in Posse Comitatus during the 70s and 80s. You don't want to know where it was before that. WillOakland (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Oh wait... on second thought, I've got a pretty good idea. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 18 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 advertising. This article's primary purpose is to give dates, addresses, and telephone numbers, and it is written in the first person and exhorts the reader in the second person. This would require a complete rewrite from the ground up to become an encyclopaedia article. My attempts to find sources to use in order to kerrrzappp this advertisment came up empty. There is no reason to retain this blatant advertisement whilst waiting for a proper encyclopaedia article to be written, should sources on this subject ever appear. Wikipedia is neither a free web host nor an advertising billboard.

Incidentally, there appear to have been two banks — one bank formed in the 1980s and a second bank that was, at least, planned in the 1960s (although I found no evidence that the plans came to fruition in my search for sources). Uncle G (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TransOhio

Disputed prod. Article makes no assertion of notability, and primary Google hits reference a failed bank of the same name. I'm not saying the group doesn't do important work: just that there is no evidence given that they should have an article here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam per Whpq: was created by User:TransOhio who admits to spam intentions on their userpage. Ironically, the Transohio Savings Bank noted by SarekofVulcan probably would be notable if it were the subject of the article. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as {{db-advert}} §hep • ^Talk 23:45, 15 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, but with no prejudice against deleting later if it can't be cleaned up to encyclopedic standards.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis h. nash

~~Article previously deleted last month via PROD, with reason: Probable copyvio of "The Story of Lewis Hallock Nash, ME, ED, by Harold Nash, 1931"; article recreated today.~~ A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep now that the license release has been confirmed. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Article states copyright Nash Co. In addition, the editor that created the article has a history of adding copyrighted material in addition to this article. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did consider tagging the page with db-copyvio; I wasn't comfortable applying the tag because the article asserts a copyright release. Which, admittedly, should not be a part of the article. I question whether the creating editor has the legal standing to release the original article to Wikipedia. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - can anybody check and see if this work ever had the copyright renewed? If not, it's public domain, and we can use it. Text is also at User:Amyharold: that should be deleted if this is.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Keep per OTRS release and ruthlessly cleanup per Mayalld :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from the Nash family, and Nash Engineering Co. to post this article. If the copyright info is supposed to be appended some other way (I was told that I needed to include it to avoid having the article deleted), then please tell me how.

Lewis H. Nash invented, among other things, the liquid ring vacuum pump, which has an article of its own. It seems only right that people can see something about the inventor. Amy Harold, article poster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyharold (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I just posted on your talk page, WP:PERMISSION explains how you can establish your authority to repost the material.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've received an email at OTRS about this. I'm trying to establish the GFDL release properly. OTRS agents can view it at OTRS:2347188. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL release confirmed. That should no longer be a reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ruthlessly copyedit per OTRS release, and apparent notability, without prejudice to the fact that this article adopts a distinctly unencyclopedic tone! Mayalld (talk) 15:13, 15 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. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, where an entry on this already exists. seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Night

This does not appear to be a notable phrase, it seems to be only sourced and used by James Wood a century ago. dougweller (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - It does seem to have appeared in the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, which has its own article but that I don't think that establishes notability; ~~so, until then, seems to fall under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms as a protologism~~. The phrase just doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion and I think it also falls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is kept, how might this article grow? Exodus 10:22 ("And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days...") more or less gives the complete story of the reference. I don't see an article growing by expounding on this somewhat obscure passage. After looking at more uses of the phase "Egyptian nights" in books, it seems like the "Egyptian" is being used mostly as an adjective meaning "biblically dark". In the Mencken case, he just made a compound noun out of the adjective for "nights of biblical darkness". It seems like the article would just in essence be a collections of examples of where the phrase was used. The other idea would be to explore Exo 10:22 but that is better done in an article about Exo 10:22. If the phrase was semi-commonly used, does that alone establish encyclopedic suitability? How would an encyclopedia article be better than an additional definition for "Egyptian" to Wikitionary? Jason Quinn (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Glancing quickly at the subject, I see that H. L. Mencken was familiar with the concept (see the ref I added in the article) so I suspect it was notable a century ago, and per policy, notability does not expire. Lack of modern sources demonstrating notability would not be evidence of the subject's non-notability, as long-ago sources would be hard to find now; furthermore we now have two independent reliable sources attesting to the phrase's existence a century ago, so it's certainly not a neologism. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The correct phrase in common use in "Egyptian darkness", just as the KJ Bible has it. [8]. DGG (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - there's an entry at Wiktionary for "Egyptian darkness". It is a valid question to ask how an article on "egyptian darkness" could be expanded in an encyclopedic manner. I could just be myopic but it seems that any expansion of the article would not involve much more than defining the phrase and its reference. Listing examples of its usage in literature is not much more encyclopedic than listing examples of usage of the phrase "raining cats and dogs" in literature. It seems like this entry should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn (talk • contribs)

*Comment I agree with DGG that it should be kept but only if it is renamed, some good sources using it [9] - article will need a bit of work still of course. dougweller (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSorry, just reread Jason Quinn's comments (and signed the last one). I'm retracting my comments above as I'm not sure that there is more than a definition of the word & at best saying 'so and so used it in thus and such'. dougweller (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All distinctive phrases in the Bible can be expanded as they have been much discussed in the 20 centuries since they've been written. The large number of sources for various forms of the word found in the searches is a good indication of what is available. DGG (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely unless we turn the article into a list it would require reliable sources talking about the use of the phrase? dougweller (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the phrase itself, there should be no problem getting them for any phrase or even any word in the Bible, Koran, or similar classics. There has been exhaustive analysis, as this was the major intellectual activity of people for centuries. There is already one that is sufficient in the article. As for the use of the phrase, if a phrase can be shown to be notable by being used in significant contexts, you do not also need references saying that the use is notable. A references does not have to itself be referenced to show that the reference is significant. That would go on forever. , DGG (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. There is no need to create articles for every word in the bible. It is sufficient to include it in any article on related matter, such as on the book of Exodus. This is not the Encyclopedia Judaica. Cush (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - It is not a word in the Bible. It is a reference used elsewhere to allude to biblical events. Big difference. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the article is definitely misleading and should be deleted immediately. The purpose of an article should be to inform a reader about the issue it deals with. Cush (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef. Wiktionary is the place for this. - Richfife (talk) 21:12, 19 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Mantera's Party Dream

Article on non notable band written in very POV terms. Reads like a fan site, possible copyvio text. No Reliable Sources. Fails WP:BAND Archivey (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According the the page this band has existed for 10 years and has toured in the notable van's warped tour. Their myspace page has 10000ish fans/friends which could be a good gauge of a band's notability, the question being how many fans does a band have to have to be notable or is a band only notable if they get a song onto a best seller chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BAND they need to have reached a best-seller chart, won a significant reward, received significant coverage in the press or other reliable sources, or similar. No number of fans confers notability without something like that. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - google turned up a few newspaper reviews from their participation in the van's warped tour which seems to meet WP:BAND 4. Also this popped up http://www.spin.com/articles/gil-manteras-party-dream spin.com artist of the day of a major music review site/magazine. Someone could make a case for notability though the article itself will need to be rewritten to remove the POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Article asserts coverage in Village Voice, Spin, which are notable/reliable sources, as well as verifiable significant touring. Needs major cleanup. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is completly unsourced and is nothing more than a hobby band, which is why we have WP:BAND. Once they've achieved notabilty they can have an article, otherwise every kid with a guitar can claim notability and have an article. This is Wikipedia not Myspace. Archivey (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spin link above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the Spin article, there are also these two interviews. [10], [11]. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money (Season 2)

non-notable at this time -- purely promotional advertisement. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a future television show which is scheduled to air on VH1 in about 20 days. I believe it is both notable, in that the show will air on a major cable television network, and more than promotional advertisement. The amount of information and number of sources will surely increase dramatically over the next few weeks. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if season 1 was notable, season 2 will be. Worst case, merge to season one and rename that article...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't that very WP:CRYSTAL-ish? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Asking to have a page deleted when it has all been clearly cited and it will only be recreated in a couple days is ridiculous. I think this was placed frivolously and without being looked into seriously. There is so much information relating to the show that it is clearly not speculative, it is not WP:CRYSTAL, it's not purely promotional, as was stated. It is fact, and if the information is not varied enough as was placed on the page earlier and removed by me, fine. More references can be provided. But to delete it all together is pointless.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If am article with the same content is deleted per an AfD, it will be speedy deleted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has come to light that the reason this page was listed for deletion was because a different editor Dev 103 copied the pages format, table, and then called it something else before it was subsequently cleaned up and fixed. That show should not take away from this actual show and its actual date of actual premiere. Whether or not this For The Love of Ray J is going to be formatted the same way is something I don't know about or care, but deleting the original on baseless claims that it is promotional is simply not true.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The show is premeing in less then 3 weeks so why is this being considered for deletion. Then is no point why if everything is refrenced then there is NO point of being deleted now. It will be back up in three weeks so why would you delete it and then your going to have people who worked hard on that page. so please reconsider and change your mind. ––Spiderman2351 (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Spiderman2351[reply]

- Strong Keep. There is NO reason to delete this page. Elefuntboy (talk) 22:35, 18 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 Digital art. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital artist

An anonymous IP on the talk page said it quite well: "What is a digital artist? There is no such defenition. An artist is an artist. He or she isn't digital at all." The term is vague and not a de facto term by any stretch of the imagination. The page contains several arbitrary examples (gallery) of art which was conceived digitally, more of which is boundless on the internet. There are no inline citations, either. ←Spidern → 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- ←Spidern → 17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Standard term, in common use, and well established within the digital arts community. Measles (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposing the term is in fact standard, does the page do it justice? ←Spidern → 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not the issue, it's a start, we'll get around to it. Measles (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason I ask is because I'm trying to focus mainly on the content of the page, rather than the term itself. The question remains that even if it's an industry standard term, does enough secondary sourcing exist to merit mention in an encyclopedia, or is it worthy only of a Wiktionary mention? ←Spidern → 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there is, and I'm suprised there is no evidence of it on the page, here is an idea what's out there in the mainstream press, there is also a research based digital art scene, and many of the individuals in that sphere refer to themselves as digital artists in the broader sense of the definition. Measles (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Digital art. I can't see how the content of the two articles would be different. Installation artist redirects to Installation art. Performance artist redirects to Performance art.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one reason why merging might not serve this, is that the Digital art article appears to deal specifically with computer generated visual art, but that is not the sole domain of expression in the digital arts. Measles (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the lead paragraph of the Digital Art article does say that the term can be more broadly understood. So, that's the article to work on.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Digital art per WP:NOTDIC. This reminds me of the AfD for Encyclopedia article that we ended up redirecting to Encyclopedia - useless dictionary definition, not article. Ethicoaestheticist (what a name!) is right on the money here - all other "artist" pages redirect to "art" pages and there's absolutely no reason this one shouldn't. Graymornings_(talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital art. per Sculptor redirecting to Sculpture, Singer to Singing, k.t.l. Painter would go to Painting if it were not a disambig. Basically, there is nothing that justifies anything further than a sentence in Digital art ("One who creates digital art is known as a digital artist") or perhaps a category: Category:Digital art (EDIT: which apparently exists). CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital art per above. freshacconci talktalk 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital art per others. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital art per above, makes sense...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 17 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 Baron Schwartz. MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maatkit

Page recreated as a contested PROD[12] in DRV. Moving to AfD as a combination of the DRV decision and that I do not feel that this page meets notability requirements. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nno-notable software not in wide use. Folks, there is a TON of great Open Source Software out there that just doesn't make the notability / user base grade. Maybe someday, but that day is not today. Proxy User (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Maatkit (formerly MySQL Toolkit) is indispensable for any MySQL DBA (think of the weapons rack in the Matrix) the creator of mysqlsla has joined Baron and it is under heavy development backed by Percona -- Serfdog 11:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)— Serfdog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep - Covered in one dead tree book [13]. However, other coverage seems to be sparse, thus the "weak". -- Whpq (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable software. Schuym1 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - per Whpq's link. Otherwise appears to be non-notable. Matt (Talk) 03:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of multiple reliable sources. While there is the one above, there needs to be more than just that. -Djsasso (talk) 19:21, 15 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 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenia Diordiychuk

Fails WP:PORNBIO. Google search provides no further sources of notability. decltype 16:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The sources would be more convincing if they included Playboy centerfold citations. Links to a modeling agency, a business card, a magazine cover, and self-published web sites don't confer notability. Could be a 'keep' if better sources were found. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Has coverage here and here, but it's too trivial to establish notaility. Epbr123 (talk) 11:22, 15 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 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Short Strut to the Brassy Front

NN album; five pages of ghits returned pretty much only sales sites and user-generated content. roux 08:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: this is most certainly not notable, per WP:MUSIC. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 05:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, I could not find any information about this album. Canniba loki 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that it satisfies WP:NALBUMS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines for music Matt (Talk) 03:32, 15 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. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

696th Information Warfare Wing

This was a proposed USAF information warfare unit that was to be activated, before a policy change regarding the new Air Force Cyber Command meant the unit was not, actually, ever formed. Remaining information can be placed if necessary at Air Force Cyber Command and Air Force Information Operations Center. Buckshot06(prof) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausible search term. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ryan Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I withdraw this now? I'll go ahead and just convert it to a redirect. Buckshot06(prof) 12:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but I'm not sure that Jimbo Wales won't smote you with a lightning bolt. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:32, 17 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 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Stewart

Does not state why player is notable. Only two lines. Was nominated for PROD before but author removed template. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as has never played professionally, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played at least 5 matches in the IFA Premiership. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IFA Premiership is not a fully professional league, which means that he fails WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE per above. He doesn't look to have gained any significant coverage in the press to pass WP:N either. – Toon ^(talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 02:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, WP:ATHLETE. Hampton (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in top league of football in his country. Nfitz (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IFA is the national league of Ireland. How exactly is it not fully professional? - Mgm|^(talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The players are part-timers, they have "day jobs" as well. Therefore it is not a fully-professional league, which is understood to refer to one in which players do not have to hold down second jobs to supplement football income which by itself is at a level they couldn't get by on -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The IFA is the football body in Northern Ireland, not the whole of Ireland. The FAI has responsibility for the Republic of Ireland. I understand that there is only one professional club in Northern Ireland, Linfield. There are several professional clubs in the Republic, but even its top league is not fully professional. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not all countries have fully professional leagues. There's a list of those leagues which are fully professional here. Best, – Toon ^(talk) 01:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Meets WP:ATHLETE plays for IFA Premiership, the national football league in Northern Ireland. The list provided above doesn't have any guidelines, or cite any references on how the teams are included in the list. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually he fails WP:ATHLETE. as the IFA Premiership is not a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the highest amateur level would be playing in the Olympics. The leagues are included in WP:FOOTY's list if they are fully professional, surprisingly enough. – Toon ^(talk) 01:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria is use to decide what leagues are included? Where I can find this criteria? Did you know that IFA Premiership is included in the top level football leagues of Europe (UEFA)? See Template:UEFA_leagues. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is on that template only means that it is the highest level league in its particular country. "Top level" in that context doesn't mean it's ranked as one of the best leagues in Europe or anything like that (in fact UEFA ranks it only as the 46th best league in Europe, behind such awesome footballing powers as Albania and Cyprus, and only two places above the Faroe Islands!). The criterion is clearly set out in WP:ATHLETE - the league has to be fully professional (i.e. not include players who are only part-time footballers with "day jobs"). This article from the IFA Premiership's own official website confirms the non-fully-professional nature of the league, with the quote "Our Premiership is what it is, a part-time league, with part-time players and largely the clubs are run by enthusiastic fans who get no financial reward." - seems fairly clear-cut to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not yet played at a fully-professional level, and only fleeting mentions in local press would not be enough to pass WP:BIO neither. Bettia (rawr!) 10:04, 16 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. Per WP:SNOW and WP:NTEMP - nomination rationale is invalid as nobody can 'lose notability'. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 04:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Fahour

With recent restructure at NAB, Ahmed Fahour has lost notability. (see reference in National Australia Bank) Wizzzzman (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTE "Notability is not temporary". Raitchison (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Raitchison. He was, at one time, notable. Templarion (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOther users said it all. Notable people do not lose their relevance overnight. Andy (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs an update, but the others said it all. Notability isn't lost. Or do you plan on deleting George W. Bush when Obama is inaugurated? - Mgm|^(talk) 01:11, 15 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 --B (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Music Institute

"Nothing in news or scholar searches. Can't find any reliable sources. Not apparently notable." (Moved from prod to afd) ERK^{talk • contribs} 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with this, because I placed the PROD notice. :) A search turned up nothing useful about this private school. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:34, 24 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 00:05, 28 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per comments above as well as the original author's WP:COI. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Found only one newspaper article which seems to have substantial coverage [14] besides severl directory listings or "Cultural calendar" program announcements. Nothing to say it not a worthy enterprise which might garner additional coverage and reviews in the future. Edison (talk) 21:48, 14 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 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Sneijder

{{{text}}} Astral Highway (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, and none found. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Something went wrong with Astral Highway's attempt at creating the discussion page but you can see part of his rationale for deletion from his edit summary in the history: "It is very difficult, from the information you have provided, to see how this player meets the notability guidelines for..." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... Speedy delete as Blatant Hoax (G3) – Toon ^(talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Camw (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Firstly, this is clearly an autobiography, as it was created by User:Andre91. It's probably not a hoax, but a kid playing for a redlinked youth club (the very existence of which can't actually be verified as far as I can tell) is clearly not notable. I'd also seriously question the notability of Indonesian U-20 independent league team. I'm getting interesting mental images, though, after reading that "he decided to vacuum from his career in 2009" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris arguments. Govvy (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The player is completely non-notable, the claim about him scoring 96 goals in 40 games is improbable (though not impossible, depending on the standard of the league he's playing in) and unverifible, the club he plays for is also non-notable (judging by the number of Google hits), and I have sincere doubts about the notability of the league too. Bettia (rawr!) 09:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable youth player, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:24, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayame Ikehata

