Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

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 delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj Amin Elahi

2nd nomination. No assertion of notability (tagged since Feb. 2008); unreferenced (other than a death notice; tagged since Jan. 2008). Someone had applied a {{prod}} tag today, but this had been previously discussed at AfD about a year ago, which makes it ineligible for WP:PROD. Subject to two previous speedy deletions, once for copyvio, and second for CSD A7. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, Delete. As I pointed out in the previous nomination, I also suspect a conflict of interest. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no good evidence of notability upon checking this subject. --Stormbay (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a couple of passing mentions in this book. Not enough to confirm notability, but it's enough to make it seem worth looking for further sources. Let's see if anyone can find sources in Kurdish or Persian. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This source was mentioned in the previous AfD. An earlier version of the article had cited the book, but no page numbers; another editor pointed out these specific mentions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I couldn't find a deletion sorting page for Kurdish issues so I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:Kurdish Wikipedians' notice board. —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Given this bio, and the book mentios above, indications are that this person is a notable tanbour musician, but I suspect that sources are not likely to be found in English. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The bio you mentioned is related to the conflict of interest; see previous AfD. Even aside from those concerns, the website in question seems (to me) more a labor of love (i.e., a primary source, at best) than a reliable source. (I probably should have spelled all this out when I nominated, my apologies.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - thank you for the clarification - it certainly weakens the argument, so I've amended my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this article for deletion the first time around, pointing out that notability was not established. Judging from the only reliable reference in English where he's only mentioned in passing, the assertion of notability seems unwarranted. In the year since the last AfD closed, nobody has come up with any references in Kurdish or Persian, so at this point I think it's safe to say there won't be any forthcoming. Teleomatic (talk) 05:14, 31 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 the snowball clause (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production of gramophone records

It's such a shame to nominate what is obviously a labour of love. Unfortunately it is an essay and original research. I'm hoping that a home can be found for it off Wikipedia, since work should never be wasted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was only a split from the regular gramophone records article, as I saw the notice on the top of that article, so I took action. It would be better to rewrite my split instead of deleting it. --Newtown11 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this can be saved. It needs editing and references, but I'm sure there's plenty out there. I realize it's going to take dedication on some Wikipedian's part, but with some work this could be a useful article (barring anything similar already existing). freshacconci talktalk 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at the very least userfy. It's not really original research since there are actual facts about how gramophone records were produced. Not much room for interpretation or insertion of the author's own ideas and such. Also, I would accept in good faith that there are print sources that show the notability of this subject. I wouldn't expect that there would be many sources online that would be deemed acceptable. SMSpivey (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Undoubtedly a notable topic for which references could be found. Therefore it is practical for it to be fixed by editing, hence should not be deleted per WP:DELETION. JulesH (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , expand and source. We improve Wikipedia by improving articles like this, not removing them. DGG (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic article which needs to be sourced. Sources must exist with which to improve this.--Michig (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable and encyclopedic; only needs to be sourced¨¨ victor falk 10:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It goes perfectly well with WP:N. All it needs is a few more references.
Snow keep. Notable, sourceable and simply needs TLC. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 1 February 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. The sources Metropolitan90 found and added to the article show the nomination was based on a faulty assumption, speedy closing. Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel

Non-notable film; no evidence of any critical or media attention (unsourced too, but that's not a criterion for deletion except to the extent it's a WP:V violation). Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Released widely by a major distributor (Columbia-TriStar) which establishes notability, along with the fact it has numerous notables in the cast. WP:V implies the article is a hoax in which case the onus is on the nominator to prove this film does not exist. Needs expansion and sourcing, but I don't see a problem. 23skidoo (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no question about this film's verifiability; it was reviewed by multiple major newspapers at the time of its release. For example: Boston Globe, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle. It finished 5th at the North American box office in its first weekend. [1] Eventually it grossed over $15 million. [2] I am not sure why it was necessary to nominate this article for deletion given the easy availability of sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:BEFORE, is notable and sourcable. Situation for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:57, 30 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, A7 non-admin close. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jalik Rashad Perry

Possible hoax - very well sourced article, but - as far as I can see - complete bollocks. pablo :_{: ... hablo ...} 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulva Original

I'm requesting a deletion for this article. Not because I want it to be deleted though. Quite the opposite. Indeed I'm worried some one will speedy delete the article without proper discussion while I'm not paying attention unless there is an ongoing afd. --Easyas12c (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- SPAM ttonyb1 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Blatant advertising. Furthermore, notability is not estabilshed. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been expanded and sources have been added to prove notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss i removed the speedy tag because the article appeared to be descriptive, not promotional. I have no comment on notability yet, but lack of notability for a product is not among the possible reasons for speedy. Afds are supposed to last for 5 days. DGG (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- it seems to be a pretty popular topic in the Eastern European press if you check out Google News Archives. Here are some sources I can read that confer some notability: The Independent, Esquire (but you have to have subscription to see it), Radar, Libero/Sky News Italy. SMSpivey (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never wrote it to be an advertisement. --Easyas12c (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was originally sourced only to Gawker, but the sources SMSpivey provided establish notability. Besides, this amuses me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not at all written as advertising or promotional. It's notability is obvious. One could say, "It smells of notibility". Unique and personal to a vast audience. Whimsical, on the surface, but informative.--Buster7 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has enlarged with time. Must be the odor clues. --Buster7 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for everyone, but that is how I was attracted to this article. Ikip (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, speedy keep This nomination appears to be rather WP:Pointy. New York Times mentioned this product, meeting all notability requirements. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Ikip (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator the article has recently been expanded since the WP:Pointy AfD tag was added. Ikip (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article has been markedly improved since nomination and now meet Wiki standards for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mutants in Os Mutantes: Caminhos do Coração

Trival/fancruft article over a list of mutants of a soap opera. Non notable and fails WP:SAL. Tavix (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not trivial. If the character list of the main article is to be believed, they're the main characters of the show. Of course, this particular list also contains bluelinks for said actors and characters making this list obsolete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extremely limited list. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 30 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 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol Hot 100 singles

Previous nomination nearly resulted in delete - this article is nothing but trivial American Idol cruft. These people have appeared on the show and have gained varying amounts of fame from it, but 99% of these songs are not American Idol songs... with the exception of the coronation singles released right after the season finale, all of these are contained on the artists' albums and have nothing to do with the show. Per past nom, information is redundant (found in discographies) and "weeks on" column unsourced. Why not make an article for every chart entry for people who appeared on American Bandstand? eo (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~G4 as recreated material from former AFD. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - just fyi the prior result was "no consensus". - eo (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. In that case, just Delete then. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Please abide by WP:NOCRUFT and WP:ITSCRUFT, as WP:CRUFT states: "use of [the term cruft] may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith...Some users consider this a pejorative term and see it as insulting to well-meaning contributors. They might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate." Using this term does not help. Ikip (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a helpful list to keep track of the song's (IMO) CloversMallRat (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial intersection of topics. Why not "American Idol Pop 100 singles"? "American Idol Dance Club Play singles"? A chart issued by one company and an unrelated talent night competition hosted by another don't make a meaningful topic when combined.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the Hot 100 is the closest thing to a national chart available. The fact that the single are ranked highly by an independent company is a good thing. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only possible argued in favor of keeping is "but it's useful!". — R ² 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable intersection. Judging from the list just about every American Idol alumnus has charted in the Hot 100. It's not that difficult, even a lesser known like Josh Gracin did it four times. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is indeed helpful for fans of individual artistes to keep track of how the singles released are doing. Some information is not available on the singles page like chart status and volume pushed on the artistes or single's page. Furthermore, such information is not easily obtained by the public which does not have access to Billboard's full charts. It is also helpful as a comparison chart for all the idols past and present and would increase exposure of the artistes that are not as successful on the mainstream due to the lack of advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiquan (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC) — Kaiquan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment, that's nice and all, but Wikipedia is not meant to be an advertising space. Each one of these artists has their own Wikipedia page and (most likely) a separate discography page as well. What if the show runs for another 5-10 years? How long is this list going to get? - eo (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning of others, also it's simply just non-notable trivia. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate fork of American Idol. After discussion on Talk:American_Idol#Very_long_article, the section was deleted from American Idol, [3], and transferred to American Idol Hot 100 singles, [4]. I would appreciate it if everyone who voted Delete would take a look at the changes I made removing songs not directly related to American Idol and the number of weeks column. Aspects (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a non-notable intersection. Yes, American Idol is big, but it's pretty much a given that their contestants will chart at least one Hot 100 hit, and all of these data are already covered in the singers' articles (also, you're missing at least three Bubbling Under hits that I can think of, just off the top of my head). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't think this list would really meet notability thresholds, and honestly, it's quite trivial. And I don't know what the main purpose of this page is. Is it just to compare American Idol contestant songs? If so, then it can be succintly stated on the main Idol page, especially in the case of last season (like, "Studio recordings of contestants' songs were released on iTunes, and many of them briefly charted on the Hot 100 due to high sales."). I don't think that the songs charted under the Hot 100 are exactly noteworthy, either. If the list is to record every single release of every single person who was a contestant on American Idol, then it would be a sprawling mess, wouldn't it? This page would be absolutely acceptable on an AI fansite or AI Wiki, but here...it's hard to argue for its inclusion. SKS2K6 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aspects, your edits to the page are definitely a great improvement in terms of format, sourcing and style (and editing down the crap)... however, SKS2K6's argument seems to sum it up - it is the content of the article itself that doesn't seem meet notability standards. - eo (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This keeps track the number of songs which have charted on the Hot 100. As American Idol has become a part of popular culture, it is common for books about popular music (from Billboard, and the Music edition of Uncle John's Bathroom) to include entries about American Idol as a whole, bunching the careers of alumnus, their significance, long or short-term success, and both citing the number of Hot 100 hits, and which ones were the most successful. This article also measures the impact American Idol has on the music industry at the time, and although artistically speaking, the Idol franchise is not up to speed with legendary artists like the Beatles or Elvis Presley, lists of their hit singles become an interesting part of music history, even if it is trivial. The argument that this list will become too long if the television series lasts another 5-10 years is not very pertinent. In fact, if the show does last that long, and the list gets longer, interest in reading it will become a hot commodity. If the American Idol franchise manages to pass 150 Hot 100 singles (which is very likely), passing Presley's record (even if it doesn't really count since it is made up of the careers dozens of individual artists), I can almost guarantee Fox will mention that a lot on their television series, thus sparking interest in seeing such a list. Believe me, this information only becomes more valuable with time, as long as it is kept alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.204.96 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC) — 142.167.204.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I'll admit my reluctance to say anything positive about anything connected with this show, but the argument just above by the anon editor seems to make the case well: this shows the significance of the show and complements the main article. DGG (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 142.167.204.96, I was going to state the same thing. The relevance of this annoying show? It's in the cultural impact and ability to launch artists who sell music. This should be cleaned up a bit and possibly renamed to note its a list. -- Banjeboi 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a collection of notable singles which share a common origin, seems fine to me. Also not so long that stricter criteria are needed for inclusion. Furthermore, I don't believe I could find the #1 singles easily by looking through the artists' pages. Brownsnout spookfish (talk)
Strong keep as per above, list of notable singles which share a common origin. Ikip (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep - DGG sums up my views perfectly. Rlendog (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812 bicentennial

Unneeded crystal ballery article that lists what day the bicentennial will be for some events in the war of 1812. If someone can add, they can find the dates on War of 1812 and anything to do in celebration of that is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure exactly what this article is trying to be, even. Maybe it will be notable once events planned for the bicentennial are covered by independent sources. We certainly don't need a rehashing of the War of 1812 article. SMSpivey (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn tourist hype by the state of Maryland or its business community (anything for revenue). It's crystalballism as there's nothing specifically scheduled in a notable way. And...isn't the world supposed to end in 2012 anyway? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation, per crystal, adverts etc etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Rosiestep (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook example of crystalballism -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Much too soon for an article to be needed (if it ever will). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it's clear that the states of Maryland and Michigan have started thinking about projects, I agree that nothing significant has happened yet. In the case of the bicentennial of the Star Spangled Banner, that's actually going to be 2014. When events are organized, and yes, they will be-- in both the U.S. and Canada-- then it would be great to group them into an article with this title. For now, however, no need to reserve a space. Mandsford (talk) 16:21, 31 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 Withdraw per Zagalejo's link. Should've dug further. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Miller (America Online)

Unnotable chairman known exclusively for being connected to AOL. His notability is not and should not be inherited from AOL and as such, he isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The chairmen of major companies are notable. I'm not sure i would say this of every notable company, and I don't know exactly where the cut-off is, but i know AOL is far above the line. Incomprehensible. Naturally, thee should be references available, if the author of the article had thought to look, or the nominator. Authors are people who may or may not understand Wikipedia, and can be excused a learning period. Before one starts nominating articles for deletion one ought to understand that articles should be improved if possible, not deleted. We could deal with this best by requiring a search before afd for lack of notability.DGG (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy was in the news all the time. [5] Zagalejo^^^ 23:30, 29 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 snowball keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shikawa Dam

~~Page has been moved to correct name of Sichuan Dam~~

Notability not established. No citations. Johnfos (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It is a dam, and it can be verified that it exists. Tavix (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." see WP:NOTDIR. Johnfos (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is, however, an encyclopedia of everything that's notable. Named dams are almost always major construction projects & important in the landscape, and thus notable. This one doesn't have numbers, but it does have a rather impressive photograph. Again, the author should have added some more text and references also, but if not the nominator should certainly have known to. Two articles in a row to demonstrate that a search for refs should be required prior of afd for lack of notability. DGG (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say DGG that the author, "Again, the author should have added some more text and references". The articles were started with infoboxes and images and links to Japanese wikipedia and tags at the top marking the articles as needing translation from Japanese wikipedia ready for expansion. Given that I don't understand Japanese fluently, given that a great deal of notable content was missing I think I'm doing a good job of getting them onto here evne if you disagree with my methods of doing so.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article on a major public-works project. Fg2 (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep Wikipedia isn't a directory but who said this was a directory? It is a stub. A dam is a major construction work in Japan and may play a crucial role in the local economy with water management for agriculture or for recreation. The information can easily be translated from Japanese wikipedia and the link clearly shows government or public information that could be used to actually expand it into a full article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a project like this creates a massive papertrail. Just needs someone who speaks Japanese to link it in. Agathoclea (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources added indicate notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even in the state the article was in at the time of AfD, a trivial amount of searching (less than what WP:BEFORE requires of all nominators) shows that the problem was not that that the subject isn't notable but that the article is a stub -- and per official policy being a stub is not a wikicrime. Good rescue, you all who've destubbed it, but I gotta say, AfD really shouldn't be used for inciting rescue work -- there's enough actual junk out there to sort through. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have raised this issue again and again that the AFD procedure needs readdressing. The problem though seems to be confusing stubiness with notability, in my own view an article on a dam is a major construction project which hs environmental and economic implications on any given water basin so would seem to be notable however short the article. The nominator also raised concerns about Kawabe Dam that he couldn't find a reason why it should be included in the encyclopedia and suggested a list. I understand his concerns about article length but I feel sure they can all be expanded into full articles given time and if we are resourceful enough, perhaps in finding Japanese PDF files on them?? For sure any dam is going to have a great deal of documentation by the regional governments, its just a case of gaining access to them and having a knowledge of Japanese. Perhaps I am at fault because I am so active all over the encyclopedia often I compromise quality because of the sheer amount to get up and running but it is only because "I know" that the articles I start are on notable subjects and could reasonably be expanded by anybody. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another needless, wasteful AfD. Took me just a couple minutes to find sourcing. And the content DAJF has added does not just improve the article well beyond AfD fodder, it shows that the potential for improvement was right there in the stub, and that this should have never been brought to AfD. Unless someone is watching these articles (I only came across it because the creator's talk page is on my watchlist) these kinds of nominations go through, removing good information from Wikipedia. I've said it many times before-- some kind of check needs to be put on the Deletion / AfD system. The nominator has nothing to lose-- and everything to gain if s/he is a "Deletionist" sort of vandal, or one seeking Adminship-- by attempting to remove information in these reckless nominations. Dekkappai (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You think it's not notable, you try standing below it when they open the sluices and 1,650,000m³ sez Hiroshima Prefecture washes over you. Or does notability only start at 2,000,000m³? And get an earful of this: The mass recycling of the sludge earned the dam the Merit Award for Recycling in 2002 by the Ministry of Transport even before the dam was officially opened. (True, it's not actually sourced yet, but we can get round to that.) Now, I expect that my own epitaph will read "Hoary, recycler of sludge", but not a single Ministry has ever given me an award for it; this dam got it even before it started. Here, take a leaflet. Après moi, le déluge! -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dams are major public works projects. Rosiestep (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art History Underground