Does not meet WP:PORN BIO Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article has been part of WP for over a year and has not previously been marked as deleteworthy. It features a notable performer within Japanese erotic film-making. Makitomoda (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I have left my opinion on the invalidity of Wikipedia's home-made, Original Research generated "notability" criteria HERE. And I believe they are particularly invalid in relation to subjects which fall outside the interest and knowledge of the average Wikipedian editor demographic. So, disregarding the home-cooked WP:PORNBIO, what do reliable, secondary sources say about Japanese erotic entertainment? First: Erotic entertainers such as Ikehata have a much higher profile (i.e., are more "notable") within Japanese society than are their U.S. counterparts. In The Australian Journal of Media & Culture, Rosemary Iwamura wrote, "In Japan there is not the same line drawn between pornography and family entertainment that there is in the West. Here in Japan, a more liberated view about sex blurs that line."[15] So, has Ikehata appeared in mainstream Japanese media? Highly likely, but the policy of the Japanese media of constantly removing good sources from the web, and blocking their archiving, makes this extremely difficult to prove. Second, a reliable, secondary source says that an "average" Japanese AV actress' career lasts one year at most, and produces between five and ten videos in that time. [16] Ikehata performs in the specialty jukujo (熟女) "mature woman" niche, which probably limits the demand for her performance in videos-- but I find no secondary reliable source on the jukujo average. I find in sources such as THIS, that Ikehata has appeared in about two dozen AVs between 2004 and 2008 (she appears to be currently active). About half of these are compilation re-issues of previous performances, but her first appearance-- 2004-- and her last new appearance-- in 2008-- do show an above-average career time-span. However I do not see that she has been any more prolific than the average Japanese AV actress. Consequently, based on comparisons to the Japanese AV average, I believe she is just border-line between notable and non-notable. So, unless someone can come up with evidence to tip the scale one way or the other, I !vote Neutral. Dekkappai (talk)
- Strong Keep Changing !vote. According to AV-channel.com, a major retailer in Japan, Ikehata's video Step-Mother's Masochistic Juice 7 (義母のM汁7, Gibo no M-shiru 7)　was the #1-ranked SM video for the year of 2006[17], and still remained a top-seller, at #40 for 2007[18]. This firmly tips the scale, in my mind, to Keep. Specifically, in relation to the SM/incest genre, it satisfies WP:PORNBIO: "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature." Dekkappai (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a year's #1-ranked SM video doesn't necessarily make it iconic, groundbreaking or a blockbuster. Epbr123 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:PORNBIO. Also per Makitomoda, she is notable. travb (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Edison (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leaning towards neutral but Dekkappai's info on her SM video definitely makes her qualify as notable in this field. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's clear from this and other AfDs that WP:PORNBIO is biased against how the AV industry works in East Asian countries, and that at the very least has gaps in how to show notability for AV actors from those countries. Failure to meet that guideline is not a very convincing reason to delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I urge anyone knowledgable of the East Asian AV industry to help develop WP:PORNBIO. What does show notability for AV actors from these countries? Epbr123 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ah, but that's the very nature of Wikipedia's definitions of "notability", Quasirandom. We are here as editors, not authorities. For us-- or some of us-- to set ourselves up as authorities and to start making up definitions of "notability" violates all the best Wiki-values, such as NPOV and Original Research. These "notability" defitions only serve as a tool for those wishing to help promote their own bias here-- through deletion, or for those seeking Adminship to rack up authoritarian-like decisions. The only good they serve is to temporarily divert Deletionists' time into spinning out crack-pot definitions instead of removing other editors' good contributions. You'll note that since the article now in question has been shown to pass WP:PORNBIO, one of its leading authors has not changed his !vote, but is probably working hard to re-define "notability" to exclude this particular article, while preserving those in which he may have some interest. Dekkappai (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why did you vote "keep" if you don't believe editors should be deciding who is notable? Epbr123 (talk) 19:37, 15 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan National Guard

Unreferenced stub. Neither CIA World Fact Book nor Jane's World Armies lists this organisation. No evidence given that it actually exists. Buckshot06(prof) 22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: Unless someone can provide a source that this is actually real. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Buckshot, how do you feel about the article now? Are you happy this organization at least exists? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's much better. But should we upmerge it? Buckshot06(prof) 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, wait until the AFD's over and be bold. Trying to contact all these people on a whether or not it should be merged will be a nightmare, besides your merge can always be reverted if someone disagrees. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'd be against a merge. This is a separate entity with a separate identity from the branches of the Azerbaijani military, that is independently notable. We wouldn't merge the US National Guard or the US Army Reserves with the US Armed Forces, and we shouldn't merge this article. --Friejose (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added a source to show it is real but probably suffers from non-english sources. The fact the article is only a stub and has little content! shouldnt cause its deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if it exists, by all means we should keep it, but we need verifiable sources saying so. I saw that particular website last week. The fact remains it is a website of the Special State Protective Service headlined 'Export Oil and Gas Pipelines Security Department,' and refers to the National Guard being active in 1991-92. We cannot keep the article's current text based on that; we'd have to re-write it completely along the lines of 'the AZANG was a reserve unit in 1991-92' or something. We need material backing up that it is the Az reserve today or we have to completely rewrite or upmerge this stub, and if there is no better material provided within 10 days I think that's what we should do. Buckshot06(prof) 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep
Per: Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE: Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort.
References are adequate to save article from deletion. travb (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Deletion seems to be inappropriate here to me, along the lines of what travb and MilborneOne say above. --Friejose (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added a ref that should eliminate referencing and notability concerns from Heydar Aliyev's presidential library website. Follow the link, and, if you read Russian or use the Google translator function like me, you'll see primary source documentation of the existence and relevance of the ANG. --Friejose (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A part of the Military of Azerbaijan that may be potentially expanded. There's no compelling reason to treat the Azerbaijan National Guard any different than the National Guard of the United States. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 15 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 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J Compton of essex

Delete. There is nothing in this article to confirm notability and a Gogle search produced no mention of this man. Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete suspected hoax: the article claims to be about Charles J Compton of Essex, and Lord of Compton Manor, but the image linked as supposedly being his home is in Dorset, and is called Compton House, not Compton Manor. A Google Maps search [19] doesn't turn up any Compton Manors in (or even near) Essex. Similarly, there are no Compton Houses in Essex[20]. JulesH (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the image supposedly a portrait of Compton is actually a portrait of Sir Thomas Gascoigne.[21] JulesH (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks and poorly written to boot. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. THF (talk) 18:04, 15 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 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris DiSalvatore

Unnotable everyday person whose only claim to fame was to boast he was listed in a Marquis Who's Who volume, and whose original author (who may have created this iteration of the article under a new account) was warned for inserting libelous information about WFLA-TV personalities; this page was subsequently A7'ed on September 10, 2008 after its discovery, but here it is in recreated form. I would also not doubt WP:COPYVIO applies here. Nate • (chatter) 10:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't think we're going to create articles on all 100,000 people listed in this source, and this person doesn't seem to stand above the rest in terms of notability. Marquis Who's Who seems to be geared more towards inclusivity than selecting only those people who are important for some reason or another. JulesH (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or at least properly investigate. The various publications differ in their standards. WW in Science and Engineering, and the regional WWs, are pretty low; WW in the World is usually about people who do turn out to be notable if looked at. DGG (talk) 00:52, 15 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 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creepin' (Solo)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Creepin' (Solo)

Non-notable single that is only for free download from Chamillionaire and has not even charted. Dboy94 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-charting single. JamesBurns (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, nothing to establish the notablility of this single in any way. The only difference between this single and any other on the album is that we already know what it's called.211.30.172.67 (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:32, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark and Shattered Lands

AfDs for this article:

Keep, the TMC award and reference is notable and a RS. Also, this RFD has not been appropriately handled. --Theblog (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep meets all notability requirements. travb (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It lacks verification, the only reference proves a website lets people vote, votes which are easily skewed by vote stuffing thus making it not a reliable award or rank. "Chosen Game of the Month by MudMagic in September 2006" could possibly be notable if we knew something about the magazine/website. What notability criteria do you think it meets specifically, because the lack of verification means I can't really find any at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. An award by popular vote is a perfectly valid way of giving awards and showing notability. DGG (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 02:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as an improper nomination. This article was nominated for AFD by an IP as shown here, with this deletion discussion page created by someone who happened to have seen the AFD tag on the article. No opinion in regards of notability of the article. MuZemike 02:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vote-button / click-voting is a particularly unreliable, and no indication of importance whatsoever. I'm open to changing to keep if someone can show something along the lines of WP:GNG. Marasmusine (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the discussion on the talk page that at least one editor is interested in adding sources. The deletion process also has not been handled correctly. The first step is adding the request for sources template, which I just did. If the article still isn't properly referenced in a couple of months deletion might be in order. --Scandum (talk) 03:35, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daybreak Pacific

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy per nom. I can't find any sources for this company. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge I will find a source, and put the production information on each film or television production's page, if it exists and has a page. "http://www.daybreakpacific.com/" states that the registration has expired, and as such I will remove it. Treedel (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Variety magazine article directly addressing topic, satisfies WP:NOTE. About eight trivial mentions on NZ Herald also. XLerate (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless there are other reasons (like awards or notable events) to keep the article, the requirement is multiple reliable indepedent sources. One isn't enough. Any more? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: incorrect, WP:NOTE states "Multiple sources are generally preferred". Besides there are multiple sources, just not in depth. [22][23]. XLerate (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empty nose syndrome

AfDs for this article:

I would like to delete this article on the grounds of the subject itself (ENS) being too poorly explained, defined and researched in the medical literature. It's also a highly controversial topic.

I am the original author of this article. I used the name than "Allon A", but soon after changed it to "Rock2000". Under the latter name I am the main and almost sole contributor to this article. I have been trying for years now to define it properly. But after much discussion with ENT specialists and after scanning the medical literature on the nose - I have understood that it is a highly controversial, misunderstood, non-researched and undefined topic.

I am a post radical turbinectomy sufferer myself, so being able to define a proper universal syndrome which represents my symptoms and others has been very important for me and this is why I began this article. But after 2 and a half years and much effort to investigate this problem - I have reached the conclusion that aside from chronic "nasal dryness" which appears in Wikipedia in other articles (like "atrophic rhinitis") there doesn't seem to be a way to trully distinguish and define this post-surgical complication. The symptoms are terribly variable and hardly repeat themselves among sufferers, and it is not clear what triggers what.

I have to recognize that currently it is not defined and agreed upon sufficiently in the medical literature in such a way which deserves an article article in Wikipedia.

There is currently only one doctor (Steven Houser) that believes that it is defineable and engages in some sort of research to try and define it. I have been in direct contact with him and he too admits that up to now he is not sure if it can be defined as a seperate entity.

Please endorse my request to delete this article. (I know that the citations I listed are impressive, yet most of them warn against extensive turbinectomies. Those authors who attempt to define ENS do so out of their private opinion which is based on their impression as clinicians but not on properly controlled and validated scientific research.)

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2000 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-28 11:52:13

Note from what I have read of the article and of "related articles" --- this one does seem to be valuable and valid for entry from both a logical and (At minimal) a well founded exploratory basis. While perhaps addition of an entry at the top which gives a typical "disclaimer" could be seen as needed to invoke usual cautionaries in use of information in stating that this is written from personal experience and perspective; this, as written and open to further edit, looks to be well done even as a personalized entry as the originating author states (below). Again, perhaps a disclaimer within the section of "external links" could be of "good and fair" service.
On my personal experiences, we can too quickly and too often disregard good logic of that which happens to be based partly in personal experience. Not to compare, but a large part of what is sometimes missing in medical review is some humble humility and arriving at applicable medical logic for both discovery and potential for solutions and good treatment through our "personal experiences" being approached with furthered scientific endeavor to arrive at good and solid evidence to be applied to complex systems such as evidenced in anatomy and illness interactions. While, I have not read all articles cited and have not been formally trained in fields of medical science... this looks to be well deserving of further or continued publication. Terminology such as "mean onset" shows referenced studies give potential evidence of this article being within "normal" bounds of credible research that can likely stand well to add qualitatively to the "human experience" of our sharing commonalities even through citations on our unique human chemistries and experiences.
Note, my personal interest is within a potentially related experience with years of conditions caused not by potential resulting from turbinectomies or conchotomies - yet, with an internal and systemic exposure to poison ivy. Briefly, a relatively substantial amount of poison ivy (rhus tox) oil was taken into blood stream through (many) fresh open skin wounds. For years, the ivy oil caused conditions and damage to internal tissues such as (yet not limited to) muscle/bone joints and mucus membranes. The referenced material in this article could guide thru a potential furthered healing through potential in its explaining some interactions of the body's health-maintaining structures, mechanisms and interactions. This may help my personal experience in that chronic symptoms seen in the throat, sinus & mucus regulation (etc.) could benefit from what is written here in the ENS article. While I found this ENS article thru a seemingly unrelated link; and, while the name ENS seems maybe too simplified, this article may fit well if for no other purpose for branching into the related more "accepted" fields. Knowledge and thoughtful consideration for use of knowledge as seen here is power that should apply well to the health of "the human experience." Hope expression in applying for deletion will be reconsidered.
---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.71.102 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a ridiculous request. Even I questioned its notability long ago, but it is a verified medical syndrome. The article is a POS mess, needs lots of work, and is essentially useless, but it is a real syndrome. Can someone just speedy keep this thing, and we can move on? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if this is discredited is pseudoscience or quackery it is still notable. Should we delete Phrenology too?--Ted-m (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so are you two happy with it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2000 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not pseudoscience or quackery. It's a very real but complicated issue which is acknowledged by the rhinological community as an iatrogenic problem. But it is very difficult to define, so after many attempts I guess I just gave up. Perhaps I am wrong to give up, so I guess I'm really seeking your opinion for confidence of whether to prsue with this or not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2000 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs work, for sure, but it's notable and important enough that deleting the article would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers. My advice is that if it's something controversial, why not get conflicting opinions equally represented on the article? --coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I still think that it needs to be deleted. I am the one who began this article and built it up over the years. At the time it seemed like the understanding of this iatrogenic problem will grow as more research will be published. However, as this is a iatrogenic problem - doctors seem more interested in simply preventing it than explaining it. You can't open an article in Wikipedia for every problem that occurs from a bodily accident or from medical mal practice of over resection of some part of the body. Under the same token would you justify an article called "Empty Mouth Syndrome" - to depict a mouth that had it's teeth knocked out by mistake?...
There was one article in 2001 that claimed that over resetion of the turbinates causes a disease known as "atrophic rhinitis" but this disease has already an article in Wikipedia and in any case it was found to be wrong as it does not cause atrophic rhinitis. Therefore, with all the regret I have over all the time I invested in building up this article, I have to be honest enough to myself and to Wikipedia readers and ask that it will be deleted.
Perhaps in the future, if more research will be published that verifies it as an independent syndrome/disease which is not only iatrogenic and has a clear diagnosis I will, or others, write up a better, more accurate and improved article. For now I believe it is a misservice to keep it presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2000 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although you seem to feel some regret over having started this article, this can be the same vehicle for alerting people to what you've just stated -- that other studies suggest that there is no basis to this so-called "syndrome". Whether this is deleted or not, people will still be hearing about "empty nose syndrome" and will still be entering it as a search term, and finding hundreds of sites. One reason that people come to Wikipedia is in the hope of finding the most up to date information in the quickest way, and to at least have an idea about what other links they should be looking at. Mandsford (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring up a concern that DGG brought up in the last AfD - I think it's still relevant here. Is the term "empty nose syndrome" in wide use in the medical community or is it a neologism? Has the medical community accepted its classification as a "syndrome" or is it a loose collection of symptoms that one or two researchers decided to name? Graymornings_(talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a cross between OR and promotion. "There is very little research published about this syndrome," to quote from the article, is the sort of phrase that is a giveaway. What we should at least have done after the first AfD is edited it very drastically--but the recent month has seen a major expansion of the inappropriately detailed and over-emphasized content. An indication of the true promotional nature of the article can best be seen from the external links. DGG (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable syndrome as evidenced by a Google Scholar search. AfD is not the appropriate venue for cleaning up an article. -Atmoz (talk) 19:06, 15 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 by Orangemike per WP:CSD#A3 (no content). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Conway

Empty content - was originally entered as a bogus redirect to Monk (TV Series) by an anonymous user three years ago with no further action on the article. --claygate (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Name not mentioned on (old) target page - CSD A3 (so nominated). - Eldereft (cont.) 00:10, 15 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. I thank those few that participated constructively, but the rest of this AfD was a complete joke. Grsz ¹¹ 05:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Z. Williamson

If you came here because http://mzmadmike.livejournal.com/58935.html#cutid1, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable author with little or no third-party coverage. Also nominating his non-notable books. Grsz ¹¹ 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freehold (novel)
Freehold War
'Keep the author Multiple books in hundreds of worldcat libraries, published by the major publishers in his subject. [24] We need to look, but there are probably reviews for all or most of them. I see a few in Google News Archive, but not all of them are really independent, substantial, and from RSs. As for Freehold, it seems like The hero by John Ringo & Michael Z Williamson, 2004 is is book most widely held in libraries. For Freehold, and Freehold war it would depend entirely on the reviews. If borderline, merge the novel into the article for series. . DGG (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like Michael Z. Williamson, I think he's a right wing reactionary nut... but I know who he is despite the fact that I am only vaguely involved with the survivalist movement (which he is very involved in) and don't read his books (I did however discover one of them in my basement last night purely by chance... it wasn't very good as I recall). Like I said, not my cup of tea but absolutely notable enough to justify an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic11 (talk • contribs) - — Logic11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep - It is absurd to delete this biography as "non-notable". Clearly, Williamson is a quite notable and well-established sci-fi writer with 10+ books in print. His books are hardly the marginal vanity house titles that usually inspire "nn" AFDs -- rather they have been published by DAW, TOR Books, and Avon Books--all big name publishers. His books have collectively had hundreds of reviews on Amazon, and most have 4 and 5 star ratings. (See: http://www.amazon.com) What standard of notability are you applying, Mr. "Grsz"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grsz11) Please explain to me how Mr. Williamson is LESS notable than the LEAST NOTABLE Pittsburgh hockey player for whom you've written a biography. And meanwhile, please explain to me how Mr. Williamson is LESS notable than the "Scrubs" episode titled "My Manhood" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Manhood), which you considered notable enough to write a wiki article about. Trasel (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, attacks are really the way to go. Grsz ¹¹ 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was merely a relevant observation, not an attack. OBTW, Looking back through your edit log, I can see that you dropped the AFD bomb on Mr. Willianson's page less than 10 minutes after you and he had a disagreement over an edit at the Barack Obama page. Is that the "way to go"? Trasel (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this page is only for discussion of the article nominated for deletion. If you have a problem, take it up somewhere else, but please stop bombarding this page with your personal attacks. Grsz ¹¹ 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting of this AFD in apparent retaliation for the subject's disagreement with you on another article page is entirely relevant: if that's the only reason the article should be deleted, then this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could point to said disagreement ... I'm pretty sure the community doesn't consider every undo a user performs a "disagreement" Grsz ¹¹ 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm fairly certain reviews on Amazon are not reliable sources to establish notability. Grsz ¹¹ 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, but what about any of these reviews, that I found in just a couple of minutes of Google searching:

http://www.sfreviews.net/freehold.html

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3480

http://www.sfsite.com/12a/fr189.htm

https://thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=590ea6c610b2b2dca8a4195d718c75d8&topic=19508.msg246726

And I'm sure there are more reviews in hard copy publications. This doesn't sound like "little or no third-party coverage" to me... Trasel (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of those cites reliable? San Francisco Chronicle reviews? Grsz ¹¹ 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem.... In those instances, SF stands for "Science Fiction", not "San Francisco". Trasel (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, even less reliable. But the point remains, are there reviews from reliable sources such as newspapers, etc. Grsz ¹¹ 21:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several independant sources have been shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the author has sold many books to major commercial publishers, and many of these books have been reviewed by solid professional science-fiction reviewers. In addition to the previously mentioned reviews on sfreviews.net, qando.net, and sfsite.com, I found one more: http://www.sfrevu.com/php/Review-id.php?id=5517 . All of these sites are commercial, professionally run, and well known within the science-fiction book market. It isn't reasonable to insist on newspaper reviews of science fiction, much less military science fiction, for two reasons: newspapers review only a miniscule fraction of published science fiction, and science-fiction readers do not make buying decisions based on newspaper reviews. The fact that Williamson has been selling books reliably for many years is sufficient reason to keep his page on Wikipedia. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont remove this article. It is a notable person who I know to be a great guy. I've seen really stupid pages on Wikipedia, why not keep good content? Thomas Gooch (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) - — Thomas Gooch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree that there are rather poor articles out there, but simply because they exist or because you like the subject doesn't make this article notable or worthy of a keep. Grsz ¹¹ 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not only is the author very well established, he has written far more meaningful and noteworthy material than some of the other pages the complaintant has written themself.User:Cordova829 — Cordova829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please, the ad hominem attacks are pathetic and just show that you're unable to formulate a respectable argument. Grsz ¹¹ 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're entire argument for the deletion of the argument, by using the "non notable" label, has been based on ad hominem attacks. The author's article should not be deleted. My attack was uncalled for, but then again so was your attack upon the author. End of argument. User:Cordova829 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

By that logic, every AfD on a biography is an attack on its subject. Grsz ¹¹ 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can't really understand what the issue is. The guy's a recognized published author with a following of fans. Wikipedia would be incomplete without these types of bios on the site. ShallCarry (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy landslide keep pile-on. Writers are notable, let's move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OGMAFB. The guy's a serious SF and military fiction author, published by the biggest publisher of SF around, Baen Books; his military fiction is published by a thoroughly mainstream publisher, Avon Books. Is there anyone besides the submitter who thinks this doesn't count for notability? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a multi-published author. Six or seven books, and one more in the works that already has prospective buyers queing up. These facts should resoundingly equate to a -- KEEP -- . Subjectively, I'd like you to keep him, too. I like his stuff. Duwe6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.38.210 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The dude's published books with major publishers. That alone makes him notable enough to retain. This whole affair seems more like a personal attack than a reasoned argument to delete, IMO. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:44, 12 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 merge to Lowry Park Zoo. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Falls

Non-notable ride Zeng8r (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete/mergeI know Gator Falls well - my daughter insists on riding it every time we're at Lowry Park Zoo. However, there's absolutely nothing special about it. While I'm in favor of saving as many articles as possible, this one just doesn't qualify as notable any more than any of the other standard-issue rides at the zoo. Flying banana ride entry, anyone? Zeng8r (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

addendum The ride and the white alligators should be mentioned in the main Lowry Park Zoo article, but not in its own entry. The only media attention it's ever received - even in Tampa - was when it first opened, and that was mainly because it had mechanical issues and the grand opening was delayed at the last minute. It's simply not notable. Zeng8r (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The article offers RS on the noteworthy nature of the ride, including the rare albino alligators. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Lowry Park Zoo. The alligators may be notable, but all this really needs is a sentence or two at the zoo article. Tavix (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If it'll help move things along, I would agree with that. Merge content on the gators, with a reference to the fact that they are part of a larger attraction including this flume ride, with the citations, into the main zoo article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and merge/redirect to Lowry Park Zoo. This doesn't need an AfD, just redirect and give it a section in the main article. Graymornings_(talk) 00:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lowry Park Zoo. Surprisingly it is not already mentioned there so this would enhance the page and there are sources to support the merge. Smile a While (talk) 04:53, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haunts (band)

Band with no major recordings and no major national tour. Fails WP:MUSIC Ldpeep (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ldpeep (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party verification. WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No 3rd party reliable sources supporting notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A couple of minutes of Google searching found all these, many of which are clearly significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. NME, Rock Sound, Drowned in Sound): [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. They have already played at major UK festivals and I believe they have in fact already toured nationally, and they're just about to embark on another UK tour ([39]).--Michig (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the ref's Michig (thanks, saved me the trouble of adding them into the discussion myself). A note to some familiar names that are popping up in the music related AfD's: You are expected to get off your ass and look for sources yourself, not just judge the article on it's first appearance. Just because an article doesn't have ref's doesn't necessarily mean it's not notable, it just means there aren't any references. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Significant and reliable coverage, meets WP:N. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:44, 15 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 03:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You? (Song)

It does not cite any references nor does it cite any reason for notability. It should be deleted--Zsm148student (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Zsm148student[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How Do You? already redirects to the album. Song didn't chart and wasn't covered in any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:31, 15 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 Speedied by Aude as vandalism (G3). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money Kids

Appears to be user-created fan spinoff production that hasn't even been made yet. Article doesn't assert notability of subject. Ubcule (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. GreyWyvern (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra; I assumed that this was a bunch of overenthusiastic kids promoting a home-made fan production (since it mentioned that it would first appear on YouTube, 'nuff said). However, since the contestants listed appear to be from the original I Love Money, I'd agree this is probably a hoax. Ubcule (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:CRYSTAL. It's a fan product after all [40] - Mgm|^(talk) 00:48, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Whitlock

Non-notable CCM artist. No charting, no indication this meets WP:MUSIC. Just the usual collection of official site and Myspace links. Blueboy 96 20:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following albums for deletion as well:

Note that while God and a Girl has two reviews listed, I'm not convinced that the second reviewer is a reliable source. Blueboy 96 20:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 25 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant 3rd party sources WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's the album review from Christianity Today, and also this from Street Brand Magazine (a Christian youth website). Everything else here in a Google News search appears to just be trivial mentions that she toured with Todd Agnew. I'm frankly not sure if this adds up to a weak keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1, so I'd like to hear some others' assessment of these sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only for the ref's P.E. supplied, but also for the existing ones in the God and a Girl article. In the context of Christian music, Jesus Freak Hideout is considered a reliable source (per previous AfD's), how ever here's one from Allmusic anyhow. Of the 2 albums, one was released on Ardent Records and the other on Columbia Records, so that passes WP:MUSIC#C5. The Fake EP though should be merged since there is only 1 review, unless someone can fins any more on it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:29, 15 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. Cursory Google search confirms she's a bestseller according to two notable publications. Improper nomination. No valid reason found. Mgm|^(talk) 00:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Chance

KEEP: Just the Information I need when I am looking up authors! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasmoruss (talk • contribs) 2009/01/08 22:21:53 — Thomasmoruss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "It's useful" is not a valid reason for keeping. MuZemike 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Article was tagged for AFD by an IP address here on 26 December 2008 and was never completed. This deletion discussion page was created by the above SPA. Hence, this AFD was never properly nominated, but I will defer to admins to decide whether or not to keep this AFD open. I have no opinion on the article at this time. MuZemike 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple publications by a major publisher, cited by the New York Times and USA Today as a best-seller. Article needs more sourcing, but she satisfies notability. 23skidoo (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per 23skidoo. GreyWyvern (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Binns

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ken Binns

Delete as it seems that this article has nothing about it and that their notablility is minimal. There isn't much information on this person either. Koshoes (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Athlete has competed at fully professional level and/or the highest ameture level of the sport. Athlete has won or placed highly in prestigous competitions in their sport. Secondary sources almost surely exist in print from 1960-70's. AfD hero (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it needs sourcing, the article makes multiple claims of participation at the highest level of the sport, which clearly meets the guidelines of notability on athletes. Edward321 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you 2 don't notice how much content there is. I made one with all the content, all the sources, all the notability, yet it still GOT DELETED! Barely any notability, and for that reason, I'm changing the tag. Koshoes (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the current atmosphere of AfD's I wouldn't be surprised if your article got wrongly deleted, but that's not a reason to take it out on this article. AfD hero (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. But barely any notability, no content, no links. Come on! Koshoes (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has a point. Weak Delete. M1N (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His achievements in top-level hardball squash, which was a major professional sport in North America in the 1960s and 70s when Binns was active, make him significant. He was runner-up at what was then the sport's most prestigious competition, the North American Open (now known as the US Open), and deleting the page would make him the only player without a wikilink at the United States Open (squash) page, which lists all finalists going back to 1954. His reaching the championship final can be verified at this webpage. Zaxem (talk) 20:31, 16 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 per WP:SNOW. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cooperative games for the Xbox 360

Article appears to be a composite of games that fit into Category:Cooperative video games as well as List of Xbox 360 games. Proper usage of the Coop and 360 categories when creating articles renders this article unneccesary. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall under the same situation. A list article is simply repeating the info already available through the usage of the Xbox 360 games category:

List of Xbox 360 games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- TRTX ^{T / C} 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change article to use sortable tables: List of Xbox 360 games uses a sortable table, something that can't be done with categories. As for List of cooperative games for the Xbox 360, which does not, I'd propose changing the style in which the information is presented to be in a sortable table. Then there would be no reason to delete either article. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lightsup55. Categories and lists serve different purposes, and lists are much more friendly to navigate, especially for readers who aren't familiar with the category system. This is a legitimate list topic. It could of course be improved, e.g., with sortable tables.--ragesoss (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for List of cooperative games for the Xbox 360 and strong keep for List of Xbox 360 games. Categories and lists can co-exist, and lists can accomplish things that categories cannot (read WP:LIST). The co-op list is kind of an OCAT list and can probably be cleaned up and turned into a sortable table. However, I think I would only support that if the intent was to split from the already-huge main Xbox 360 list. MuZemike (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Couldn't a "Coop" column simply be added to List of Xbox 360 games? (Sidenote, I can't get the latter page to load.) SharkD (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the article title and contents may not match up does not mean it needs to be deleted, just means it needs fixed. I also like the sortable columns idea. I used to be big on pushing categories over list pages however list pages allow for more detailed information (for example release dates and publishers), in one list. Being we cannot cross populate categories (I.E. select all articles in lets say a category on EA Games and cross select against xbox 360 games, this actually adds a lot more value than would meet the eye. Does need some cleanup work though. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the List of Xbox 360 games, and probably the other one, too. I like the idea of the "co-op" column combining the functionality of the list of co-op games into the article for the list of all games, but I think that the List of cooperative games for the Xbox 360 has enough important information on its own to still be useful as a separate article.--Jtle515 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my initial thought was "well just put a 'co-op' column in the existing Xbox games list". But then, wouldn't we then need columns for "competitive multiplayer" or "single player only"? So how about changing this list to a sortable "List of Xbox games by gameplay mode"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Yes, yes! I think you've got something here. I'd agree to that. So... I vote to move List of cooperative games for the Xbox 360 to List of Xbox 360 games by gameplay mode and add gameplay modes as a sortable table --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 23:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support move - Good idea. SharkD (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At first I thought the move idea discussed above sounded good but as Kreider and Jtle515 point out there are man different possible implementations of co-op gameplay which would make inclusion in a complete table of games problematic. Raitchison (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I threw together a quick and dirty table on the article's Talk Page but I think it could be better, perhaps someone wants to take a crack at improving it before we implement in the article. Raitchison (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep someone should explain to the nominator what a merge tag is: {{Merge|}} and how to use it. this is the wrong forum to suggest an article me merged. travb (talk) 21:19, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Izola

See talkpage of the article DaSch (talk) 20:05, 16 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, Stifle (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment expand criteria please. Not able to understand why this is being deleted. --Balloholic (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep This seems a large marina, but it will absolutely need at least some 3rd party sources. DGG (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The talk page comment is: "URV translation from de.wp, not relevant, transfer information to Izola". Apparently the article was deleted in the German (de) Wikipedia after the material was worked into Izola. Someone should explain the GFDL to them. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3rd largest port in Slovenia (although that doesn't say much by itself, considering how small Slovene coast is :P). Some basic info can be found on World Port Source, a little more detailed description is on Pagine Azzure (Italian only) - that from 5 minutes searching for "Port Izola" on Google. --Yerpo (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some secondary sources to prove notability are added. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 18 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 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marques stevenson

NN athlete: references appear to be the same recruitment press release, no information is presented. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedy decliner. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. -Atmoz (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs lots of cleanup. Passes WP:ATHLETE (unless it's been re-written again without my knowledge, hard to say...) Has sources, some are myspace and don't count, but ESPN and the Rivals.com recruiting stuff is okay by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. Not even close. And Paul disagrees with how WP:ATHLETE is interpreted, but he knows full well that consensus is that football players only meet WP:ATHLETE if they play in a fully professional league. If they do not, they need to meet general WP:N requirements. --2008Olympian^chitchat 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's hard to tell what WP:ATHLETE says because it keeps getting re-written--for a while there, several times a day (under the guise of a "consensus of one", I might add). But since you brought it up, college football is, in my opinion, the highest level of the amateur expression of the sport of American football. If they would ever play it in the Olympics, then maybe that would qualify--but they don't. That said, it is a weak article but I'll stay with keep on it for now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I understand that's how you interpret the policy. but that view has been soundly rejected many times. If a college football, baseball, or basketball player gets coverage in reliable sources, then they get in under standard notability requirements, see Colt McCoy, Mike Minor, and Stephen Curry. But not under WP:ATHLETE: that standard is limited to professional football, baseball, and basketball players. Many of them get an article although they do not meet the larger guidelines, see Kerry Cash, Jerry Browne, and Richard Rellford.

By and large, in the pros, most of the articles are good articles and there are fewer pro stubs like the last three players I listed. To open WP:ATHLETE to all college football and baseball players would flip that on its head: most of the articles would be stubs like the last three and there would be fewer good articles. So the good articles still get in this way under, but under WP:N, not WP:ATHLETE.--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Soundly rejected" and that rejection has been soundly rejected many times by many others, specifically with reference to college football. You might want to go look at the recent discussions (beware-it's a book of heated discussion!) on amateur status and WP:ATHLETE. Anyway, 1) I'm not opening up WP:ATHLETE to all college football players, we're talking about this one; 2) I admit (again) that the article is weak, but I'd still like to see it stick around and potentially be improved by an enthusiastic editor, 3) WP:ATHLETE is a guideline, not a policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was there, I started the most recent discussion. Anyone who wants can read the discussion and see that your view, despite your essays to the contrary, were rejected. The result was that highest level of amateur sports was specifically amended to state that it referred to the Olympics and World Championships. That means not college sports.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last I read, it said "usually means Olypics or world championshiops" ... care to point me to the Olympic American Football page or the World Championship of Amateur American Football page?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but I will point you to the first clause, which requires participation in a fully professional league. And I note that you won't touch college basketball players under your interpretation of the guideline. As I said before, your interpretation has been rejected many times, most recently here.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this passes WP:ATHLETE, cause last I checked the College of Redwoods was not D1.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 01:05, 19 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mir:ror

This RFID reader has only existed for a short while, and may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. The article may serve a primary purpose of promoting the item instead of describing it in encyclopedic terms, whether or not that was the intention of the author. Richard Cavell (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am inclined to agree with the assessment that it has not achieved sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia after a Google search. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've rewritten the article and added references. LinguistAtLarge 21:20, 24 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If TikiTag (which I started/did a lot of work on) can be brought to a more acceptable state, than Mirror can be also. --Christopher Kraus (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I rewrote this article to include reliable sources that establish notabiliity a few weeks ago. Also, hasn't this reached the end of the discussion period (about five days)? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Article is sourced and has been rewritten since nomination. Somebody should close this AfD. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:04, 16 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, almost snow keep. Even if DumbBOT completed this AfD only yesterday, the third-party coverage is so significant that anything but keeping is unlikely. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina's Hair Parlour

Nina's Hair Parlour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} (delete) – (View AfD)

I found this just a few minutes ago and thought that this article should be deleted because its non-noticable and its just a load of garbage.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A load of garbage" is not a deletion reason. Does it breach any Wikipedia policy? For the record, I've declined a speedy request on this one as the Guardian article and Celebrity Scissorhands appearance seem enough of an assertion of notability~~; I know nothing about hairdressing so have no opinion on the viability of the article~~. – iridescent 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On doing some checking, this appears to be a genuine notable institution in its (somewhat specialist) field; the fact that it warranted a fairly lengthy article in a major newspaper is enough to convince me. – iridescent 20:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Added a couple more references including features on the shop from Vogue and The Times. IMO this is clearly notable no matter how many Twinkle-armed taggers deem it otherwise. – iridescent 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems quite notable, per Iridescent. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 05:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. A very famous place, certainly the most renowned hairdressing parlour in the UK if not among one of the most famous in the world. In fact, the staff are becoming so well known that they'll probably warrant their own pages soon. There was a huge article on barber Mark McCarthy in Bizarre magazine last year. Tris2000 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh one thing that should be changed, though: remove the hyperlink to the parlour's website at the start of the article, and include it in an External Links section. Tris2000 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist to establish notability (in spades) -- Whpq (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only are there sufficient sources, the very first sentence in the article establishes notability on the spot. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:37, 15 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the universe according to John C. Lilly

No sources establish this as an idea that has independent notability from that of its author. Any coherent content needs to be merged into the article on John C. Lilly, but this isn't a valid article subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absent an overwhelming number of independent sources specifically about his theory - which the article doesn't evidence and I'd probably have seen at least some of if they existed - this does not merit a standalone article. I would just delete this, as I don't see anything worth merging or any independent sources to support a merge. GRBerry 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—The man himself is notable and this article is brief, so I'll just suggest a merge to the John C. Lilly page.—RJH (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete John C. Lilly is notable but there is nothing in this article worth keeping. There are two sections of content. One is a description of the components of the universe according to Lilly. This is mostly incoherent. Also it is written as fact when it should be addressed as fringe science or fantasy as in Time Cube. It is also potentially a copyright violation of Simulations of God if anyone wants to check. The other section quotes Lilly directly and is more coherent, but the article does not name the work as is required for a quote of this size. Wronkiew (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wronkiew. I came to this AfD to say what Wronkiew has said, but I will summarise for emphasis: John C. Lilly is notable and should have an article. However, none of this whatever-it-is should be in it. Whatsoever. This is fit for the trash heap.
-- Forgot signature, sorry. 70.100.83.62 (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. If there is anything useful in this article, it should be moved to John C. Lilly. I found the lengthy table, though, to be quite unintelligible, and the lengthy quote not much more informative, so couldn't spot anything I felt was worth moving. Tim Ross (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as written is non-encyclopedic original research (at least I think it's OR, can't really tell because it doesn't make any sense to me). Nothing to be merged into the main article. -Atmoz (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV-fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 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 List of Half-Life mods. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poke646

This seems to be a non-notable mod of a video game. A number of links to reviews are given - but at a closer look, they all originate from the same web site, and are (as far as I understand) user-generated content. The notability tag was added in October 2007. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Half-Life mods. All the references used for notability come from a single source, and I can't see anything that indicates these reviewers are on the site's editorial team. So per footnote #4 on WP:N I suggest leaving it as an entry in the list, using the "Mod of the Year" award to indicate some importance (although I note there's no citation for it yet). Marasmusine (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Agree with Maramusine. The only review that looks like it might be acceptable is Yahtzee's, assuming it's really him. But without a date, there's no way to verify if this was after he got picked up by The Escapist. And even then, that's hardly enough to base an article on. Redirecting will preserve the edit history and leave things open for possible expansion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to List of Half-Life mods. I have already proposed a merger/redirection of two other similar mods, AMX Mod X and Amxmodx geronimo, over at Talk:List of Half-Life mods#Merger proposal. MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 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 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2000

Completely unsourced and made entirely of speculation as to who may have been considered. Notable in a loose sense, but a cleaned up version would contain no information not available in other related articles. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no source, and seems to be WP:OR Empire3131 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: speculation, perhaps a past tense of WP:Crystal Ball? bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Vice_Presidential_candidates. No crystal ball/verifiability/OR concerns here, because there are plenty of reliable sources in the media discussing the selection process in 2000. Right now, the subject is covered adequately in the main article on the US 2000 presidential election, so no stand-alone article is necessary; however, if the relevant section in that article is expanded, it could merit a spin-off article. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the names I put on their were from a source available on the page.Rockyobody (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to cut and paste those sources over to your article. On a serious article about a subject of historical interest, citations are indispensible. Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information available at United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Vice_Presidential_candidates. Unlikely search term. -Atmoz (talk) 23:45, 14 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 04:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Mummy (Florida)

Revenge_of_the_Mummy_(Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

The article has multiple problems:

It does not cite any references or sources.
It only has one section - an overly long plot summary.
The important details seen in the infobox and lead are unreferenced, and therefore may not be accurate.