Non-notable student organization. Nothing of note in ghits, gnews, or lexis-nexis. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuym1 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article amounts to an assertion of non-notability. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is non-notabile. Victuallers (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much to go on...Modernist (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy and Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the Spanish article: Harry Potter y las Reliquias de la Muerte

Copy of a spanish language article on a book which already is listed here. Should be deleted as serves no purpose to the encyclopedia. This is a duplicate of the entry Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify: I am wondering if this was made here by mistake. Perhaps the author intended to make it in his userspace and then use the translation to expand the English article. On the other hand, maybe the author is just confused. Either way, it can't stay here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What DanielRigal said. I'd say it would be best to just email a copy of the article and delete. The Spanish wiki likely already has a version of this article, so there is no way it can be used there, and it fails our guidelines here. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, possible G2 as a test page? Tavix (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - I did not intend to CSD this article as it appears to have been submitted in Good Faith, possibly that the user had intended to put it in their space. I posted here so that a consensus could be reached on what should be done with it. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy with so much thought being put forth about the intention of the creator, just userfy it instead of deleting.SMSpivey (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a partial translation of es:Harry Potter y las Reliquias de la Muerte. It's best userfied, and any relevant new content can then be merged to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. --TS 09:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason mulligan

Speedy delete was declined. A working artist, he doesn't seem to fulfill WP:CREATIVE. There are no apparent third-party sources. The only press I could find was a profile/interview that's on his own website (I can't tell if it was published elsewhere). He seems to have some public commissions but not enough of a profile to justify an article here. freshacconci talktalk 22:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One largish? public commission isn't enough i think. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio and terrorism

{{essay-entry}}. Just a long list of WP:SYNTH. I'm sure it's very sensible stuff but not for Wikipedia, methinks. Moreschi (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Mostly WP:SYNTH, veers off into tangents, possibly a recycled poli-sci term paper. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's really an {{essay-entry}}, not an encyclopedia article.Keverich1 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could this be reworked into an article on Clandestine radio? Which is presently a redirect to a rather poor article on pirate radio. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archy McNally

A fictional character with no real world coverage as per the Manual of Style for writing about fiction. (Note: None of the books he is in have Wikipedia articles yet), failing AfD suggest a redirect to Lawrence Sanders, the author. kelapstick (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Protagonist of 13 best selling novels, and therefore a major character suitable for a separate article. It's a pretty sparse article, because it seems to have avoided telling us what the character is and what he does, in what may be an attempt to avoid NOT PLOT. But that policy says that some discussion of plot is necessary for understanding., Keep and give the author a chance expand.(Or maybe it just isn'tf inished, since it was nominated for deletion only 32 minutes after it had been started. that's not time to develop an article.) DGG (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article doesn't even seem to be about the character, but is more about the series of books that the character originates in, all of which are named after the character, and are commonly referred to as the "Archy McNally novels". Whether a rename would be best I don't know. JulesH (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, seeing as the character has been written by two different authors, a redirect to one of them doesn't seem particularly helpful. JulesH (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten (porn star)

Kitten meets one of the WP:PORNBIO criteria: she was nominated for an AVN Award. But according to WP:BIO, "meeting one or more [of the specialized criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Beside her nomination, Kitten is otherwise non-notable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please read the talk page discussion that led to this AfD. The single AVN nomination is the only reed to lean on and it's a weak one. WP:PORNBIO helps define notability in biographies of pornographic actors. In itself though, it's not dispositive. David in DC (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't even read the article, but it help if you could elaborate. The other two editors seems to disagree with you on this. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We all agree that the article passes PORNBIO, but the others are arguing that in this instance PORNBIO should be ignored. Epbr123 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not usually comment on this topic, but I am quite startled at the reason given for deletion, which amounts to Delete it Because I Want to Delete It. The reason we have specialized criteria is for specialized cases. My keep is on the basis of no understandable reason for deletion given. There might actually be one, so i invite Malik to explain what he really means. DGG (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What it means is that there was an article that was seven words long, not counting the mention of the AVN Award nomination. WP:BIO says that an award nomination by itself isn't necessarily sufficient reason to include an article about a person. Several editors discussed the situation on the Talk page, and the consensus seemed to be that the Kitten isn't notable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources seems to indicate there's nothing to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valrith (talk • contribs) 00:46, January 30, 2009

Comment The above comment was made by Valrith. The fact that Valrith failled to use his four tildes here makes me feel good. I did it recently and was mortified. Thanks for the solidarity. :) David in DC (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. :) Valrith (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - On the basis of WP:BIO1E / WP:ONEVENT. She didn't even win Urban Spice best anal performer. Her husband is only notable for AVN awards and for being married to another porn star. There is nothing notable about a porn star being married to the ex-husband of a fairly well known porn star, so Kitten is surely only notable for her AVN and nothing else. Which is mentioned in the AVN awards page, so she doesn't need a separate biography. She has to meet the general criteria for a bio, whether she meets the pornbio sub-criteria or not, surely? I'm presuming they only exist to explain that starring in porn films is not notable in itself, and neither is winning anything but the Oscar of porn awards. Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for your information, articles aren't required to also meet the general criteria if they meet the sub-criteria. Otherwise, the sub-criteria would be rather redundant. Also, the sub-criteria doesn't state that someone has to win "the Oscar of porn awards"; they just have to be a nominee. Epbr123 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Relationships do not confer notability. Article contains very little content. Is the star signed to a studio? Star in any notable videos? Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kitten passes WP:PORNBIO. The nomination is playing primary and secondary criteria of WP:BIO against each other. Kitten's contributions to porn are credibly acknowledged with the AVN nomination. Current consensus is that such people are of interest and that article stubs will get expanded eventually. And that is usually good enough. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 3 February 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 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GADS