I believe that these strong problems make it questionable for the article to be kept. I hereby propose it for deletion. Comments?--Snowman Guy (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. All problems described can be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. There are plenty of sources available for this highly notable ride at a major theme park ([41], Frommer's Walt Disney World & Orlando with Kids (Wiley 2006), [42] [43] [44], etc.), and all the other problems are trivially fixed. JulesH (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be possible to improve this article and its sourcing to bring it up to the standards of wikipedia's other articles on roller coasters. Of the deletion reasons proposed, the only one that would be a valid deletion reason per policy would be if it were impossible to find reliable sources on the subject -- I see no reason to believe that's the case. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep an AfD is a last resort only.
Per: Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE: Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort.
References are adequate to save article from deletion.travb (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable ride at major theme park. -Atmoz (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the issues the nom describes are things that should be addressed through editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:32, 15 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 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Gallart

AfDs for this article:

Person appears to fail all WP:Bio notability criteria. Currently works as a liaison for a local public agency. Previously worked as a minor assistant promoter at music companies. References provided offer zero coverage, only mentions his name. A search reveals nothing more. Previous Afd a year ago was a snow delete - and this doesn't appear to be an improvement — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, I don't see any additional notability here. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search doesn't even make it off the first page and the first 5 of those are Wiki-based. Not notable. Padillah (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 14 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruskin, Minnesota

A7: Article about a real place, which does not assert notability. Elm-39 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, real place, A7 does not apply. Individual AfD is not the place to address whether or not places are inherently notable - current practice is that they are. DuncanHill (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So small, unimportant towns are of great historical significance yet small, important people are not? Brilliant! Elm-39 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not saying that it is of "great historical significance", just that we generally regard real places as being sufficiently notable for inclusion. I can think of at least one small important person with an article :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep cities, towns, villages, and hamlets regardless of how small are inherently notable. A7, for a place? no way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the original nominator removed the Afd tags from the article - is this a withdrawal of the nomination? Any way, at this point, any deletion would be out of process and the discussion seems to be WP:SNOWing toward keep, would any passing admin please close this debate. I would, but I've participated... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cane this just proves that any article can be put up for deletion by zealous editors. travb (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't qualify as a CSD A7, but what's there to be said about this community? About all that can be said is that it has a place name and that it used to be a stop on the Milwaukee Road until 1980. The history of Rice County on the Rice County web site doesn't say anything about Ruskin. Since it's so hard to find anything about this community, maybe a merge to Walcott Township, Rice County, Minnesota or Richland Township, Rice County, Minnesota would be appropriate, but since the community is located on County Road 23 (the boundary between townships), who knows which one it's in? There's a problem with reliable sources here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it doesn't have any mention on the MnDOT state highway map. It looks like it used to be a station on a long-abandoned Milwaukee Road branch line between Faribault and Zumbro Falls. I'm having trouble justifying keeping this article based on what little information is available. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been a school as well. [45]. I think the USGS is generally reliable. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small ≠ not-notable. See for example Tenney, Minnesota, population 6. -Atmoz (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, longstanding consensus is that communities (as long as we can verify that they exist) are notable. No question that this exists, and I don't see any reason why this should be treated any differently from other similar communities. As far as no-other-sources, wouldn't it be likely that there would be local printed sources about Ruskin? If we were to get someone with more sources, we could improve the article; as it is, it's a decent stub. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Real places are inhernently notable. Edward321 (talk) 03:45, 15 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. How did this spend so long in afd anyway? Non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawty Got It

Fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability. Has not even charted. Holiday56 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There is not even an article for the artist who made the song so therefore there is no way this article can be considered notable.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for reasons lined out above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~A9 Artist doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)~~ G3 Blatant misinformation, artist doesn't exist. Clear hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:23, 14 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 03:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Target (game)

NN video game by NN company. roux 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure whether to "keep" or "delete" at this time. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails basic WP:V policy; no indication that it's going to pass WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so editor can find more sources. I don't speak Polish, and neither does anyone else here, so it maybe difficult to find sources.travb (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that all of the editors in Category:User pl will appreciate your telling people that they don't speak Polish. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this should be speedy. No attempt at showing notability, not a single source, reliable or otherwise and none findable by me (or apparently the editors above)?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I cannot find any reliable sources on this game that can establish any notability. Nothing here is verifiable. MuZemike 02:38, 15 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 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships in Arab tradition

This is a short essay and original research. While it may be true and may be interesting, it requires development into a fully cited article or even a small stub, or should go pending re-creation at some point in the future. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is currently in poor shape. Probably should severely trim and stubify, but topic is encyclopedic. LK (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- This is just orignal research of a topic already covered in the Arabic wedding article. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not really about "relationships in Arab tradition", but about in- and out-group marriage in the Arab tradition. The information should be discussed in a larger article on Arabic family traditions. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic is not independently encyclopedic - anything sourced, which by the time of this writing is nil - can be merged to Endogamy or Exogamy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's the article on reading Garfield in Antartic tradition? More importantly, it's an unsourced essay, and a quick search of academic literature shows that it is not a topic of any kind. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable and important topic. It's just that this article isn't the right one to cover it. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's like claiming it is a notable topic, because It's actually about Islamic Marriage... it's silly, that's not what the article mentions, and making Presumptuous compressions of the definition doesn't change the fact that actual definition and title are portraying a non-notable, and infact, non-existant generalised topic. All information on any topic acatually hidden in this short piece of meaningless text is long since available in more appropriate places, so I stand by my original comments without question. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:06, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers starting quarterbacks

Delete indiscriminate information Mayalld (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You really do have to do a bit better than that with a nomination. It is uncited so far, and requires citations, but the list is of notable and verifiable players for a notable and verifiable team. I have no interest in American Football, but even I can see as a Brit that this list is not indiscriminate. The list has faults, yes, but it should be kept. I'm seriously tempted to suggest Speedy Keep. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you get rid of this one you will need to get the rest of them found at Template:NFLteamstartingquarterbacks. Spiesr (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually no. Each article here is judged on its own merits, but I do see why you say that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what the big deal is, this is like the 10th team page I have made and nobody said anything on the other ones. I have even used the same template, whats the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilliganfanatic (talk • contribs)
- Comment I see your point, but may I suggest you concentrate on the reasons (eg notability, verifiability) why this article should be retained in your rationale for keeping the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the list version of over categorization. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment I really think it's just a handy list to have of all the teams quarterbacks. I have it for other teams, why is this one a problem. Eventually I was going to have it for all NFL teams, now I guess only about half of them will have a page of quarterbacks. All the quarterbacks started for the team, I do have the reference link. A majority of player articles use profootballreference.com. It is certainly a reliable website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilliganfanatic (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You already said keep once, further comments are still welcome though. Spiesr (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Like the Bucs, I think that this 0 and 26 start has the potential to improve. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is essential and easy to maintain. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Stifle. One man's essential is another man's freedom fighter . . . errr . . . --IvoShandor (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep—NFL Quarterback comparisons are the subject of frequent coverage in the news, sports shows, sports magazines and so forth, and so the page can be readily made to satisfy WP:GNG. Likewise for the other pages on Lists of NFL starting quarterbacks.—RJH (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mr. Accountable.--Iamawesome800 Talk 15:51, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomica Hero Rescue Fire

Delete non notable future television show Mayalld (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Info on this show has just surfaced with a URL to the first major info source and interview with the main cast. Furthermore, an offical page has been found. Fractyl (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a sequel to a notable Japanese television series. The fact that it has already been featured in a third-party medium (the Mainichi is a major news distributor in Japan) means that it is notable. In fact, Mayalld, you put this page up for AFD 4 minutes after it was created.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info is a bit sparse, but even someone who doesn't think it deserves its own article yet should agree a merge to the prequel until it does is a good idea. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect: notability there but not significant enough to have its own article. JamesBurns (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Neier (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having machine-translated the sources and asked around a bit, the first two appear to be very reliable sources, so this article would meet the basic notability guideline; as the show nears its premiere, more information should come out on sources of increasing reliability. Leave it for now, and if nothing seems to be pending after several weeks, then maybe a merge would be in order. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't believe a show should be called non-notable when it's the sequel to one that is, when the sources that have announced it are fine under WP:V, and when it's already steamrolling a lot of discussion among both Japanese and global fans. Per Hersfold's comment, as a user with a small bit of experience in keeping up with Japanese TV, I can guarantee more information will drop within several weeks, as Japanese news/magazines like to promote things like this (and especially tokusatsu shows) like hotcakes. Arrowned (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Ryulong. I would like to note that this article was created after offical reliable sources were put in(Same goes for Decade and Shinkenger) --Numyht (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. This would seem to pass that guideline. The only future events we have more detailed instructions for is films, and while we don't have confirmation that principle filming has begun (which is what WP:NFF wants), if it's airing in three months enough pre-production work must have been done to look like an equivalent has been met here. Altogether, this is a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:04, 17 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 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hudgens projects

Delete. Obviously redundant with the main Vanessa Hudgens article, and nothing in this one is worth merging. MrShamrock (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it's refreshing to see that even the article creator thinks she won too many awards for HSM3 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Unlikely search. -Atmoz (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redudant. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:13, 17 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 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money (UK band)

Delete non notable band Mayalld (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently only one album on a (perhaps notable) label. Fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band Money and their album First Investment are notable for three main reasons;

The album was produced by Chris Tsangarides, one of the UK's leading rock producers. It was his first ever production.
A track by Money was included on the BBC's Metal Explosion album which showcased artists from the New Wave of British Heavy Metal. Money's music was representative of the NWOBHM genre.
Their album was re-released in 2008 by Rock Candy Records.

Clearly, as they were recording over thirty years ago references on Google don't exist. Music and bands from the NWOBHM genre remain popular throughout the world. The band has numerous entries in published encyclopedias of rock/metal, though little on the internet. Menorcarl (talk) 16:56, 15 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 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maiya robbie

Nonnotable musician, only claim to fame is being nominated (not winning) for best local female vocalist. Not enough per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. NN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC as written. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BLP.--Sting Buzz Me... 04:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:12, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July Systems

Has been tagged since October but still no external references or links to denote notability. The whole article is really just one big promotion piece. HighKing (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP and is mostly an advertising, promotional article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very quick search yielded two articles on the company in The Hindu and one in The Times of India, both clearly newspapers of record. Definitely needs tidied up, but doesn't fail WP:CORP in my opinion. Gr1st (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, none of the articles you've pointed out show that the company is notable. The articles you've found are actually all promotional pieces initiated by the company itself. Take a closer look at those articles .. you'll probably agree that it fails WP:CORP I'm afraid... --HighKing (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are they "initiated by the company"? Gr1st (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first two are obviously press releases, written and released by the company to announce a launch (company, product). Both press releases are written as promotional - pretty standard stuff. The last one is a press release announcing that they'd received funding - again not anything notable and initiated by the company themselves. --HighKing (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are press releases. A press release is a self-published source. The above are legitimate stories written by the staff of high-quality newspapers. They are reliable sources and there is nothing to suggest that they are not 100% independent of the subject. I'm still waiting to see a scrap of evidence that these were "initiated by the company". Gr1st (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... no. It's pretty normal practice for a company to issue a press release that is then "published" by mainstream press. Only one of the articles you've shown have an "author" (the 2nd one), but if you can still see that it's a thinly disguised "press release". Check out archive.org and look at the the July Systems website for the dates in question and you can see that they were published by the company (no accreditation to newspapers). --HighKing (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the other two articles are bylined "our bureau" and "Times News Network" - i.e. not published by the company. I've looked at the website via archive.org and cannot see an article identical to any of these. It doesn't matter one jot per WP notability guidelines if a reliable source publishes its own article based on a press release - that is still independent coverage. I have still not seen any evidence that the editorial independence of these newspapers has been compromised. Gr1st (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu and The Times of India are both "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Many newspaper articles are based on or prompted by press releases, but these have still undergone an independent editorial process, which is what is required for their use of sources for Wikipedia. The whole point of our notability guidelines is that we don't substitute our own subjective judgement of notability for that of the editors of two of the world's largest circulation English language broadsheet newspapers, who have decided that this company is notable enough for them to publish articles about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Gr1st (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has coverage in this book published by Cambridge University Press and in this article in The Wall Street Journal. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but it still doesn't make the company notable. The book in question is discussing how companies switch business plans, etc, and uses July as an example. Still doesn't make it notable though... C'mon guys, be objective! The company has been around for a while, true, but what is it notable for exactly? --HighKing (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable for being the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. And please don't accuse people of not being objective - I've no agenda here. Gr1st (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 230 google news results
Nominator wrote: "Has been tagged since October but still no external references or links to denote notability." Wikipedia:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Policy is crystal clear articles for deletion is NOT the forum to clean up articles.

Policy: Deletion should be a last resort
WP:PRESERVE Policy "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." Wikipedia:Notability Guideline "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." WP:INTROTODELETE "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort"

Why didn't the nominator make a good faith attempt to clean up the article first? Why didn't the nominator look for sources? It took me ten seconds to find 230 google news articles.
"Wikipedia was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was ...a groundsman...And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared....who would look ...at your...handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side." travb (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take it a further step and read the "news", like I did, you would most probably share my conclusion that these "news" articles are promotional Press Releases announcing partnerships and product launches. I looked for sources, I've read the material. Seeing as you're so fond of policy, take a look at WP:AGF, and next time try *reading* the sources. The names of the sources such as "Business Wire", "BusinessLine", "PR Newswire" etc might have given you a hint. Volume of "noise" does not equate to notability. --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's clear that many editors here believe that this company is notable. I nominated the article for deletion based on my interpretation of self-published sources - and therefore any company generated press releases that are "picked up" by the newswire are not regarded as meeting notability guidelines. I'm happy to be corrected on that if I'm mistaken. There are a number of experienced editors here that believe the company is notable, and that's good enough for me. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HighKing is right to complain about bootstrapped notability from press releases, but there's enough there from other sources [46] that, combined with $30M in venture capital funding, makes it notable. Sounds like Ashok Narasimhan might merit an article, too. THF (talk) 19:13, 18 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 deleted (CSD G3) by Thingg. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armed With Sodas

Hoax.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there's any doubt at all: Of course Claypool and Buckethead worked together a lot but the latter is no "lifelong friend" of those other two guys. Missing Google hits do the rest. The author did his best by providing two fake sources and I am currently looking for space to keep this little gem. Perhaps we'll find a warm place at WP:BH. ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur, this is a hoax -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Not mentioned in the articles on the supposed members; only relevant Ghits are this article and www.onlinemusicdatabase.com, which anyone can edit. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable references to this anywhere I can find GreyWyvern (talk) 20:32, 14 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 03:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grape stomp lady

Wikipedia is not 4chan or a tabloid: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly." -- wp:blp#Basic human dignity. See also Melissa Sander. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-14t12:02z 12:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. I agree, we don't want to confuse our mission with that of 4chan, or even Family Guy. --TS 12:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree wholeheartedly. I also think WP could consider its policy on stories about "Internet memes." Northwestgnome (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G10 attack page. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let's remember that local TV reporters aren't notable whether the are best known for the best work or their lowest moments - otherwise, this would be a keeper and renamed for the reporter involved since she does have the same (or more) notability than is usual in that profession. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Looks like attack even if it mightn't be. Non-notable on grounds of forgetability. Peridon (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Not notable enough for its own article, but belongs there. THF (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Northwestgnome (talk · contribs). Tim Pierce (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, besides any issues of it being an attack page. Edison (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tales of a Third Grade Nothing. It is a good idea to mention the incident briefly in the article on the Family Guy episode to give the whole thing context, but an entire article that is really only about one embarrasing moment in a real person's life violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:23, 15 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 transwiki. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sagan (number)

This was a fairly early addition to Wikipedia, probably inherited from an entry in the Jargon File. It's of dubious provenance, suggesting only that the term "Sagan" was only ever used as a joke quantity by a few hackers on Usenet. There is no evidence that the term entered common use either generally or in any specialized field, or is even common jargon on Usenet (it is not). The article was recently tagged for merge to Carl Sagan but it would not be appropriate there because of due weight and lack of reliable sources. TS 11:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some attention to Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium#"Billions and billions" and Indefinite and fictitious numbers#At-least numbers is also required.
Note the existence of
Julie K. Petersen (2002). "sagan". Fiber Optics Illustrated Dictionary. CRC Press. p. 836. ISBN 9780849313493..
I have my suspicions as to Petersen's source. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially a dictionary definition and an explanation of its etymology. Whether the term is actually used or not is irrelevant, as wikipedia is not a dictionary. JulesH (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm usually a mergist, and it was me that suggested merge and redirect, but the only source for this word's entry at dictionary.reference.com is the Jargon File, so let it go. The content for it in the three other articles mentioned above should also then be trimmed. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were sourceable, a brief mention in Carl Sagan may be appropriate. But that's another matter, and there is no evidence that this term is in wide usage. Lack of sources means delete. Friday (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourceable content and redirect to Carl Sagan#Popularization of science or Indefinite and fictitious numbers#At-least numbers; also transwiki to Wiktionary since it lacks an entry there. There are reliable sources, including this column by William Safire in The New York Times, and those sources mentioned above; although the idea that "billions and billions" means the same as "at least 4 billion" is likely original research. DHowell (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Merge and redirect now that a source other than the Jargon File has been identified. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (and transwiki) per DHowell. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamcast VGA

Non Encyclopaedic. Page should be deleted and merged into Dreamcast Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 10:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close nomination. Please read WP:MERGE. Merging an article does not require deletion at any point in the process, especially when article title is a suitable redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close nomination. - Dreamcast's VGA mode is quite a notable feature. This article should be improved, enhanced, probably even merged into the Dreamcast article, but definitely not deleted. - DCEvoCE (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, you can't both delete and merge or you lose the authorship history. Nominator needs to decide which action he is proposing. Marasmusine (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - this is probably what you really meant. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article on notable device. ScienceApe (talk) 18:47, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scores (Restaurant)

Notability. Fails WP:CORP. Alphageekpa (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- the article cites no independent reliable sources to establish notability, apparently there are none to be found. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altering vote in response to comments and article update; see below. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, it's a junky restaurant chain; it won't get into the newspapers till somebody files a lawsuit against it or something. Morenoodles (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it hasn't been documented yet by the world at large, Wikipedia cannot include it. This is our basic Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a stunningly bad article. However, the company's (gimmicky, uninteresting) site claims quite a lot of branches; it's hard to see either why they'd lie or how (if they're not lying) a restaurant chain packing in this number of people every evening is less significant than the hundreds of minor actors etc. who get articles here. And Google gives close to 900,000 hits for "scores quebec restaurant"; even granted that some are false positives (excellent, unrelated restaurants getting high scores etc.) and that most are blogs and the like, there seems to be something there. If WP:CORP disqualifies chains of this size, there's something wrong with WP:CORP. Morenoodles (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The thing that is in error is your rationale, which has zero basis in policy, and which is applying the widely-debunked count-the-Google-hits test. We don't include or exclude things based upon their size. The Primary Notability Criterion, as given in WP:CORP, involves the existence of multiple, independent, reliable, in-depth published works about the subject by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Counting Google hits is not research. Anyone who knows how the hit count is generated will tell you that the number is utterly meaningless for Wikipedia purposes. Research involves actually looking for sources, which at the very least involves reading what one's Google search turns up to see whether it is even relevant.
  Please provide a rationale that has a basis in policy and the WP:CORP criteria, because your existing rationale has no basis at all in policy and is not based upon actually doing the research that is required (by Wikipedia:Deletion policy of long standing) for determining whether a subject is notable, and can as such be entirely discounted by a closing administrator. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gosh, sorry, Uncle! Look, the Google test is a crock, I know. But when you say The Primary Notability Criterion, as given in WP:CORP, involves the existence of multiple, independent, reliable, in-depth published works about the subject by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy I wonder how you can keep a straight face. That's what's needed for FAs and the like, yes. That's desirable for all articles, yes. But look, the huge majority of articles that are kept as a result of AfD don't have multiple, independent, reliable, in-depth published works about them, let alone such things by identifiable people with reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Indeed, I'd guess that the total of restaurant chains in the universe that have such documentation in existence anywhere, let alone cited in their Wikipedia articles, would be countable on the fingers of one hand. (Maybe even the thumbs of one hand, as you seem to have discounted anything other than university presses and the New Yorker. And come to think of it, I've found plenty of errors in books from university presses.) This article is unlikely ever to have ambitions beyond "start class"; and as long as it doesn't (and is free of spam, etc.), it can depend on scarce, iffy, superficial published works from websites that seem to have some claim to credibility. So, the sources. As a wise man once said, When one is challenging notability or verifiability, one doesn't get to opt out of the finding part and sit back waving at other editors saying that it is their responsibility, not one's own, to look for sources. So I looked for them, and have revised the article accordingly. It's a boring stub, but I hope it's no longer a stinking boring stub. Morenoodles (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is currently in poor shape. But a chain with 38 restaurants is notable. Also, there is a link to a newspaper write up (albeit in French) on the page. LK (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, since I saw notices, I made efforts to improve this topic. As this company is expanding in Ontario (anglophone province), it would be useful to keep this topic (in english) to inform anglophones people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.219.58 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep FIRST Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."
Nominator didn't indicate whether he checked for any sources, but the references in this article are adequate to save article from deletion.
SECOND An AfD is a last resort only.
Per:Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process: :Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort."
THIRD Nominator failed: Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_not_notable "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.", also: Just pointing_at_a_policy_or guideline: "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." Nominator gave no explanation of how or why "Notability. Fails WP:CORP".travb (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've revised the thing. (And see my comment to Uncle some way above.) Incidentally, I'm sure that the article should be renamed if it survives; but I'm not sure to what it should be renamed, and anyway renaming it during an AfD seems an unnecessary complication and for all I know may be illegal too. Morenoodles (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The update by Morenoodles has improved the article quality, although the French source (which I didn't read my first time through) is still the only reliable, independent source in the article with significant coverage of the subject. This means the article still doesn't meet WP:CORP's requirements for multiple, significant RS coverage. However, I'm changing my position to neutral; I'll trust the judgment of others to weigh the subject's notability. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But honestly, which chains of retailers get multiple, significant RS coverage? Among the North American ones. McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Sears ... any others? Yet I'm sure that if I nominated more than three chains that didn't satisfy these requirements, I'd have allegations of pointiness and disruptiveness thrown at me. As I see it, yes, claims need RS; but modest articles consisting of small numbers of claims can subsist on modest (but not self-) sourcing. It's when they're turned into advertising that they should be shot down. Morenoodles (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Morenoodles (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See Pizza Delight for more information about this family of chains. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microfranchising

Delete. An advertisement, nothing encyclopedic. Also fails WP: COI. Article is the author's first contribution to Wikipedia. MrShamrock (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no advertising in the article, which discusses a well-known concept whose popular use can be easily revealed by a google search. Multiple reliable sources in the Literature section establish the subject's notability. And I don't see any evidence of a COI violation: certainly the fact that the article was created by a user's first wiki edit is not in and of itself evidence of a COI. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopaedic, patently bizarre to suggest it's an advertisement. Wily D 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is currently in poor shape. But topic is encyclopedic. LK (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. The tone of this is abysmal:

easily replicable business opportunities ... proven methodologies ... provides affordable opportunities for the people at the BOP (base of the pyramid) to own and operate small businesses that have been tested and come with an operations manual ... Microfranchising coupled with microfinance becomes a very powerful development tool.

The concept seems worthy of an article, though. I may edit out the vague peacock terms and leave a stub here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added the above line to indicate that all comments below refer to a new version of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have edited the page, attempting to restate it in less PoV terms, to purge the article of some of its peacock language and grandiose vagueness. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 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 03:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Drogin

Delete. Fails WP:Notability. Google search provides no further sources of notability. MrShamrock (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A staff writer credit on one show does not satisfy notability guidelines. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete staff writer credit does not meet notability guidelines. LK (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 03:58, 15 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 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Artists (Musicians)

Delete or merge with articles on Christian music and /or Contemporary Christian Music. The references provided refer to these subjects, not "Christian Artists." There are numerous subjective entries in this article, largely the author's opinion. MrShamrock (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ugh... looks redundant to the other articles which MrShamrock listed above and this article is not at all neutral, is contains too many images which don't contribute to the subject matter and is poorly written. --Pstanton 09:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Merge and redirect Coverage is the same as Contemporary Christian music, which is a better written article. LK (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This could be a great site for Christian Artists (Musicians), Can any Big Wiki's help ? intelligentlove 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like a dic. def. followed by a blog style of writing with many dubious claims to notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:45, 19 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 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supex

I didn't hear about this even I live in Korea. I think the term "Supex" is used in SK only. Kwj2772 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are lots of outside links... but they seem only tangentially related and this strikes me mainly as non-notable, and a neologism --Pstanton 09:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Another Delete See the deletion log of SUPEX. --peremen (talk) 16:28, 14 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 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worm (2007 film)

No notability asserted; may not be verifiable either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I've dug up the IMDB reference. Stephen Moffatt (not the Doctor Who writer) has mainly parts as an extra and uncredited minor roles. [47]. The whole Doctor Who thing makes finding further references harder. Anyone more skilled than me who can do the search?- Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did a search using title and director. Not a whole lot out there, but does appear a direct-to-video film that was targeted at the Christian marketplace. It appears that if it has any notability at all, it would be to a very narrow niche market. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title suggests some cult sleazefest but the description makes it sound stupendously dreary. Get this: "The scene is where Adam dies and goes to hell. But where he dies, Hell was not shown on this movie." Boring! (Back in the golden age of crap homiletic movies like Reefer Madness, we'd have seen hell, even if it were constructed out of cardboard boxes and Halloween costumes.) Oh yes, and nobody's bothered to review this video. The kindest thing would be to let the article die. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A film is not notable unless significant independent coverage and/or reviews of the film are published. See Wikipedia:Notability (films). LK (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy ~~Weak delete~~ per my response above to Mgm. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy the editor had 4 edits before he began working on this article. The movie is not a fraud, and does exist, as per imdb. Instead of saying thanks for your contributions, and explaining the 5 pillars of wikipedia, the wikipedia community in this AfD is telling User:Derek Coburn "your contributions are worthless" I found the movie site: http://www.wormthemovie.com/story.htm travb (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It hadn't occurred to me that it might not exist. I presume that it does exist; after all, why bother to create a website for a non-existent DVD? (A website to sell non-existent Swiss pharmaceuticals from a non-existent Canadian address, that I could understand, though of course not condone.) But IMDB is not a reliable source. It's a useful resource: it points to external reviews, many of which are typically in sources of note (NY Times, SF Chronicle etc., even respected websites like Berardinelli's). Number of external reviews here? Zero (0). Where is the significance of this DVD? It was made, it is sold, yes -- and what more? Morenoodles (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't preschool, User:Inclusionist. We don't leave crap articles alive just to pad the self esteem of new editors. They are held to the same standard as everyone else. Trusilver 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that stand up to WP:V. Fails to pass WP:FILM. Trusilver 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources stand up to WP:V. It exists. It has a niche audience. But they do not stand up to WP:N. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 16 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split: A Divided America

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Ridiculous for this documentary to be on the AFD page, it has obvious notability with the cast. Please make an attempt to research articles like this before putting them up for AFD. I added cast and imdb link to this article. I actually would like to see this documentary myself. --MrShamrock (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all the film festivals mentioned in the article are notable (for example, First Take is a student film festival), but an award from the Colorado International Film Festival and a nomination at the AFI Dallas International Film festival are certainly a claim of notability, so the nominator is in error with their nomination statement. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for verifiable assertions of notability. Could snow be coming? Morenoodles (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Awards show notability. LK (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable because of cast, awards. Quark1005 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per cast and awards. Should be tagged for Expansion... not deletion. This one's a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep notable. Has awards. This AfD is also going to be snowball keep.
*Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Wizard_of_Oz_on_television_(2nd_nomination). travb (talk) 02:53, 15 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 videographer. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinephotographer

Per WP:NEO. Google only has 71 hits for cinephotographer+dslr, none of which strike me as RS-worthy. (Cinephotographer itself has many false positives for foreign filmmakers of traditional cinematographic background, albeit with poor translation skills into English.) References are fairly poor and arguably promotional in content, and the article essentially notes that people with new still cameras which can now record HD video are now "cinephotographers". Not saying that this may not merit further consideration in the future, but for now, the relevant information seems more appropriate for more general DSLR and cinematography articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with videographer. --TS 13:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to videographer. LK (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cinematography or videographer as from the text of the article, that might seem where it might best belong. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 14 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 per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 Pedro : Chat 08:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sidhartha Shankar)

Delete. Fails notability and bio quite comprehensibly. MrShamrock (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No indication that subject passes WP:N - four films made with friends? No sources? No. FlyingToaster 07:53, 14 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 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian Defence Basketball

This non-professional social basketball organisation doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements set by WP:ORG . A Google search of 'South Australian Defence Basketball' (see: [48]) produces no results other than the organisation's own website and Facebook page and the article was started by User:Timothy.muehlberg who is listed in the article as being the association's woman's coach and is listed in a number of other roles on the association's website, including as its historian: [49]. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per first line of nom. Wow, seems a lot of work has gone in to this, I bet the author is gonna be pissed when he sees this AFD ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (reluctantly), I agree with the editor above me that a lot of work has gone into this, so if the consensus is "delete" I'll be happy to userify and post it to anyone's userspace. That said, it doesn't look like a particularly notable organisation, the only press I could find was this, and it's only a brief mention really. This would indicate to me that the organisation does not pass WP:ORG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:15, 18 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 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the News (film)

No notability asserted, and explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is only in development and has not yet entered production stage, thus making it impossible to provide information about the production. (There's also mention of a film and a documentary in the same article; it's not clear what exactly it is) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in agreement with Mgm. If/when this documentary film gets put together, bring it on back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not shooting yet. Cliff smith ^talk 02:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:40, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheDraw

I am having to force myself to do this. I used to spend hours with this program back when I was a kid, and there really is no information anywhere... but it isn't really notable, and I can't find a single reliable source. Feel free to attempt to rescue it, or possibly transwiki. I just can't justify keeping it in its current state. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merger of parts of this into ANSI art might be appropriate. I used to use this all the time myself, since I was the sysop of a local BBS from 1984 to 1999. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the signature ANSI editor used on PCs for the better part of a decade. Everyone who ever ran or called a BBS had it. It should fulfill the notability requirement...we just have to find the sources, which may not be easy to do via google considering that TheDraw comes from the pre-internet era. Wiz [CiA] aka Amazinglarry (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not about userbases, or popularity, or fame, or size. It is about coverage in published works from which an encyclopaedia article can be written. And callers to BBSes didn't need to create screens. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a link to an interview with the creator of the software. I will also point out that Wikipedia has articles on numerous software titles from this era, some of which were less widespread than TheDraw, for example Telix, Zmodem, Renegade (BBS), PKZIP, ACiDDraw. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Every subject stands or falls on its own merits, according to whether it is covered by sources or not. PKZIP is covered in many books, some of which, such as ISBN 9781557552037, are entirely devoted to its particular class of software utility program. Telix, too, is documented in books. You need to show that this program has been the subject of multiple in-depth coverage in independent reliable published works. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ANSI art, perhaps into a history or tools section. It deserves a mention, even a section in ANSI art, having been one of the earliest and most influential ANSI art editors; but we don't have enough verifiable information to extend it to full article length. Note: I am not the creator of this article; I initially created it as a redirect because I was too lazy to write an article. You can thank User:Cumbrowski for creating it, and I hope he will comment. Dcoetzee 09:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Keep. Additional sources discussed here show that this topic can stand on its own. Dcoetzee 23:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - TheDraw is probably the single most important tool used by the DOS PC ANSI art/ASCII art Artscene of all time. Disclaimer. I am using TheDraw myself to this day, since I first found out about it in 1992 (being a user for 16 years might be considerable as WP:COI :)). The tool got mentioned several times in interviews for the documentary "BBS: The Documentary" by Jason Scott Sadofsky, which can be found at the internet archive here. I am not sure, if or how many of the mentions of the tool made it on the final DVD, but I will find out and add it to the references in the article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A subjective estimate of importance has no foundation in our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, neither does what tools we happen to use (otherwise all of the tools at User:Uncle G's 'bot would warrant articles). The right thing — the only thing — is to show the existence of sources. You wrote this. What was your source? How can readers check what you wrote for correctness? They won't just take your word for it. You're just someone on a WWW site with a pseudonym. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure we could find numerous references in Boardwatch magazine, but I can't find a way to search the contents of Boardwatch on the internet. Anyone able to help? This seems like a classic example of an obviously notable subject, but the references are not readily available on the internet, which has led to this AFD nomination. Amazinglarry (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More or less the most prominent editor of its kind ever created, I think that speaks for itself. JBsupreme (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. Notability is neither fame nor importance. We rejected that as a principle long ago. What counts is whether a subject has been documented, in multiple in-depth published works from reliable sources independent of its creator(s), by the world at large. If the world hasn't seen fit to document this subject, then no matter how "prominent", "important", "unique", and so forth we personally and subjectively think it to be we don't get to mis-use Wikipedia to rectify the fact that the world hasn't documented something that we like. Being confident that Boardwatch will have documented this is not the same as pointing to where it actually has, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G, I think we all understand notability and the need to provide sources, the problem is that the sources are hard to find quickly by google searching or whatever. Anyone who knows anything about BBS culture knows how ubiquitous this software was and that's why everyone here is arguing for its notability. I went ahead and found another source (an actual book!) and added it to the article. Hopefully this will be enough to keep the article alive while someone figures out where Boardwatch can be searched. Amazinglarry (talk) 01:36, 18 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 Quincy Five. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Keaton