Disambiguation Page With Links to 6 Non-Existent Pages (Red Links) Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try tagging it for speedy deletion as no content.21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks-I wasn't sure about this one.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since it is a disambiguation page, it is not eligible for CSD A3. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Curses, foiled again. :) Dloh cierekim 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought maybe as it's all red links . . . . Dloh cierekim 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The next time that either of you happen upon a dangling hyperlink in a disambiguation article, instead of reaching for a deletion nomination template, try looking to see whether you can write the missing articles. Many times dangling hyperlinks in disambiguation articles are good faith indications of articles that we are missing. Your first step should at the very least be to see whether the encyclopaedia can be bettered by writing. We're here to write, remember. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's only redlinks. Dloh cierekim 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep per blueing of redlinks Dloh cierekim 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EGADS! (Might have come from here.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GADSooks! is it a Copyvio? Besides, Wikipedia is not a random collection of acronyms. Dloh cierekim 23:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only red links. Schuym1 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count three blue links. It's a perfectly valid disambiguation article for (at least) three conflicting acronym redirects. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 1 February 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. This could probably also have been deleted under CSD G1 as being patent nonsense.. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man scale

Complete bollocks dreamed up by someone January 9, without reliable sources providing verifiable information. Completely lacking in any assertion of notability or even of existence beyond this article. No relevant G-hits for the originators of this scale. Dloh cierekim 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, preferably Speedy: Nonsense. Non-notable neologism, and a clear case at that. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete bollocks is exactly what it is.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to invite others to consider the discussion at Talk:Man scale, where the creator of the article claims to be the best source going. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's WP:MADEUP, which means that it's neither notable nor verifiable. The author may wish to transwiki it to Uncyclopedia before this AfD closes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 30 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 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Thapa

No indication of notability as per WP:PROF. The organizations listed must be notable enough to make the director of them notable by proxy. No listed publications or positions.

May someday be notable under the criteria but information here suggests otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a little tricky. It is clear that he does not really yet have the accomplishments to meet the usual standard of WP:PROF, or probably the GNG--though sources are difficult on this subject. I think there is a distinct possibility that even these accomplishments as shown by the weak sources present in the article are notable for this particular area, which is just now developing Western-model academic institutions. In other words, a possible keep as cultural bias. I am uncomfortable arguing we should use weaker standards for some countries--quite apart from the encyclopedia, it sounds too much like condescending cultural imperialist bias--but i think it may none the less be a realistic attitude sometimes.. DGG (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't notice this before, but there may be a COI issue here, since the username of the author matches the subject of the page. Also, the IP that has Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reserve judgment on the above, but the institutions involved are developed western institutions of a high caliber. Nortre Dame, University of Tokyo, and McGill. Even so, the academic qualifications are clearly outside WP:PROF. We don't include everyone who has a PhD or even include all professors. Even for professors (which usually implies the phd) there has to be a notable accomplishment, like a named chair. This individual also is involved in several organizations, but those organizations' notabilties are questionable. Of those, ~~only~~ the International Peace Research Association and the Asia-Pacific Peace Research Association (APPRA) have wikipedia pages. The IPRA page has 5 editors and 15 edits. Seven of the edits are from the author of this page (another 3 are from an IP user. The IP is from Notre Dame (the current university of the subject of this article) and has edited only to this article and to the other organization listed in this article), whose user name is the same as the subject of this page. The APPRA page has only two editors. The author of this page and the the same IP editor above. I want to be over inclusive with academics but this article reads like a faculty page or worse a CV. Being arbitrary about whats included is unfair and misleading, suggesting some academics are more important than others. This is why the criteria are as objective as possible and need to be used. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and research and nourish (stubify in the meantime if necessary). If a person has over 1000 Ghits, there's an excellent chance there will be some which are reliable sources. COI is not grounds for deletion if notability is satisfied, it merely means that other people need to rewrite the article as necessary. WP:PROF does not come in to this discussion as his notability is clearly as a peace activist. dramatic (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all of those google hits at least one of them should easily come up with an easy reliable source. I recommend you post that here, or to the article. Excellent chances, particularly with google hits, are not enough, and there's actually a wp policy on point (google hits are not an argument). With all due respect, the COI is relevant, especially here, because you'd expect someone representing their own interests to point out all the relevant info. If you want to make an argument about how the peace activism is relevant, you should do so by finding an article that says that the involvement is notable. Co-chair of a possibly notable activist group is not enough. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG/WP:BIO. The subject is a PhD candidate with no real independent sources to establish notability. The closest we get to a secondary source is this interview profile, which hardly seems to be a independently reported or reliable piece of journalism, and ,as per my reading, is being misused to support the statement "He founded Nepal Peace Initiative Alliance in 2005 which was instrumental in the establishment of Ministry of Peace & Reconstruction in Nepal." If the subject did play a key role in establishment of the Nepal's Ministry of Peace, that would be notable and very easy to establish using mainstream and reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article seems to be a cut-n-paste from [6]. not sure if this is a copyvio, since both seem to be self-profiles written by Manish Thapa himself, and therefore he may have the right to release them under GFDL. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' ph.d. candidate, like me, fewer google hits than me by a factor of somewhere between 10 and 60 depending on how you search. no... there is no notability here as an academic, if he has sufficiently verifiable news sources, then it is general notability, but i don't see that either.. --Buridan (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person (I reserve calling someone "academic" for those who have at least finished their degrees, unlike this person). All the claims toward notability are unsubstantiated and there is a complete lack of reliable independent sources. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:11, 3 February 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 02:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carneglia

I speedy deleted this as a WP:CSD#G10, and then undeleted ast the subject has numerous hits on Google, so there may be sufficiently non trivial coverage to establish notability. I'd like a consensus on whether the subject meets notability and whether the BLP concern overrides any notability. There are 300 Google Web hits that I've not sifted, and 60 Google News hits. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also submitted this for a G10 speedy but was turned down. If an article is written for the sole purpose of disparaging a living individual, as any article about someone noted for criminal behavior, then it must include a substantial amount of significant references. Anything less becomes a BLP violation and requires immediate deletion. This is not one of those times when WP can wait until proper sourcing is found. This article is a BLP vio for that reason. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the author will arrive here to make a comment. User:Nanny's Boy has created a few dozen of these articles and a perusal of the user's talk page indicates a substantial problem with attacks and lack of sourcing. These biographies can certainly be notable, but they also require a very careful and neutral approach. The kind of "pulp crime magazine" language currently being used is problematic -- which I believe can also be attributed to poor sourcing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a "delete"?? Dloh cierekim 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Delete as a G10. BLP attack page without proper sourcing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the thing, but y'all can still see what he's talking about in the prior versions. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CactusWriter. As this article shows, Nanny's Boy shows no regard for Wikipedia policy on sourcing, frmatting or article quality. Ground Zero | t 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the blp requirements, though some rewriting to decrease the sensationalistic aspect is needed. Two perfectly good sources. Major organized crime figures are notable even outside of the tabloid world. Or we could wait for conviction. There is no policy based reason for removing this article. However, the author should get some advice for how to do this sort of article in a more suitable manner. We don't delete if we can edit, and that applies even in cases like this. How to deal with the author if no cooperation forthcoming? ? Probably blank that version and rewrite and protect. DGG (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Groundzero The subject is the notability of the article vs the BLP concern. The ability or knowledge of the article creator is not really germane. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but the problem is that NannyBoy is going around creating articles that simply donot meet any standard for a Wikipedia article. Is it the responsibility of otehr editors to raise these scraps to an acceptable level, or should the articles simply be removed until someone is interested in writing a proper encyclopedia article? NannyBoy ignores any attempts to coach him into writing an acceptable piece. Ground Zero | t 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The blatant BLP violations were taken out but WP:BLP is still a problem. This is a premature at best bio of an alleged mid-level mobster. Notability is marginal if it is established at all. The alleged criminal acts might be notable but they are yet to be proven. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment our general annoyance with a n editor should not interfere with the judgment of whether this particular article can be edited to meet the requirements. AfD is not for user conduct issues. DGG (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal and Chelsea football rivalry

Fails WP:SYN; the article subject is a thesis woven together from various articles which don't make the case directly, along with incidental reference from a source which doesn't look to be reliable. See also the AfD for the content fork by the same original author. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into London derbies. Lugnuts (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's not actually considered to be a London derby outwith this article. That's the rationale behind deleting it as original research. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying - delete then. 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - this is not a notable football rivalry. – Pee Jay 08:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an established football rivalry. Giant Snowman 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the rational. I am dyslexic, maybe you could explain what you mean in a bit more simpleton! Also, I would consider this an important now-days London rivalry although in the way of table clashes for the title. 3 points can effect the top of the table in different ways. Besides, it is by far a better article over London derbies and has some citation even if it is not very good. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I lean towards keep, I disagree with the rational also. The article is perfectly valid, comes with some citation although poor. Could do with a lot more constructive edits and more citation which is probably widely available. Govvy (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Arsenal football/Chelsea football/London derbies. Absolutely no effort to WP:PRESERVE the article before deletion nomination. Article has several footnotes, including Times of London. Ikip (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first reference establishes that Chelsea fans consider Arsenal to be their major rivals. I can find multiple other sources establishing notability for the rivalry with a trivial search: [7] [8] are the first two I found, taking me under two minutes. The claim that this is not an established rivalry or not notable is clearly and demonstrably wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has a brief mention in London derbies. This article is not really needed. DeMoN2009 11:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a casual soccer fan and I am aware of the rivalry. The article is infomative on a notable subject. It could stand improvemeent and may have limited interest but it should not be deleted--Buster7 (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty prominent rivalry among two world wide famous clubs, moreso now as both are very successful. Has a times reference. There will be others. I suspect a merge will make the London derebies page huge (if all rivalries are fleshed out) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment really just for the closing admin; the "Times reference" given in the article is this page here. Note that it is two paragraphs long, and makes absolutely no reference to this subject. Two of the keeps above specifically mention it, so it's worth pointing out that it's totally invalid by means of measuring how strong that argument is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that neither of the two references I provided to establish notability are the Times reference. And that mine took me minutes to find - I'm sure I could find more if people needed it. In fact, if finding more than two is going to be the deciding factor in someone's close, please let me know and I'll do it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD isn't for articles that can easily be sourced (see Phil Sandifer's sources). Clean this up instead of deleting it. The subject is notable, I don't see what the problem is. Whether or not it is a London derby is immaterial to this article's notability. Heck, I'll go find more sources anyway. SMSpivey (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record, (I'm not going to bother to vote ), it certainly is a London derby. Both teams are in London and are most certainly "London teams". The reliable sources are a map of London, and the postal addresses of the two clubs. There are no special criteria other than that. I merely point out that it's barely a cogent, let alone valid assertion to say it is not a London derby. As a Londoner and Arsenal fan, I found it quite amusing that someone stated otherwise. No, I'm not a "reliable source", but the burden of proof would be on the naysayer I think.

As for the Times article, I hate to admit Arsenal care about Chelsea at all, but the fact the transfer was acrimonious does imply a rivalry. Especially as a transfer involving Tottenham Hotspur was mentioned as context.

How do you "measure" a rivalry? The fans. The Football Fan's Census given as a source is as reliable as you will get, the results would have been published in some national newspapers, the rivalries on page 3 are indubitably accurate and most are common knowledge to the average English football fans who were not part of the sample. Also, I can say (no source other than I could ask my mates) that Chelsea are definitely widely regarded as Arsenal's third rivals, although it would have certainly been less clear cut six years ago (before Chelsea got Roman Abromovich's money, and won the league twice). So, can you then say it is established?

I'm sure there must also be archived articles that mention Arsenal and Chelsea as "rivals" at [9]

Another way to measure if a rivalry is "established" is the number of league games they have played against each other over a certain period. Considering teams play on average twice a season, and that Chelsea get relegated now and then, an average of once a season over fifty years would sound established to me (I'm sure in this case it's much more than fifty, and over nearer ninety years). That would imply fairly regular meetings, between two clubs from the same town or city, both with large support.

The material is out there to draw your own conclusions. I will only add that Arsenal fans don't consider Chelsea as established as us in any respect, certainly not "established rivals", and I'm not voting, partly through conflict of interest. Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeLand Wasabi

Non-notable anime convention. Google search turns up no reliable sources nor are there any hits from any of Denvor's newspapers. Disputed prod. Farix (Talk) 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable convention failing WP:N and WP:ORG. Only sources are its own site and an anime convention directory along the lines of IMDB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't the right place for ads :( Article may come back later if it's deemed a notable convention. Be notable and you will be welcome in Wikipedia. --KrebMarkt 08:14, 30 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Magnus Norman

PROD tag removed, AfD issue on notability Setwisohi (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject seems to a genuine artist but also seems to have no specific or genuine claims to notability. Highish GHits - but these seem to be mostly a kind of mass self-hawking (ie. blogs and directories) rather than what you might expect to see of a notable artist (ie galleries, reviews, newspaper articles etc..). Setwisohi (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since there's two Swedish newspaper articles besides the one in the references, [10] and [11]. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. fair point Drmies. But what bothers me is stuff like this [12]. It sure does look like mass self-promotion. Setwisohi (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I agree with you that the entry is very self-promoting and requires a serious rewrite, so I se where you're coming from. I consciously never really look at the 'regular' Google hits, because I feel that WP:RS means newspapers and stuff. I'll also grant you that the two articles I found really don't give a lot of in-depth coverage, but I'm prepared to give this article the benefit of the doubt. OK, I've pared it down some (and I'm not proud of my prose) and hope you like it better--it's more verifiable anyway, though I haven't introduced the two sources yet. I think the way to cut self-promotion is sometimes simple--cut those parts! Thanks for the response, and for bringing the article to attention. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for your work. The article looks a bit better. But after looking at it a bit more this looks like a definite delete to me. The claims to national press coverage are also dubious - he seems to have been in the 'Västerås Express' a local paper, and not the national paper 'Expressen'. Also the claim that he "allegedly" influenced some event in Boston is also not backed up by the article referred to. Setwisohi (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setwisohi, I can't believe I missed the "Vasteras" part, which is printed big enough even for me to see. Tack sa mycket, and thanks for the cleanup; I won't dispute your removal of that allegation--I had hoped that whoever added that would have given a reference. I added the other two (local) sources I found to the article, reorganized and cleaned it up some more, added templates, etc. I personally think the article can stand (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, haha), but I wanted to polish it up a bit so it could be better judged on its merits, which, frankly speaking, aren't that overwhelming: three references in Swedish regional newspapers to art projects of his. [Note: I just threw in two more, from the Sundsvall Tidning, that prove that he exists and all.] Let the chips fall where they may. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note--I have no gumption for edit-warring today, but I would like the observer to browse through the article's history and note this edit: a reference to an exhibition featuring Norman's work was removed on the grounds that it "had nothing to do with Iron Maiden." It did in fact have something to do with the band: it was an exhibition planned to coincide with a Maiden show in Stockholm, and that it was organized by Maiden itself was never claimed in the article. Here's the newspaper article, which a. is an interview with the artist, not all that long but surely verifying some notability and b. proves that the artist isn't just active in smaller cities like Sundsvall. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two mentions in local newspapers. No major shows. No major critical reviews. Not notable. JaneVannin (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: that should be two mentions in local papers, and two (brief) articles about his work--and one interview lost in editing, for reasons I don't agree with. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Article in Expressen (The second largest newspaper in Sweden) was printed and distributed nationwide. According to this page there were no less than 38 newspaper articles and reviews about Norman last year. The "self-promotion" issue does indeed not look good but it's also of no weight in this discussion. Bringing up such issues and other makes me wonder if Setwisohi has some personal agenda or grudge against this person? But it's a fact that Norman is one of the most talked about contemporary artists in Sweden currently and his doings has had an impact on the Internet community worldwide. I for instance found several "memes" listed here: http://www.dipity.com/tatercakes/Internet_Memes/ undoubtably set in motion by this artist, that is art not likely to be found in an art gallery. Highbrowser (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman was not in Expressen, he was in a local paper called Västerås Express - not the same paper. Setwisohi (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that's cleared up: he was in the national newspaper; it's just that the first link was to the local version thereof. And he was mentioned in Aftonbladet (for that 'obscene' picture), the other national newspaper in Sweden. Thanks Highbrowser--though I think you should accept Setwisohi's good faith. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only featured in numerous local but also in national media, including but not limited [13] to Expressen [14], among other Dagens Nyheter, Aftonbladet and public television SVT and radio SR P4 broadcasters; pretty much all the media you can get in Sweden. ¨¨ victor falk 10:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a bit more here, and the article now has a dozen references. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that additional sources and citations have been found and added. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish American Mine