Delete WP:BLP1E - sufficiently not notable that we don't know anything about him biographically date, place of birth, life history, subsequent life, except his intersection with the court cases in which he was involved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's significant coverage, and not only is he notable, the play featuring him as a main character is too [50]. That was 30 seconds worth of googling, other sources are certainly available. Jfire (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. There are plenty of reliable sources covering David Keaton's involvement in the Quincy Five case, and as Jfire notes, there are also a documentary and a play covering his role in that incident. However, I would consider the documentary and play to be part of the coverage of the Quincy Five case. Following that reasoning, Keaton is notable only for one event; he seems to have kept a low profile otherwise. Per BLP1E he should not be the subject of a biography that revolves around that one, negative event; information should instead be added to the Quincy Five article. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since when is exoneration from a false conviction considered to be a negative event? Since this is not a negative event, WP:BLP1E does not apply. However, the article has little chance of expansion (since doing so would focus on a negative event, the court case) I would not oppose a merge and redirect to List of exonerated death row inmates. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even though Keaton was eventually exonerated, a biography of him would have to include the original accusation, which is negative material. Remember, BLP exists to protect the privacy of individuals who do not deserve the harsh glare of public attention, like Keaton. The Keaton article currently links to List of exonerated death row inmates so a redirect and merge of basic details seems reasonable. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Presumably he sought no publicity, like the lacrosse players at Duke - also exonerated - for whom no end of sources can be found, but they are covered in, and their names redirected to, 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the philosophy behind BLP1E is "cover the event, not the person"; coverage of notable events like the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case is necessary, but shouldn't form the basis for biographies, because a bio with nothing but that negative info gives an unbalanced pictures of the subjects' lives. The analogous article for Keaton is Quincy Five. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Quincy Five sounds acceptable to me. But I'll point out that, contra the assertions of the nominator, we do in this case have biographical information beyond the court cases in which he was involved: place of birth, subsequent life, impact on popular culture. It's not a cut-and-dry BLP1E. Jfire (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None added to the article and all in the context of the court cases, a book named "The Wrong Men", an anti-death penalty site, and The Exonerated. What about something not related to his cases. Presumably all the players in the court dramas have similar notabilities, so we can expect articles for the prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, appellate attorneys, reporters, whatever. Let's cover the event. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Quincy Five. THF (talk) 04:19, 16 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 copyvio, before the normal termination of this AfD and therefore without prejudicing the fate of any future article with original text about the same subject. Hoary (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Michael Reed

This photographer is not notable and has made no contributions to fashion photography via major magazines like Vogue or W. This article lists no major fashion clients. The article lists many professional affiliations, by no means does that merits the wiki entry. His webpage has no current or noteable supermodels or editorials at the world class level. MagazineHound (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio. The majority of the article is a direct copy from his own website. Our article on Graphis needs some work, but it implies that it's an important organization in photography so its awards would be significant even if they've just recently started handing them out. So I'm not opposed to a cleaned up version of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio per Mgm: article text is taken from the biography on Kevin Michael Reed's website, [51] and there is no earlier infringement-free version. The infringing material was added by User: Phrostbyte, who claims to be an associate of Kevin Michael Reed. Phrostbyte claims to have received permission from Kevin Michael Reed to add his works to the page, and User: Kmreed (who may be Kevin Michael Reed) has also edited the page; however, this is not sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright policy. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:19, 14 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 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin Blue

Non-notable game. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only relevant Google hits point to Game Maker or YoYo Games. Two related sites who will cover any game made with the software. There's no reviews or other independent information, not even from unreliable sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I did search for this, and found nothing. This is a game that came out a couple of weeks ago and was developed by one person. The only Google hits are for free download sites and for Game Maker or YoYo Games (which makes Game Maker). Assassin Blue is made in Game Maker. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete = The game's been featured on several other sites aside from YoYoGames--including GMArcade, TwilightPhantasm, and Caiman. There are fan-made videos posted on youtube, and the game has been reviewed on a few non-English sites as well: http://www.idealsoftblog.it/2009/01/assassin-blue-freeware-action-game.html, for example. It's been played several thousand times. The only reason the first page of google doesn't display more relevant links is because of a feature film with a smiliar name. I fail to see how the number of developers should affect its relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.202.22 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of notability, no the number of developers isn't relevent. But neither is the number of sites the game is hosted on. Idealsoftblog doesn't look like it meets our requirements for a WP:Reliable source. Have a look at WP:N for roughly what we are looking for. At the moment, I would hav e to say delete. Marasmusine (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "made by one person" comment referred more to the fact that the article is being written by the single creator of the game than to any notability conferred by the quantity of game developers. This was a fault in my writing, and I apologize for the confusion. I won't correct my original comment, since that would make 75.146.202.22's reply look confused, and instead I'll let this comment here speak for me. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, LeonsBuddyDave started the article and other members have contributed to it. I submitted some edits but I certainly didn't create the article myself, nor did I ask anyone else to. The Notability guideline seems pretty focused on having the subject covered in multiple locations, which this game is; I'd say that's a solid example of notability. Its popularity has been building and it's been played by thousands of people. What kind of "notable" site would have to cover/feature the game in order for it to be considered notable enough for your standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banov (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC) — Banov (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 userfy. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zettai Kakusei Tenshi Misutoresu Fōchun

Unnotable one-shot manga series; unlicensed and no significant coverage in reliable-third party sources, only minor mentions of its being published. Fails WP:BK. Prod removed with note saying "tag deleted, I ask that the article be taken to AfD for a wider debate." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the subject fails notability criteria and is little more than a plot summary. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly fails WP:N, WP:BK, and WP:MOS-AM#Notablility. However, the previous success of Arina Tanemura (All series before this one at least meet WP:MOS-AM#Notability). Reason leads us to believe that this series will soon be notable. That's why it doesn't seem right to vote for outright deletion. --Kelakagandy (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not every book written by even a notable author is automatically notable. Notability does not inherit and, per WP:CRYSTAL, we do not operate on the idea of trying to guess that something will eventually be notable. As a side note, in some other recent AfDs, the validity of WP:MOS-AM#Notability has been challenged, which made lead to more of even licensed series being deleted if they have not received any coverage, same as any other book. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it fails every notability criterion under the sun, it would still be a suitable and verifiable merge/redirect to the author with a brief mention he made it. The work of notable people should be covered comprehensively even if it's not using a full separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, except it is already mentioned in the author's article, where we generally do not include plot summaries except for extraordinary circumstances (which this isn't). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was only considering a partial merge. My main point is that it should redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable work per WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Just because the author has become notable recently doesn't mean that all of his works are granted automatic notability. The work is also already mentioned in the author's article so there is no need to merge. --Farix (Talk) 12:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (probably to User:Kelakagandy) under the very plausible assumption that the series will eventually be licensed and, when the reviews come in as they have done for all her other series, can show notability and so restored, and redirect the title to the author's article. Despite the news reports about the series, there is not yet enough information to demostrate notability, and the assumption above falls under WP:CRYSTAL. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction, but not all of her series have been reviewed yet. :P I.O.N, for example, has only been given a brief review in Publisher's Weekly (maybe, can't access the full article). I haven't found reviews for Short-Tempered Melancholic either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I'm starting to worry about my memory, as I could have sworn I found out about I.O.N from an ANN review, and only bought it after reading a review. But, no, ANN admits to no such thing existing. Argh. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per Quasirandom. I'd also like to point out that a one-shot means to me a single chapter, not three chapters that were released in a single volume (but then, I don't [get to] read many one-shots, so maybe Collectonian knows something I don't ;) ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to vary. In other similar one volume releases, I've seen various reviews call them one-shots, which is where I picked it up from. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the English (or at least American) comics industry, it means strictly a single chapter/issue comic. When I first encountered manga fans calling a series collected in a single volume a one-shot, it confused me mightily. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that helps clarify. I'll have to keep that in mind in the future... 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 23:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy No reason to chuck it out completely as it may be useful in time. - Richfife (talk) 21:15, 19 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) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mundana Quartet

AfDs for this article:

The music group didn't sign a contract with no label, they don't have an album. The links only tell that they were playing a concert on two local events (which don't google too well). They did a soundtrack for some movie which doesn't google well either (it was made by some local group, most information says it was shown on one notable film festival amongst others). Since the last AfD they played on Prowincjonalia 2008 film festival but rather than a concert they seemed to have been doing background music. Much of their website is taken by offer to hire them to play on a wedding or other event (much of the google hits are similar ads too) Plushy (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is hard to say on this one. Since I can't read a word of Polish, it is hard to say whether the sources provided fit the criteria of WP:N and WP:RS. If a user familiar with Polish can comment on the extent of the coverage in these sources, or in other Polish sources that can be found, a better determination can be made as to whether this group meets the inclusion criteria. I cannot vote either way though with the information I have, since sources are in fact present. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator says: "They did a soundtrack for some movie which doesn't google well either (it was made by some local group, most information says it was shown on one notable film festival amongst others)" suggests it's possible the film is notable. If it is, the band would be notable for providing its soundtrack. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was one of 21 independent movies qualified for the "indpendent cinema contest", it didn't win any award and googling it's name "Szczęściarze" with the group that did it "Metamorphosis" Doesn't really give too much results... ...I just thought I should look the movie up and give some info.Plushy (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do read Polish and can confirm that the Gazeta Wyborcza sources are merely passing mentions of their participation in forthcoming performances, in regional editions of the newspaper. The Polish arts scene is pretty well covered on the Internet, so I would expect to be able to find significant coverage online if the subject was notable, but Google web and news searches find nothing beyond such passing mentions. It's possible that the Głos Wielkopolski source in the article (which is from a major regional newspaper that I'm surprised is a red link) provides significant coverage, but that's only one source, not enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found in the previous AfD a link to an abstract of the Głos Wielkopolski article [52]. It is clear from that that this is another concert announcement of which Mundana Quartet is not the main focus. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable music group WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't read Polish but it doesn't matter, this article doesn't demonstrate sufficient notability in any language. JBsupreme (talk) 07:34, 14 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 WP:SNOW delete and salted (this was the third deletion today). Bencherlite ^Talk 13:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fermented honeypot

Procedural nom. Prod rationale was "Neologism, invented literally today" NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN neologism --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN neologism literally introduced/invented 1/13/09 Skier Dude (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = Textbook definition of a neologism. Wikipedia articles are about things that have been found notable and written about verifiably. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism invented today. No reliable sources. Judging by this edit, I don't think the creator understood the reason why this article has no place in Wikipedia for the time being. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete In my opinion this is impossible to understand and can be speedied via A1. One moment it mentions computing, then next over-consumption of alcohol, I just don't understand. --Pstanton 09:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

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 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fillabelly

Non-notable article about a charity event. One dead link, one source to indicate it really did exist, and no sources indicating its notability. Article was created by one of the event's organizers. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a couple of brief mentions of the org's existence in local government web pages does not establish notability per WP:CORP Baileypalblue (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 22:52, 17 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. Confirmed hoax/scam. Article is an edited copy of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abiola foundation

I can't find anything on Google about a "Moshood Abiola Foundation", even though it's supposed to be the largest private foundation in Africa. And the website link is broken. JaGa^talk 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - there are some Google hits that indicate this is a 419 scammer: [53], or am I misreading this? AnyPerson (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is a hoax! It's an edited copy of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. --JaGa^talk 03:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- M, yeah, they didn't get all of the references to Warren Buffett out. AnyPerson (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax/scam. Every ghit I find on this "foundation" is a scam warning and/or a post about something someone got in their inbox. (On the upside, I did get some sweet cash out of refinancing my Nigerian prince and enlarging my mortgage.) Graymornings_(talk) 04:00, 14 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 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah June

Non-notable musician. I asked the original contributor for some reliable sources, but none are forthcoming. A Google search for /"sarah june" "This is My Letter to the World" -wikipedia/ comes up with only 60 hits. A Google search for /"Hand/Eye Records" -wikipedia/ only comes up with 44 hits. None of them a reliable source. There are zero Google hits for either search on Google news archive. AnyPerson (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. When I googled it, it only showed a MySpace page and a page that tell you to go to the MySpace. I don't see much significance. K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S....When I googled it here I got 23.7 Million hits. Not to mention the Wikipedia article was the 8^TH down the list... K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable search. Use quote marks. See the search terms I used above. AnyPerson (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am the original contributor for this page. I apologize for not be forthcoming with your requests. I am new to Wikipedia editing and am still trying to find my way around. More verifiable sources will be forthcoming soon and I hope that the page will be given the time to grow. Kalki2112 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Kalki2112[reply]

keep hello. if one does a search for the artist name and the album ("sarah june "this is my letter to the world") many sites come up. see this link to the search results: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS262&q=%22sarah+june%22+%22this+is+my+letter+to+the+world%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f this is a signed artist, on itunes, amazon, etc. etc. this is a new artist, but a notable artist who has had many reviews, radio play, published magazine interviews, etc. Shoo gaze (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Shoo gaze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Which reliable links are in that Google search? AnyPerson (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Artist does not appear to have received substantial independent coverage from reliabe sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment hello AnyPerson and ChildofMidnight, i am new to editing, however, i can provide what i believe to be reliable links, but of course this is up to the discretion of the wiki community. here are links that are reliable:

amoeba music (a very famous record store and label - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_Music) chose this artist's album as one of their 2008 featured artists:

http://www.amoeba.com/music/music-we-like/2008-fall/short-list/sarah-june/this-is-my-letter-to-the-world.html

also this artist is reviewed in this article, also by amoeba in hollywood:

http://www.amoeba.com/blog/2008/08/pen-is-mightier-than-the-sword/out-today-8-19-.html

this artist is a signed artist to a record label in establishment for over a decade - see amazon.com page with CD info: http://www.amazon.com/This-Letter-World-Sarah-June/dp/B001CLG7AI/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1231918004&sr=8-1

i hope this helps any :) Shoo gaze (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is trying to say that the person and her work don't exist, we're still looking for sources which meet Wikipedia criteria at WP:RS. Having a download on iTunes or a CD or amazon or a record for sale at amoeba music aren't sources which can be used to write an article from. And the amoeba.com/blog link isn't reliable, as blogs are not considered reliable sources, under most circumstances. AnyPerson (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello :) i understand - although besides the amoeba.com blog, the amoeba.com site specifically chose this artist as a notable new artist for 2008. the amoeba.com blog just details the artists they choose as notable new releases. amoeba.com is definitely a reliable site (one of the external links on the article shows this artist's album on the amoeba site). this artist is also a signed artist. i see many other "indie" artists who have wiki pages that are not signed, have no references for verification, and are still up. i'm not trying to argue - just trying to figure out why this is. i searched around a bit today and saw a lot of artists that are relatively "unknown" who have pages. this artist is a new artist who is quickly gaining notoriety in independent and alternative music circles. thank you for your consideration on this :) Shoo gaze 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, artists who are not signed have either 1-got reliable sources to show why they meet notability standards, or 2-nobody has gotten around to nominating them for deletion. But that's neither here nor there, as this discussion concerns this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AnyPerson (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello again :) i appreciate your comments. as i said, i am new to the specifics of wikipedia. this artist has many reviews online, is in magazines, and these reviews are indeed on reliable websites, as in they are edited, checked, have been in existence for some time, etc. given time, i believe this page will be able to site many credible sources. this is a very new page, and i hope perhaps that it could be given a chance to be edited, as new users are trying to create this page. i do understand your comments. again - i am not trying to argue at all. i am new to this, and hope to assist the original writer of this article in correctly siting sources per wikipedia's standards.Shoo gaze 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.64.125 (talk) [reply]

comment hello - i am only attempting to help save this page, as i felt it would contribute to wikipedia, as this artist does have a sizable fan-base. my comments are only in good faith, and i do want to learn how to assist in editing this page so that it meets wikipedia standards. thank you - the information you have provided is helping me to understand wikipedia's guidelines. Shoo gaze (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.64.125 (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional reviews and interviews coming out for this artist. I believe that the coming months will be very active in regards to press. I was made aware of a new one today. It is in the form of a review and I am not sure if this source meets the requirements for citation or not. As the original contributor I would like to see other with more skill that me to have the opportunity to contribute. Here is the link for the latest release. {http://www.digitalisindustries.com/foxyd/reviews.php?which=3982}. Kalki2112 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Kalki2112[reply]

An article still needs reliable sources to write a biography from, not a reviews page. AnyPerson (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello :) the record label has the official "one sheet" which is the bio of the artist that is sent to domestic and international distributors. i will re-check the page to be sure the bio cites references from the record label's bio, which is the official bio from which all other reviews, magazines, interviews, etc. get their information. Shoo gaze (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record label data doesn't meet the reliability standard. AnyPerson (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok - i just made some new edits to the page. i am not the initial writer of the article but am trying to assist. i hope my edits help. i am working to flesh out this article... bear with me :)Shoo gaze (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi again. i am working to get the biography nailed down, with all of the appropriate references. bear with me, and the original author of this article, and we will get the necessary edits worked on . thank you for your input. new edits to this page are in the works. Shoo gaze (talk) 03:39, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GetRight

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything either--not a single meaningful hit on GNews. OK, I found one, but this is hardly in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure why you'd expect to find _news_ coverage of a piece of software. This particular program has received positive reviews in most of the major PC magazines (e.g. [54] [55] [56]) and so seems to satisfy WP:N. JulesH (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This was one of the most popular download managers in the 90's. See for instance [57]. decltype 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH that seems about right to me. JBsupreme (talk) 22:54, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Ford, Jr.