Notability not established. No citations. Johnfos (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--notability is not established in the article, but the author and the nominator could have found the following references using Google Books, [15], of which this and this suggest (these are only snippet views) some notability. I'm no expert here, but surely some mining buff can make something out of it. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--As a historical uranium mine in the Algoma mining district of Ontario, Its notability is established and worthy of an encyclopedia entry. I am sure this arguement has already been established elsewhere. I have seen similar arguements recently for abandoned rail lines and stations. This article was just created as part of a cataloging of historical mines in the Elliot Lake area and I have every intention of expanding it. Turgan ^Talk 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would really help if you include a source or two when you write the stub, to avoid precisely this kind of situation. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that now. Some "subjects" get jumped on very quickly. I have added two sources to the article, which when combined with those mentioned above should meet the notability requirements. Turgan ^Talk 08:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are available as per previous editors's comments. I would also like to point out that the article was tagged for notability at creation which is fine given the unreferenced stub state at the time, but to time needs to be allowed for editors to correct the identified problem, and not to immediately slap an AFD up. --- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check: Any single sentence article without citations is likely to be nominated for deletion sooner or later. Every time we start a new article we are told "Articles that are created without references, or have extremely little content, are likely to be deleted very quickly (possibly within a few minutes). To avoid this, make sure the article includes references to reliable, published sources..." Johnfos (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that. But AFD is the last resort, and you did in fact tag it for notability, and then instead of allowing time for the issue you identified to be addressed, you brought it to AFD immediately. so why bother having these article improvement tagas? -- Whpq (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a valid arguement, however when patroling new pages we are also told "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." The article in question was not just a single sentence article, there were actually two, plus a location map and coordinates, a "requires expansion" tag, and it was tagged and rated for WikiProject Mining so other project members would easily find it and contribute if they were able. Turgan ^Talk 02:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I have "stepped on your toes", apologies. I did not mean to do that. Johnfos (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I can be dogmatic, without the desire to step on anyone's toes, I think authors should write their articles and immediately include a reference or two; I also think that someone who tags an article should look around for some sources before sending it to AfD. I agree, for instance, that tags should stand for a while before the article gets proposed for deletion. My two cents. At any rate, I think it's looking like this might stay, if Turgan, who knows this subject matter (I suppose), can plug in the two references I found, and the two links added to the article--but please do it with specific (inline) citations. I could do it, but I just don't know this stuff well enough. Turgan, the sooner you do this, the more easily you'll convince other editors who get to weigh in on this matter that the subject is notable. Now, I'll pour a drink for all three of you, we'll toast, and be friends. Si? Drmies (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referenced, and its scale was large enough to make it notable. ¨¨ victor falk 11:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Oberto

Very poorly sourced, highly negative BLP. No Google hits on either news, books or web. Only source is a PPV site. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a hoax. NVO (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. No trace of this person found outside Wikipedia and its mirrors and the reference provided does not check out. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 30 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) Mayalld (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Koshzow

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christina Koshzow

Based on edit history and photo image credits, this article appears to be largely, if not entirely, self-generated by the subject. Beyond this, the style is that of a promotional piece or advertisement. Although the author has provided references for herself, seems to be non-notable. Related resume-like article for Joey Rahimi was previously agreed to be deleted on similar grounds. Shorn again (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the spirit of Simon Dodd's edits, I have removed the detailed statements/updates about the College Prowler company and moved them to the main article. I am not a very experienced editor, particularly on this kind of policy matter, but Simon's further comments about coatracking effectively summarize a big part of my concern. Finding out about the recent questionable Facebook-squatting tactics used by that company didn't make me feel any better. Still, I understand the logic of keeping the article as now edited and reduced.--Shorn again (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly weak keep. There are two issues bearing on deletion here. First, notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria sets the threshold as coverage as a subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There seem to be enough cites in the article meeting those criteria to cross the threshold. Second, the autobiographical aspect. While WP:COI and WP:AUTO strongly discourage doing that, as I understand them, they do not prohibit it, and it isn't an independently sufficient reason for deletion at WP:DEL#REASON. Although the marginal notability and the autobiograpy aspect do tend to amplify one another (WP:DEL#REASON is expressly non-exhaustive), I lean very slightly towards retention. The other problems with the article can be dealt with through editing the article rather than deleting it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm persuaded by Simon Dodd's very cogent reasoning.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've edited the article to strip out a lot of the autobiographical fluff. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addenda: There could have been a third argument for deletion based on Wikipedia:CSD#General no. 11, to the extent that the article could be thought a species of coatrack for "promot[ing]" this persons's company. My subsequent edits have, I believe, mooted that argument. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe accomplishments are notable and documented. The present state of the article seems almost acceptable. (The picture of herself several decades ago could well be considered irrelevant to an encyclopedic purpose., just as much as a baby picture would be). What we do with spammy articles is remove the spam. DGG (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently Simon Dodd's saved it. In view of the nominator's comments above I now recommend speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Callan (attorney)

Article on a US lawyer who is also, apparantly, a "a well known television legal commentator.". A challenge to the notability of the person has been made in another forum (AN/I), and to test the assertion, I've brought the article here for the community to decide. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article and placed citations within it. These include high profile cases as well as television appearances. Jameskrouse —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Added citations from courttv transcripts and from the Wall Street Journal which I believe are reliable sources.--Jameskrouse (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further research shows that Callan has a broader presence that is indicated in the article as it is currently posted. He is quoted in a report on the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui for example linked here. The article could be updated but is a completely different from the debate above. Callan is a television personality, other of which are part of Wikipedia.--Jameskrouse (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Oh the invanity". Not notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. TJRC (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shameless vanity project. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 04:14, 2 February 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 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Reiff