This article's creator has a habit of creating articles for borderline-notable or non-notable subjects. This article in question is about a West Virginia football player; I cannot find anything notable about this person with google or other web searches. There is no notability. Timneu22 (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, makes no claim of notability or significance, appears to be nothing more then just another college athlete. --Pstanton 09:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Keep - the starting tailback for a major powerhouse is notable. --B (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no notablity on relevant web searches; there have been no books written about this guy. Without something like this, notability is hard to prove. Timneu22 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are no books about him - if Wikipedia restricted articles to subjects there have been books about, it would be a much smaller encyclopedia. I think there's enough news for an article, though. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question, and several like him, should really consider a Wikia site to add all this information. WVU Athletes? This would be a fine Wikia site where the editors could do as they please. Timneu22 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - My only argument for this article is that he was a starter. However, this article was created a while back before I was aware of notability rules. Do as you wish. John (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this "weak keep" is from the article's creator! If the creator of an article doesn't agree with the notability, then it's time to remove it. Timneu22 (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everyone understands this. Ha! John (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 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 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter William Wade

Despite the detailed article, I do not see anything that meets wp:bio. References (the ones that load to an actual site) do not assert notability either. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the article may be notable, at a stretch, it's poorly written. It's difficult to tell wether it is about Peter William Wade or his brother, or both! Probably better tagged for WP:CLEANUP. I'd help clean up this article but I have no interest in it whatsoever. Nick carson (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, the same person created an article about Benjamin James Wade at the same time. I don't know what the occasion is, but neither one of them is having a birthday this month. In doing a Google news search, I can't see that either of them stands out, but since we're talking about only this person, here's the results for 2007 and 2008. [58]. If someone can show some notability please let me know. Mandsford (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I actually took on the task of reading both Wade articles, I should share that it certainly seems like Benjamin is more notable.. he's on Survivor, conducts an Orchestra, College Coach.. not sure what that leads to, but I hope that explains why this is the only one I sent over. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sheesh. I thought Stephanie Sailor was the acme of vanity, but this takes the cake and eats it too. Seriously, descended of Pocahontas? The most traveled person in the US? And in between all these random and inflated facts, not a bit of substance. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh my gosh, this article should only be kept as an archive, to be shown as an example of how non-notable and vain a biography can get. --MrShamrock (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But I must admit, there's something about that huge picture of those two dweebs that makes me chuckle. --MrShamrock (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please refrain from such comments about the subjects of articles. This is Wikipedia, not a silly chat forum. We have better standards of conduct than that. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity has no bounds. Racepacket (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete The article is packed with a lot of fluff, which does itself no favors, but it's not as bad as previous discussion would indicate. The subject's film work has won awards from local film festivals which probably don't quite meet notability standards (one imdb entry); he has an independently published mathematical theorem which isn't influential enough to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics); the public access TV show and teaching career are non-notable. Does not-quite-notable work in multiple fields add up to notability overall? Probably not. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strengthening delete vote now that we know the User:Superdupereditor who created the content is associated with the subject Baileypalblue (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you murder your parents (Sarah Marie Johnson), we'll keep you on Wikipedia. If you win a handful of awards (but no Oscars or Golden Globes) as a filmmaker (John Cassavetes), we'll keep you on Wikipedia. But if you are a cast member on Survivor and could bring millions of people to Wikipedia's site (a site that has gained quite a reputation among college professors for its unreliability), LET'S DELETE THEM because they're vain!!! If you are an award-winning filmmaker who revolutionizes the mathematics program at two schools and make thousands of students' lives better, LET'S DELETE THEM because they're vain!!! I wonder if MrShamrock, Drmies, Mandsford and Racepacket would be so gracious as to list the top 5 accomplishments in their life thus far. Show me notability. Mandsford was unable to find Ben Wade's name in a Google search despite numerous links to Survivor 18. I'm not impressed at your surfing skills. The Wade brothers are not nearly as notable as many, believe me! But it seems they have collectively accomplished enough to merit a spot on Wikipedia. Incidentally, vanity is not an issue when these articles are being written ABOUT the Wade Brothers, not BY them. Superdupereditor (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) The five editors didn't write wikipedia articles about ourselves nor solicit someone to do so. 2) Sources do not have to be on the internet. 3) I am troubled by Superdupereditor's use of "we." 4) The notability of Peter must be established independently of Ben. 5) I hope that Superdupereditor is not being paid to do this stuff. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, you feel strongly about this, and that's fine. Here's a suggestion. Give us a link to whichever news article which, in your opinion, best illustrates the accomplishments of Peter William Wade. Frankly, the article has so much verbage about Pocahontas and trips to Alaska that it's difficult to figure out Mr. Wade's important accomplishments. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your reasonable reply Mandsford and you make a good point. I suppose the biggest problem is that in researching the Wade brothers, and in talking with them, there are numerous awards and certificates and newspaper articles bestowed upon these two but not much of it has been encapsulated on the Internet. Microfiche yes, the web no. This site provides me with an opportunity to celebrate their personal accomplishments not yet fully documented on the Internet. It's a difficult task and I'm not sure where to go with it. Superdupereditor (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11. A very similar article about both brothers was just deleted not long ago with much of the same content. It's pure promotion and written by someone associated with the subject. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but if you don't have a link to the prior debate, we can't really know how recently "not long ago" was, or what the reasons were for deletion, or even whether it was about the same person. Until then, the discussion here is about the merits of this particular article. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There wasn't a prior debate. The two articles were Wade Brothers and Benjamin James Wade, both of which were created by Superdupereditor and both of which were speedily deleted. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's not mislead the public Gmatsuda. There was indeed one single article written about the Wade brothers a week ago just before the release of the Survivor 18 cast list. At that time, we were under contract with CBS not to release that information and thus the one key fact missing was Ben Wade's association with Survivor. The article was deleted because the Wade brothers were not deemed worthy of notability. Once the Survivor cast was released on Tuesday, it now made Ben Wade notable (it takes a reality show to make him Wikipedia-worthy since all of his other accomplishments are worthless to this website). With this newfound notability, separate articles of the Wade brothers were posted on Wikipedia (you'll notice that most cast members have Wikipedia articles). I'm most confused by your indication that there is some sort of promotion in these articles. There are numerous filmmakers, mathematicians, conductors, coaches and musicians on Wikipedia. Not for advertising purposes but for informational purposes. The Wade brothers are not conductors or coaches or musicians-for-hire. There is nothing to advertise. -- Superdupereditor (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone considered the fact that Chris Crocker and William Hung have Wikipedia articles? As we all know, they have truly contributed to society. Essentially, absolutely anyone who has experienced their "15 minutes of fame" and is soon forgotten is Wikipedia-worthy but someone who accomplishes great things throughout their life is not (unless they've been featured on national television). -- Superdupereditor (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Under contract?" OK. That is a strong indication that this article is promotional and that it clearly violates Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. While having a conflict of interest doesn't mean the article should be deleted, in and of itself, it does raise serious questions about its credibility and reliability. An indepedent third party should have written it. Doesn't matter who else has an article. That's irrelevant. If merely being on Survivor makes one notable (which I'm not sure I agree with), I'll go with the consensus on that. Notability is subjective, in reality. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have made a proposed edit of the article (the author can change it back to the old version simply by clicking on history). P.W. Wade was published in the College Mathematics Journal as co-author of a recursion theorem concerning Pythagorean triples, which might be sufficiently notable. He's also had some achievements as an indie filmmaker, although I don't know that those would be notable enough. I've removed anything that doesn't refer to those two accomplishments, and invite people to judge his case on the recent edit. Mandsford (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Mandsford has done an excellent job at cleaning up this article. If Superdupereditor didn't realize it was a vanity page before, maybe s/he will see the difference now--and the power of reference (i.e., proof that something was notable enough to be written about by someone in a notable medium). Crocker and Hung are irrelevant here--it's not good deeds that will get in WP, it's notability (and I'm with Gmatsuda on the ethics of that, incidentall). I continue to question the overall notability, though. I can't find a single meaningful reference to the Pete Wade Show, except for TV channels' program listings. Second and third place in a local film project is not as good as winning a non-local film project. In the end, what's left is the theorem--and while the original article claimed this was as big as the pyramids, I'm not so convinced, and I think that it would deserve a one-sentence article at best, since that's really the only published reference: the original article in the Journal of College Math and the follow-up article, in the same journal, from a few years later. The Editor can continue to question my significance in life, but that won't affect my judgment. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ By "under contract", Mr. Matsuda, I simply meant that I was one of the few people who knew that Ben Wade would appear on Survivor 18 months in advance. CBS asked that I sign a contract that prevented me from leaking this information. I am not a relative or friend of the Wade brothers and I have only met them twice. I see no conflict of interest. I did extensive interviews on both occasions and they were able to back up every bit of their biographical information. The problem is that little of it appears on the Internet and I was trying to accomplish just that. I suppose my ultimate aim was to write an article on Wikipedia that you won't find anywhere else, a one-of-a-kind rather a regurgitation of the same info you'll find everywhere else (Survivor sites, newspapers, magazines, journals). What I didn't understand, being relatively new to Wiki, is that you can't write an exclusive article based on independent research, facts that people would absolutely love to read about. One must simply offer a collective summary of facts that can be backed up by other Internet sources. Not very creative, but I get it now. I'm still not sure I understand what prevents me from going to each of your articles and deleting all of them for whatever reasons I deem applicable. I'm also not sure why Dr. Wade's contribution to the development of the MRI or their grandfather's patent of the first pop top can is not relevant, since all of you have encountered at least one if not both of those inventions in your lifetime. As far as Mandsford's edit, it may not tell the fascinating story of the Wade family but if that's all I can get, I'll accept it. I greatly appreciate Mandsford taking the time to clean it up rather than the others who have simply chosen to hurl insults. I imagine they have accomplished very little in life and feel bitter. Thank you Mandsford for your efforts. As for Drmies, the mathematical breakthrough was certainly not the biggest discovery of the century, I'll agree. But I think if you understood mathematics, or asked any math professor, you would appreciate the significance of finding a recursion that churns out every possible Pythagorean Triple, something even Pythagoras couldn't do. I don't understand a thing about NASCAR so I wouldn't dare go around debating it. Drmies, I was hoping you would post a picture of yourself so we could all decide whether or not you are a dweeb as you claim the Wade brothers are. -- Superdupereditor (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Editor, first of all, I didn't use that word (please read carefully); secondly, it seemed to me that the picture and the articles presented some sort of ideal image of two renaissance men. My brother and I, I assure you, are hardly as goodlooking or glamorous as the Wade brothers are (and we also don't know a thing about NASCAR--where does that come from?). And sure, I've encountered pop cans. The inventor of that is probably notable; how does that rub off on the grandson? The basic fact is this: notability requires documentation. I find it hard to believe that such a notable person would not have made a dent on the internet. For instance, The Knoxville News Sentinel has an online archive. No results for "Peter William Wade," for Peter William Wade only real estate transactions, nothing for "Peter Wade," nothing for "Pete Wade." That does not mean that "the internet" left him out; it means that his local paper, in the place where he's from and where he excelled in so many things (according to an earlier version of your article) never ran an article mentioning him. (I lived in Knoxville, I worked at UT, I know where to look.) Results when searching the Tennessean, the Nashville paper, are the same. WP:N is the name of the game. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Superduper - Sources on Wikipedia don't have to exist on the internet. They can be books, academic journals, old newspaper articles, etc. Please see wp:reliable sources. If you have new references to add, I would recommend this link - Referencing for beginners --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK...if speedy delete is not appropriate, I'll change my vote to Strong Delete. Despite this editor's denial of conflict of interest and that the article is nothing more than pure promotion, s/he contradicts him/herself by writing (see above), "...This site provides me with an opportunity to celebrate their personal accomplishments." Sure sounds like pure promotion to me. Wikipedia is not about paying tribute to anyone or anything. Another thing, an article about the subject's brother doesn't belong on Wikipedia, either. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what makes you think that the article as it currently stands is promotional? Despite xyr user name, Superdupereditor isn't the only person capable of editing this article, you know. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion of this article would deprive non-admins of the joys of reading earlier versions such as this one. I have very mixed feelings about this inimitable article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 18 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 - Advertising - editor is using Wikipedia to push his website. No independent notability. --NrDg 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Celebrity Profiles

Article is on a website whose notability is not established, per WP:WEB. Very likely self-promotional spam. No sources. Ward3001 (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable website. Edgehead 5150 02:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is willing to expand it and clean it up and cite resources it should be deleted. Nick carson (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability that I could find--seems like spam to me. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an ad. No WP:NPOV, though really, there's pretty much not much of anything. Kallimina (talk) 06:28, 14 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 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategos (management consultants)

Notability not asserted, it's just a small company with 35 employees. bogdan (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a management consulting firm and advisor to global firms on growth through innovation. Oh, that. My Spy attacks your Marshal. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP by a wide margin. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 22:54, 17 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 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroneering

This article does not establish anything notable about the company Aeroneering. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Dolphin51 (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything to merge. Was going to do something, but it didn't happen? Seems a stretch. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sherlock Holmes' dog that didn't bark was notable, but a company that didn't do anything is not notable, unless its inaction was significant. JMcC (talk) 14:16, 14 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 vandalism (CSD G3) by PMDrive1061. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon pearla

This article does not establish any notability for this game. Looks unsalvageable. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references and a possible hoax from what I get for search results. Never mind all the other issues. Estemi (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I smell vandalism. Speedy deleting under WP:SNOW. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:00, 14 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 film article. No Consensus on the two biographies. They might benefit from a seperate relisting but they are not geting full consideration as part of this omnibus listing. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads or Tails (film)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the notability guidelines and exist solely for self-promotional usage, and as such fail AUTO and COI. Main editor of both, Maryannmann (talk · contribs), appears to be a SPA, and is demonstrably Jeff Keilholtz per this diff.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Maryann Mann Tedickey (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Her notability as a writer is now sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Minor sourcing only. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ONLY the film ~~Keep All~~. With respects to the nom, and disregarding the author's COI as the articles now belong to Wiki... I found and others..... which all have coverage of the film or its filmmakers. Though not all are "in depth", the amount of coverage is significant and I believe the article and filmakers as notable enough to an asset to Wiki if the articles are cleaned up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm- most of the pages that I found discussing Jeff were written by Maryann. And the Atlantic Free Press appears to be a blogfarm. Tedickey (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After deeper research, I agree.

Update I just finished preliminary sourcing of the film's article and have not used anything written by Maryann, finding significant coverage in WP:RS. Maryann's notability as a writer may be iffy, but the film's is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

true (the film exists, though I've read some questionable pages on imdb...). My interest is in the two topics devoted to Jeff and his alias Tedickey (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paints Jeff as a very creative writer... but not a notable actor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maryann to Jeff as his nome-de-plume. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the point and concur. Perhaps the Jeff and Maryanne articles might be combined as they being the same person... though I would not know who belongs to whom (chuckle), so I'll withdraw any keep opinions for them. However, I still feel the film Heads or Tails now has an established notability despite the original author. Maybe it would have been best to have not combined two BLP AfD's with one film AfD, but I trust that the nom felt the connections were important. I have modified my opinion above accordingly. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heads or Tails (film) and Jeff Keilholtz; they seem (just about) to pass our notability requirements. Delete Maryann Mann as it does not - that article doesn't have any references from secondary sources, and it doesn't appear that any exist. Terraxos (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable film, has received significant press coverage.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 13:14, 9 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 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mann's article as a copyvio of this. (And how can you focus on something extensively?) Delete Keilholtz's article as asserting only the most minor of significance as an actor; as for writing, Keilholtz pens sociopolitical commentary under a pseudonym. He is published by a variety of publications. With no names and no evidence? As for the movie, I don't know. I see that it cost nothing to make, which might make it interesting. IMDB offers just on external review, but the website hosting it is dead. Morenoodles (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:MichaelQSchmidt. now sourced, meets notability. travb (talk) 03:18, 15 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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detox MVC Engine

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2009 (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) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non-notable web framework. How many of these articles are there? JulesH (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 9 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 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of any mention beyond the project's own Sourceforge page. Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 14 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) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Marine Certification Services

No real claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch turns up 33 non-wiki ghits, all of which appear to be directory listings and passing mentions. Zero gnews hits. Was deleted through prod in 2007; article creator asked for it to be restored several months ago, so taking to AfD instead of re-prodding. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 4 January 2009 (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) 01:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuym1 (talk) 02:11, 9 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 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable and additionally it looks like it was lifted from another site Pstanton 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic corporate profile that doesn't suggest notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:14, 14 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, while there is one delete vote, it is based on a false assumption, and the nom has specifically stated they do not wish their opinion counted. Therefore closing as keep per WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar Twins

I previously prodded the article, which was removed recently. I am still not sure that these brothers meet the notability requirements. I post the AFD to garner other opinions on this matter, but would ask the closing admin NOT to factor in my opinion when it comes time to close. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib}

Speedy Delete If it was previously deleted, and brought back without a consensus you can speedy it per G4

There's nothing in the log to indicate it has been speedied previously, nominator only mentioned a WP:PROD, which anyone can decline for any reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Maybe more of a "weak keep".~~ I don't know if I'd consider The Evening Standard a very reliable source, but coverage there does confer a certain degree of notability, and coupled with coverage in The Sunday Times, that seems to get them above the bar of WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Times coverage is enough, barely. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - two sources is borderline, but hey...Wikipedia does not have a paper limitation. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Youth World Champions in acrobatic sports" means they've competed in the top level of their sport in their age group (the times articles confirms this), meeting WP:ATHLETE and I doubt non-notable people would be invited to perform in the Royal Variety Show. They're covered significantly in at least 2 independent reliable sources, so they meet WP:GNG too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two sources when I removed the prod tag, but there are plenty more available from a simple Google News archive search, including blue-chip reliable sources such as The Scotsman, the BBC, The Independent and The Age. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 14 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 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Weisman

I don't believe this article's subject meets the criteria for inclusion at WP:BIO, WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC. The article has been previously tagged for its overly promotional tone, although the tag was removed with none of the suggested changes made. I am unable to find much outside information about Mr. Weisman that wasn't written BY him. Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some of this content since the story was started a week and some ago. I am doing a research project on Music producers that are using different ways and approaches to help the music industry. I have grabbed a good deal of information from the various sites that are affiliated with Loren. However, there are numbers of sites with some listed as links of press releases, reviews and other information validating Loren and his work. What steps should be taken or additional information would be preferred? Thanks, Taylor Derringer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derringer48 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple other items in the external links that I did not find directly from the primary sites. Is that better? Should there be more? I would like to make this page work and am new to Wikipedia. I am happy for any critique and criticism. Thanks. Taylor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derringer48 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very fishy to me. And at the risk of being rude, I wouldn't be surprised if User:Derringer48 is a WP:SOCK. On the other hand, it would be a shame to squelch an unbiased editor who actually had this level of enthusiasm. ^L_Wizard @ 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence of notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet WP:BIO and WP:CORP. There's too much 'padding' that doesn't directly relate to Weisman as an individual and most of the bio is lifted straight from his website. There's nothing from an independent source that establishes his notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have spent a little bit of time trimming away at this article, removing some of the promotional language, the blatant advertising, some of the questionable external links, and an entire section that I believe fails WP:CRYSTAL; but the more I trim, the more I find to subsequently remove. It is possible that this article contains one or two bits of information that meet notability requirements, but they are buried deep and currently without reliable references. Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding this process new and helpful and take no offense to the criticism or doubts. I am still working to compile the information I can outside of the links I supplied before. The research project is on touring, session and ghost drummers that have gone to producing and create a mark in music from out behind the kit for an MI Institute project. Drummers like Stan Lynch, Steve Jordan, Butch Vig, Narada Michael Walden, Mark Prator and numerous others have gone the drummer to producer route. The research project gets additional credit in the course if the information is on wikipedia 6 weeks after being posted because of the double checking, scrutiny and content checking that occurs here. I am still pulling together information and the links that are being requested, though it is some what of a challenge since a lot of the behind the scenes work is credited quietly and under other names. I will continue to look up and do what ever I have to do for this article and thank you all for your help and ideas. Thank you for your editing Steamroller.

Taylor

Comment. I am not exactly sure what type of supporting information needs to be added to this article. After doing another search on Loren Weisman I found several hundred references to his past and current work that have not been posted personally by him. He is - by way of what people say about him - a very improtant influence on the music industry. If someone could figure out how to work these refrences into the article, would that help to strenghten it's validity?