Article on a lawyer. Sole claim for notability that I can see is that he is "on both the board of directors and the executive committee of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association". I do not know one way or another if that makes him notable, and so I bring the article to this forum to decide. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Should be speedied -- creator removed speedy tag, so I have retagged per A7. Not notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy. There are perhaps a hundred or more lawyers listed as 2006-2007 members of the Board of Directors at the NYSTLA website [16] (no data given for 2008+). He is not listed as an officer [17], so I'm not sure that belonging to this board is itself notable. His claim to notability appears to be a tort personal injury lawsuit that was mentioned in the media in 2006. regards, --guyzero | talk 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an addition to Guyzero's comment, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of lawyers admitted to state supreme courts as well as SCOTUS, that in and of itself does not establish notability. Certainly having litigated a case for $200,000 about an umbrella that injured a woman does not, either. §FreeRangeFrog 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is true that thousands of lawyers are members of these organizations and the size of a particular lawsuit is and of itself not notable, the umbrella case did receive national coverage. This coverage was due to the unusual nature of the lawsuit as well as the fact the a beach umbrella was used on the court house steps. I am the original author of the text and may have made some mistakes in first editing the entry but I believe that the entry is notable §Jameskrouse 29 January 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. Original contributors explanation makes me think we should consider an article on the case (okay, no, not really) but certainly not on the lawyer associated with the case. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The umbrella case did receive national coverage. - Ret.Prof (talk)
The umbrella case received substantial coverage, but I think this might be better addressed in an article about the case, rather than Mr. Reiff. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, it's true, the umbrella case DID receive national coverage. However, Reiff did not. He was not the focal point of the coverage, and most of the articles about the incident were largely trivial. I don't think that the given sources denote significance or notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage of him is entirely incidental, and there is nothing notable there. I removed the speedy tag, because it is seems worth discussing, as we are doing, and I think we will do better to come to a more definitive decision here. It would be possible to argue that 2RS should be taken literally without exception, and this discussion serves the useful purpose of demonstrating that the consensus is otherwise. DGG (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original contributor here again - interesting debate, but the umbrella case cited in WSJ and NYT substantially cited the lawyers use of the umbrella on the court house steps plus him citing laws from the 1800s to make the case. His actions are what made the news in those cases. A simple google search on his name reveals valid news sources and the very fact that we are suggesting adding the case would indicate that he should be included. --Jameskrouse (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the lawsuit may be notable does mean that the participants automatically get articles. Please see WP:ONEEVENT. thanks, --guyzero | talk 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This case would not have received national coverage from the WSJ and the NY Times if it weren't for the circumstances of the case and the antics of the attorney. Both umbrella case and the lawyer are intertwined. - --PinDesign (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock: PinDesign (talk · contribs) --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A simple Google search would prove that wrong.--PinDesign (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT --Numyht (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Cydonia

Contested PROD. Does not indicate notability of topic.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam, you had it right the first time. A google search produces a single result, this article, and though it's hardly a heinous act for someone to try and flag up someone else's pet project on WP, this is not MySpace or GeoCities. Someone another 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ballery; unreleased, unfinished game without so much as a single link on the web. Maralia (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly spam. --Peephole (talk) 20:17, 30 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 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Barter Network

This article about a corporation has no 3rd-party sources. It is a recreation of an article created in May 2008 and speedy deleted as an advertisement. No new information has been added. Without sources there is no indication of notability and all of its claims are self-sourced. Postings on the talk page alerted the involved editors of the need for sources two weeks ago, but none have been added. Will Beback talk 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage, and thus no notability. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just a thought... did you guys read the wiki, or just saying delete because it was deleted before... i did not see it before when deleted, but looking at this article now, you are stating that it has no 3rd party sources, when i clearly see sources from Barter News, and 2 different chamber of commerces... what else do you want, or what else needs to be put. Let me know as i am sick of seeing peoples hard work to be removed because of WIKI socialist that delete anything that is new, without reviewing them. Troy Stevens (talk)

I did read the article, thank you very much, and I did look for sources (and didn't find any, neither in the article nor on the entire World Wide Web). That thing from the Chamber of Commerce, what is that, an ad? And BarterNews, that's hardly a newspaper. I suggest a look at WP:RS. BTW, what a day--first some guy on another AfD calls me a "cocksmoker," and now someone calls me a socialist...at least User Stevens is closer to the truth, even if he fails to realize that socialists are more likely to promote barter systems than to want to delete them. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chamber refrences are not ads rather they appear to be member lists for the chamber that inforces the wiki that the barter netwoprk says they are a member to... 68.243.236.18 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. "Content" suspiciously created by a single-purpose editor. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save: Either you guys missed it, or they just added a source from BarterNews which is a publication confirming their transactions as well as their revenues... I think this article has great benefit to the wiki world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.6.7.179 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That reliable source is not significant coverage. Even if it was, there would need to be multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd thought that was the subject's website. Regardless, it's just a passing reference and not enough to establish notability. See WP:ORG for the notability standards for businesses. Further, the site appears to be a blog, which would make it unacceptable as a source. Will Beback talk 03:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a blog? A blog would be something that 1 person publishes their opinion on... The page the creater was refrencing to, is a published article that is industry specific. What would be more establishing that that? 68.243.236.18 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A blog and/or one-person website is not considered a reliable source, especially for establishing notability. http://www.barternews.com/ only mentions one person, Bob Meyer. Who else is on the staff? Will Beback talk 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Refrences are acceptable as they are not blogs as other wiki members are saying... the wiki for the barter network is not biased, and seams to be written correctly as a 3rd party.68.243.236.18 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While everyone is welcome to give their opinions, by tradition only the !votes of editors who've made at least 20 or so edits are usually considered. All of the "keep" opinions appear to be from new editors. Will Beback talk 07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Vengeance

AfDs for this article:

Not notable game: a small player/developer community (a forum with < 90 members source), a "growing number" of players (only 55 that have completed a multiplayer game source). It has also been nominated and deleted before for non-notability reasons. The developer has also been deleted for non-notability reasons. Simeon (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The TigSource article already present in the article, by Derek Yu, is reliable IMO since it's penned by a noted indie game developer, but it's hardly a substantial piece. That is the only reliable source I've found when looking for more, most are mentions or listings on shareware sites. It doesn't meet notability because it is not the subject of multiple independent reviews which can be deemed reliable by WP standards. Someone another 01:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The only review sources so far I can find for this game:

TIGSource <-- This is the most reliable
Puppybuckets Review <-- This source is quoted in TIGSource by Derek Yu
Galaxiae
HyperMap Solar Vengeance Mod --Karho.Yau (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not attracted enough significant, reliable coverage to support an article. Marasmusine (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davorka Tovilo

fails WP:Bio. This person isn't important in Germany or any other country. This article was also deleted in German Wikipedia! Helfender (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: can only confirm one non-notable unnamed appearance in a film. JamesBurns (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She hasn't done anything that says she's notable. Yoda1893 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 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 and redirect to ergogenic use of anabolic steroids; AfD withdrawn by nominator in favor of a merge/redirect, based on discussion here. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-cycle therapy