The references that I found are:

Drumming/Production credits

1. Doug Hewitt
2. Chad Quist
3. Linq
4. Glen Stegner
5. Satisfied Drive
6. eNewsChannels

Reviews:

1. Afcollective Acoustic Network
2. Watercourse Recording Studio
3. Clane Gessel Photography
4. Tamara Lewis
5. Vimeo
6. Testimonials

Thanks for all the tips. Wikibgekh —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:50, 15 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 per Infrogmation. Schuym1 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

504 Records

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable participant within the field of New Orleans jazz recordings for decades. Note also that it is also the topic of articles in Wikipedias in 3 other languages. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:19, 14 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 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRed Lite

Completely insignificant product. Only gets 300 Google hits (less than my own name). Probably advertising. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i say keep because the article is written good and it is a good software —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana254 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No outside mentions to establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not--but did you look for any? Drmies (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--just another one of those applications. (And no, no significant hits, and no News at all.) Drmies (talk) 03:47, 14 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. Sources? Charts? Anything? seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Against All

This is a fictional single, with none kind of source to prove its existence. Canniba loki 00:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Comment If it's fiction, it seems to be pretty thoroughly done. The Haunted mentions the album rEVOLVEr, which in turn mentions the song All Against All. Are you saying that rEVOLVEr is fictional too? Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
- Oh, and I call these singles, fictional, because they never were released. The songs and albums exists, of course! Canniba loki 03:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable songs, didn't chart, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting songs, notability not established WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all the song articles to the appropriate album, as per WP:NSONGS. Speedy keep Demo '97 as it is a redirect and should be discussed at WP:RFD, and non-notability is not a reason to delete a redirect as per WP:RFD#DELETE. DHowell (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable songs and did not chart.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 20 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 02:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bezgovo cvrtje

violates WP:HOWTO as Wikipedia isn't a recipe guide. It has no claim to any notability and is not encyclopedic Tavix (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's a stub, but there's no recipe there and there never has been. If there was a transwikification to wikibooks would've been more appropriate. -Mgm|^(talk) 06:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short and to the point, but needs to be verified and expanded not deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search indicates it is real and notable as an example of Slovenian cuisine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs to be better sourced or deleted. Unreliable as is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article had barely existed for two hours before it was prodded for the same reasons as above, plus it was "almost incomprehensible". I tried to fix the language, added a ref, and now it is precisely one of those stubs that may eventually grow, just like so many other Wiki articles have done (provided of course, it is not deleted).
It's a national dish, wouldn't that be enough "claim to notability"? (I'm the sure the article creator has no knowledge of this wiki-speak).
"Wikipedia isn't a recipe guide" - I don't see a recipe.
"not encyclopedic" - here the nom leaves me in the dark, I think the real reason is IDONTLIKEIT, or should also Mavželj, the rest of Category:Slovenian cuisine, and yes Coleslaw and why not the rest of Category:American cuisine.
Regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "reference" was a mirror of a Wikipedia article, note. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you sure? Take a look at it again. Bezgovo cvrtje is listed as a vegetarian dish, that's all. A robot would not be able to extract that info from the Wiki article, the English was "almost incomprehensible". I found it credible, that "Bezgovo cvrtje" actually existed, not something WP:MADEUP. More references would certainly be desirable. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure. It explicitly says so, twice. Read it. It's a mirror of Slovenian cuisine, whose mention of this purported dish was simply a translation of the article in the Slovenian Wikipedia (sl:Slovenska kuhinja), an article that itself has since been deleted in fact, and which presumably thus wasn't based upon sources either. Uncle G (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should have been more careful there, thanks for pointing it out. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was created on the 6th, it is now the 14th, and it is still 1 sentence that looks like a recipe book excerpt. If the author was serious about expanding this article and making a claim of significance, it should have happened already. There has been more then adequate time. --Pstanton 09:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Calling it a national dish is a claim of significance. You seem to be reading different recipe books than I do, because that's not the sort of language a recipe book would use, anyway your view doesn't stroke with WP:DEADLINE. Who says it needs to be fixed immediately or even by the same author? There are no policies or guidelines to that effect. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, there are policies on verifiability. And when this came up on Proposed Deletion, I looked for sources. All that I could find was that "bezgovo cvrtje" means fried elder. I couldn't find a source documenting this as a national dish, or even as anything other than simply being frying as one way of cooking the plant. Even the Slovenian Wikipedia wasn't any help. Apparently sl:Črni bezeg can be sl:cvrenje, and that's it.
    I don't currently see how we can ever get beyond a 1-sentence permastub that essentially repeats its title, telling the reader, in translation, that "fried elder is elder that has been fried". Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested help at the Slovenian wiki sl:Pogovor:Črni bezeg, the answer given is:

It is a traditional Slovenian food. There is a mistake - there are fried elder flowers (not berries). --Pinky 17:43, 18. januar 2009 (CET) Power.corrupts (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per most everyone. Doen't look anything like a recipe. Edward321 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ if it can be reliable verified that this is infact a "national dish". Otherwise del-eat. JBsupreme (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It has become clear to me that this article is wholly unreliable. We can bring it back if sources can ever be found. PROPER sources. JBsupreme (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this will ever amount to an article in and of itself with the HOWTO parts removed. If reliable sources can be found then perhaps merge the stub into Culture of Slovenia. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:01, 19 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.

I added preparation into article. I can also add a reliable source (it will be in slovenian language). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinky sl (talk • contribs) 07:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Birmingham city centre images

This is a gallery, and all except one promo image are on commons, so this file can be deleted. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would probably be good to wait a week or two so this can be copied over to commons. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the images are already on commons except for one photograph of a promotional image (File:MasshouseBirminghampromo.JPG), which may not have an appropriate copyright for commons. It seems to me that it is ready for deletion now. I said this in the deletion nomination. Snowman (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close Wait for the images to be copied to the commons, give the creator a week in good faith to get that done, then speedy as transwikied. --Pstanton 09:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
- Comment. I guess that you did not check the images before you made that comment, which does not apply as all of the images are already on commons except for one photograph of a promotional image, which may not have an appropriate copyright for commons. Generally the image name on commons is different to the name on en wiki. In addition there has been a {{move to commons}} template header on the page since 3 June 2007 - added by this edit. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No-brainer. Not an appropriate subject for an article on WP, and not a transclusion candidate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not for galleries. Feel free to use a category, either here or at Commons. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not picasa. Page deletion does not imply picture deletion (many of these pics are already used in proper articles) but the gallery page should go. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The redirect, Gallery of Birmingham images to this gallery, probably should be deleted with this gallery. Snowman (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The policy on galleries is clear and the relevant images are already in an appropriate Commons gallery. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Marakou

Unable to find any English language refs suggesting the topic of this article is notable. If there are references in other languages giving rise to that conclusion, please identify. Generally, while the actions of state security in the Warsaw Pact countries were tragic and in aggregate notable, no every victim of those acts is automatically notable. Bongo matic 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Sadly, I must agree with nom. Neither Marakou nor his poetic works give much evidence of notability based on searches I made. Tim Ross (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2009 (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) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep If this can be verified it seems very notable. Can we contact someone with the appropriate language skills to investigate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the notable element here? Am I missing something? The claims seem to be:

Mentorship of national poet
Published four books
Arrested by agents of State Security twice
Tortured and ultimately killed
Works posthumously documented in a monograph by nephew

None of these seems to be a de facto argument for notability if proved. Rather, these are all things that might have attracted significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (i.e., not the nephew of the subject), and the question is--have they attracted such coverage? Bongo matic 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Probably notable, but we need some more information--probably most of the poets of various nationalities that Stalin made a practice of destroying in groups period were notable, but there is no information that I can work with here. Are there corresponding articles in other WPs? DGG (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how this "probability" can be assessed. The notability would not stem from being killed (unless specific victims were significantly coverage). Rather, it would stem from them receiving significant coverage. My guess (having spent time in the pre-Velvet Revolution Warsaw bloc) is that there were plenty of non-notable artists who were victims. Bongo matic 02:26, 15 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 Pennsylvania Pit Bulls. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Hardhats (basketball)

This is a "non-team": It folded before it played any games! I fail to see how this merits notability. Tavix (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how there's proof of notability here, and (to tell the truth) don't see how there could be. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article is part of Pittsburgh history and part of Pittsburgh sports history. Definitely notable. Squamate (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2009 (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) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Pennsylvania Pit Bulls. Per that article, "The Pit Bulls were essentially the Pittsburgh Hardhats, who folded prior to the season due to money problems". There's not much other potential here. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - we have article on never-begun ships, so why not for basketball teams? On the flip side, some of those never-begun ships are redirects to the class article, so keep or redirect. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pennsylvania Pit Bulls, the continuation of the Pittsburgh Hardhats. This is not without precedent in Wikipedia sports articles: see Miami Seahawks and Sacramento Attack. B.Wind (talk) 06:31, 14 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. Mgm|^(talk) 05:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eigenmath

Non-notable freeware program, no reliable secondary sources. Not a bad-looking program, but not really encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: A lot of download sites offer the software. A few blogs mention it. Seems useful. But I could not find any good independent sources discussing it. Not notable. Perhaps deserves a mention in Computer algebra system. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 9 January 2009 (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) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this has been widely noticed or used. Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorrenzo Wade

Does not meet general WP:N requirements: no coverage in reliable sources. Nor does it meet the exception found in WP:ATHLETE: not a professional basketball player. 2008Olympian^chitchat 07:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the subject does not meet the "professional athlete" standard of WP:Athlete, is there significant coverage by reliable third party sources for him to be notable under WP:N? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (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) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wouldn't say "no coverage in reliable sources" per 1, 2, though the sources seem to be localized. Article does not assert notability, as mentioned does not meet WP:ATHLETE. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was named a first-team all-Mountain West Conference player. That is plenty notable to me. Still, someone should add more information about his college career. GoCuse44 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - OK, well, I ended up adding a little more information about this player. He's definitely notable, but the paragraphs I put in about his college career could still use more beef to them. GoCuse44 (talk) 19:36, 18 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 Dyosa. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariang Sinukuan (Dyosa)

Non-notable fictional character that is sufficiently addressed in main article. Bongo matic 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as central character in major series. What needs addressing tis ther quality of the main article andthe excessive plot description there, and if we didn't waste time worrying about whether fictional characters should have short articles or be included in the main one, we could work on improving the deplorable quality of most of the video series related material. People will judge us by the quality of our coverage, not how we divide it up. DGG (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Parent subject has some notability so merging and redirecting seems reasonable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2009 (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) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Character is not notable in it's own right - info should be merged with main article and this article should be deleted. --HighKing (talk) 18:10, 14 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 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Turner

Fails WP:N, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ACADEMIC. I have found no evidence that this doctor has received any national notability in his field. His publications do not appear to have been cited elsewhere (and therefore have not made a significant impact in his field), and his society membership is non-notable as the "Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons" is (by their own admission) freely open to all surgeons of any skill level. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree; vanity piece for someone with no reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If he does become notable, however, Restore. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Quick Keep This guy has multiple national publications since 1980 that span multiple peer review journals. Just his one article on laparoscopic entry is refernced by 13 different papers that google could find, and that's not his best work. You can google any of his publications and verify this. GOOGLE PAGE SHOWING ALL CITING HIM He is widely recognized by his peers as a leader in minimally invasive surgery, and anyone with a web browser can figure this out very quickly.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.251.1.11 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, maybe my browser doesn't work so well. It does show me that the paper you refer to has a main author by the name of Dr. Feste (these names were left out of the original citation--I have edited the article to reflect this information, in the interest of full disclosure) and that the second paper (which I take it is his better work?), for which Dr. Duncan J. Turner is the sole author, shows no citations at all: a Google page. So this notability still is not established as far as I'm concerned, since Turner at the least will have to share the honor with Feste for the one article, and I can find no further references. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scholar.google.com is a tool that I'm not familiar with. Clearly this doctor HAS had some influence on his fellow doctors. That's the great thing about these AfD debates -- new information comes to light that can bolster notability that hasn't been established in the article itself. Now, perhaps if the anon IP editor could update the article to include the necessary references, the article will stand better. For now, I'll change my assessment to Weak Keep. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a stub at best anyway. Perhaps if it was expanded to explain the notability if any notability exists then it would be worth keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ok, I added a bunch of his notable society memberships, including some that have rigid requirements. Also added another of his publications. Forty years in obstetrics, all these publications and memberships, come on guys! Khollow (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about his memberships, but the revised article seems to suffer from a slight exaggeration: he has published THREE papers, and was the first author on only ONE, yet you added that "he is widely published"? He is NOT, especially not in the medical business. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2009 (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) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Mgm below, fellowship of the Royal Society of Medicine may just pass WP:ACADEMIC, depending on your definition of "highly selective" and "major". Still, WP:ACADEMIC requires reliable sources to document this, so they need to be added. Delete A handful of published papers don't make someone notable (nearly every doctor has these). I can't see where he passes any of our notability guidelines. And I can't find information about him published in RS, so there's nothing to write an article with. Duncan Turner the sex attacker seems more notable. Phil153 (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Phil153 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not qualify the notability guidelines. Just being in societies and publishing something doesn't make someone notable. Then I can get an article too. Chamal ^talk 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ACADEMIC criterion 3: "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)". Since he's a fellow of at least two such organizations, he meets the criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know that any of the "fellowships" listed fall under the category of "elected and a highly selective honor". Basically, most doctors are fellows of some society or another, which means that they have taken a qualification exam in their field of specialty. And the The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons is, by their own website's admission, open to anyone willing to join with no special qualifications at all other than being a practicing surgeon. However, Dr. Turner's publications DO seem to be reltatively notable. I'm concerned that the same author has introduced articles on MANY members of The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons in what I feel is a promotional campaign. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nobody here is claiming that membership of the Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion 3, but fellowship of ~~the Royal Society of Medicine and~~ the Royal College of Physicians certainly does. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this, Fellowship in the RSM is "Available to those who hold a medical, dental or veterinary qualification; or who have higher scientific qualifications – and also those holding senior positions within the healthcare sector." Basically, the RSM is the British equivalent of the AMA -- become a doctor, pay a membership fee and you're in. According to this, fellowship in the RCP is available to any doctor willing to fork over ₤485 per year. These are NOT the same as IEEE fellowships, that are ELECTED and highly selective. They are simply membership levels. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I stand corrected about the RSM (I should have known not to treat their Wikipedia article as a reliable source!), but fellowship of the RCP is by election [59]. The page that you linked says nothing at all like "fellowship in the RCP is available to any doctor willing to fork over ₤485 per year" - it simply says what the cost is for those who have been elected. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now its MY turn to stand corrected. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:51, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Martin

Bio of an American actress. Fails notability requirements, lack of third party coverage. Strongly suspect that either she or her husband also created her husband's article Shawn Amos, so also confict of interest in this potentially promotional case applies. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Credits appear verifiable. Period of most work suggests article can (and should) be substantially improved by using print sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying they're not verifiable, but we don't articles on every single actor in existence. Was any of those roles significant. All I can identify is roles for extras. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a gigantic different between "guest actors" and "extras". Extras, by union definition, are not "featured" or have speaking lines on screen, while "guest stars" (what this person is credited for) do. That's why the latter are always credited and extras are rarely so. Speaking as a life-long television/film industry worker. --Oakshade (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's also a major difference between being on the standard cast and guest starring. Does she have one speaking line? 5? 10? Or were the roles something even more substantial? You can't tell from the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from her imdb listing that most of the guest roles were substantial, given that most of her characters had names, sometimes full names, and not mostly titles like "Girl #2." In several shows, her character has appeared in more than one episode, further indicating significant characters. It most cases, characters that are assigned names are significant characters.--Oakshade (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2009 (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) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has had significant roles in multiple notable TV shows and films, thus passing WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Per request to be more specific, WP:ENTERTAINER states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" which this person has had including Brothers & Sisters, CSI:Miami, CSI:New York and NYPD Blue. --Oakshade (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP for sourcing and expansion per cursory search. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google web searches do not establish notability. This Google news search indicates a potential swath of reliable, third party sources devoted to coverage of Ms. Martin, of which there are none. She fails WP:BIO requirements for notability. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:14, 17 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) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of African golfers

WP:LISTCRUFT - An unreferenced list. This category already covers all of the golfers by nationality, and does a better job than this list. Tavix (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- being redundant to a category is not reason for deletion, and just saying WP:LISTCRUFT doesn't convince me either. This list can be sourced and has reasonable limits. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although this early-Wikipedia article could be more useful than a category (sorry, the little flags don't help), and it could be sourced, it's pretty much the indiscriminate list of blue-links. The ideal improvement would be a brief note about each person-- which tournament he/she finished highest at and years of activity, for instance. Mandsford (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. This list is short enough to make an edit like the one Mandsford suggested a reasonable undertaking. We can contact User:Michfan2123 (most active editor on this list) and ask him to make the neccesary additions. If the current version is really so unbearable it could even be userfied to his userspace. The core point I'm trying to get across is that this should get a chance to get edited now concerns have been raised. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michfan2123 told me they don't have the time to do the edit suggested, so it would have to be sent to an appriopriate wikiproject instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists are a form of data organisation that are on the wiki. It links to many golfers articles. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2009 (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) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep can be worked on and made into an informative, good list with a respectable lede. An article or list being crappy right now is not a reason for it to be deleted. The question is whether or not it is notable, useful, and can be held within reasonable limits. This meets that standard. SMSpivey (talk) 03:41, 14 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) 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aural Vampire

Article on a Non notable band Archivey (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Googling suggests they have toured extensively in Japan and Europe but only performed in America once so reliable english sources on them are sparse. They recently signed with a major japanese label. Perhaps someone that knows japanese could do more research.Nathan Orth (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the Spanish Wikipedia article, they've been featured in two different German magazines (Astan Magazine and The Dose). I suggest more research in European languages as well. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikis are not reliable sources, to appear on En Wikipedia it must assert notability, which it doesnt per WP:BAND Archivey (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. This is why I didn't !vote keep based this. I was pointing out that coverage in other languages has been reported and needs to be searched for before we can conclude whether the band is notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2009 (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) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Significant coverage in foreign magazines and/or newspapers is enough to assert notability. Coverage does not have to be in English. LK (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not everything out of focus is worth deleting. The article didn't harm anybody for the last two years and the band has lots of Google hits. BTW: She's the vampire, he's the killer.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say keep it but it would need to be extended and made more reliable, there are no references or notes to suggest that anything within this article is true afkatk (talk) 04:18, 16 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.