Unreferenced for quite some time. Article refers to unapproved use of various medicines to "minimize" the side effects of anabolic steroid abuse. There are no reliable medical sources on this practice on PubMed that I could find, and Google search returns various bodybuilding forums and magazines with no reliable sources. This article actively promotes an unapproved and potentially dangerous practice; it is the #1 hit on Google; and it cannot be rewritten because I can't find any reliable, independent sources. I feel strongly that deletion is the best option at this point. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Basie (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no reference than it should be deleted. ie not verifiable.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I have redirected the similar, but shorter, articles steroid cycle and steroid stack to sections of Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids. Those topics lack sufficient sources for detailed articles. Unlike these two concepts, which are well-known in the medical literature, even if not so well studied, post-cycle therapy is barely mentioned in medical literature. PMID 11929356 mentions the use of hCG post-cycle, but only as anectodal evidence from one of Dan Duchaine's books. Basically, I agree with MastCell that there's very little scientific literature on this, and the little there is can be said at Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids. I'm not sure why we need a long discussion to decide this... Furthermore, minimization of side-effect of AAS in general (not just post-cycle) is a poorly studied issue. Despite this, the FA-class article on AAS has a large section on minimization of side effects. I've tagged it as WP:SYNT for reasons explained at Talk:Anabolic_steroid#Synthesis. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with merging and redirecting, assuming there's no objection. I brought it to AfD because I wasn't able to find any good sources on this subject, and thus there was nothing to merge - but I could be happy with either solution. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've written the little that is known about this at Ergogenic_use_of_anabolic_steroids#Minimization_of_side-effects after you removed the massive WP:SYN over there. Although I've not used any of the text in the article up for deletion, redirect seems the best option given that someone might search for this (there are some 50 hits per day on this little page). Xasodfuih (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids, since the only source I can find that uses this term is this, which is not reliable by any stretch of the imagination, I suspect this idea is a commercial invention. No RS = no article. Might be a search term though, hence the reidrect. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per WP:V. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I find plenty of fora (and the term "bitch tits"), but nothing resembling a reliable source discussing the term. It seems to come up often enough that a redirect would be useful. Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Steroid cycle looks like the best target. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there's no objection, I propose (as the nominator) that we close this AfD and redirect post-cycle therapy to ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Minimization of side effects. The discussion can always be re-opened, or restarted, but a redirect seems appropriate given that there is now a somewhat better-sourced section at the main article. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect Wether or not the practice is "unapproved" or "potentially dangerous" (one editors opinion) is not really relevant (and that sort of POV should be kept out of AFD nominations by the way). That fact is post cycle therapy has been done since at least the 1970's and is still being done by bodybuilders and athletes everywhere. As part of overall steroid use it is notable. Plus, there is numerous literature on this subject, see this article and it's references [18], not to mention a plethora of back issues of Muscular Development and Muscle Media, plus it's covered in numerous books including those written by Flex Wheeler, Ben Johnson's former coach Charlie Francis and training partner Angella Issajenko, the book "Steroid Nation" by ESPN writer Shaun Assael; numerous issues of The Anabolic Reference Update published by Bill Phillips (author) and Anabolics 2009 by William Llewellyn of which there are 150,000 copies sold - and that only scratches the surface. I think at minimum this should be merged to Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Steroid cycle. By the way guys, there's more to establishing notability than just running a few keywords through Google. Doesn't anyone visit a library anymore?--Yankees76 (talk) 23:42, 29 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. Notability was established. Deleting articles simply because of a COI issue finds no support either in policy or amongst the !votes here (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sirota

Content of page is largely original research and self-aggrandizing; does not meet notability standards. Meese (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have a promotional feel to it, but there is independent coverage of the subject at pbs.org, and in an interview at Salon magazine, and an article in Rocky Mountain News. Looks like there's plenty more, glancing over the hits at Google News archives. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that for the article to be kept it not only needs significant citation of outside material, but also needs to be brought in line with NPOV rules. I get a sense of a "promotional feel" when reading it as well, and from searching I see there is plenty of material that isn't quite so pro-Sirota. Meese (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the time you tagged the article with {{onesource}} and {{citations missing}}, it had 8 inline references from 5 different sources. I have converted the inline references to citations and removed both tags. There is no requirement that an article be fully cited and utterly NPOV in order to be kept at AFD; if there were, we would have zero articles. Maralia (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A moron, but notably so. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the guy passes WP:N, WP:BIO and such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, article needs referencing and other work, but he meets notability. Maralia (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; he's clearly notable, although the article needs serious copyediting. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I logged onto wikipedia toady to find information on David Sirota. For that reason alone, I would like to see this article continued. It is necessary, however to maintain objective information about Mr. Sirota, so we need to do something about the edit war that is going on,

--A.backman (talk) 18:18, 1 February 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 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Black Mesa

Basically a lack of verifiability of any of the content via reliable secondary sources, in which it follows that notability cannot be established via such sources. It seems that a rough consensus, according to two mergers that I proposed at Talk:Black Mesa (video game)#Merge/redirect proposal and Talk:List of Source engine mods#Merge/redirect proposal, indicates nomination for AFD. MuZemike 17:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless. ILovePlankton (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep article needs expanded and referenced but a quick google search for the game brings up a fair chunk of hits, including on the offical steam website. I feel this article is similar in notability to the Garrys Mod article but that remains to be seen Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 07:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although there are some exceptions like Gary's Mod, my understanding is unauthorized game mods aren't eligible for articles unless they establish independent notability (or are sanctioned by the original game's publisher). No objection to this being merged with the Half-Life article if that's preferable to losig the information. 23skidoo (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is about a modification of a video game and rates no more than a mention in Half-Life 2. I'm going to go ahead and be bold about this, moving the title so as not to have this confused with the serious articles on Wikipedia about real military operations. Mandsford (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would only be justifiable if there was a real Operation Black Mesa to take up that namespace. There isn't, so there is no need to disambiguate it. Reading the first line easily tells someone that the article is not about a military operation. -- Sabre (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell, there is only one claim of importance; 5th place in MOTY. I don't consider this substantial enough to even list in the "list of mods" article. Marasmusine (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the general notability guideline due to a lack of reliable independent sources, which is hardly surprising since it isn't even complete. Gary's Mod is mentioned regularly in the media, used in competitions and features, and is on a different level to this. It's just another non-notable mod and as such doesn't need merging or redirecting anywhere. Someone another 03:24, 3 February 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 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NIMG

Maybe a neologism but no relevant sourcing and little support in a Google search. Also suffers from POV issues. Justallofthem (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wow, I can't believe this nonsense has been around since 2006. L0b0t (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well between us we have cleaned it up some and I think the lead makes sense now but I would still remove the unsourced, unrelated, and highly POV 2nd paragraph. Of course, the question remains as to whether this possible neologism is notable enough for inclusion given its limited appearance. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been able able to find plenty of sources that use the phrase but no sources that mention the usage of the phrase or acronym. Seems to fail WP:V. L0b0t (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't think we are finding any baby in that bathwater. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DTAN Acronym neologism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. ←Spidern → 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clearly non-notable neologism ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally non-notable. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 29 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 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Muran

Contested PROD: Non-notable bio (plus COI and ownership issues). Subject has a reasonable number of non-notable medals, many hits for promotional material on the web, but unable to identify any significant coverage in secondary sources. No GNews hits except for a lawsuit that doesn't confer notability (PROD justification by User:Bongomatic, which I support.) OTRS ticket pending for cut and paste from subject's website. ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is permission on Commons for using the text from the website, medals are not being listed on Wikipedia and have nothing to do with the article, these events took place in the 70's and 80's therefore online documentation is unlikely. You may contact students and television stations if you require verification. Also, there is no lawsuit article for the search term "Bob Muran" on GNews.

http://www.videolearning.com/S3916.HTM: "His students have included personalities such as Ivan Lendl and Ed McMahon and Edward Kennedy. Bob is a full time ski instructor trainer and examiner for the Professional Ski Instructors of America".

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KprdsX9lSww

http://www.skiwithbob.com/parabolicskis.html

- AlpineSkiingCanada (talk)

Comment - none of these are reliable sources as described in WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Discovery Channel is a reliable source and so is OMNI Television's "Z Ukosa" as they are both mainstream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlpineSkiingCanada (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: This Afd is not about the copyvio, it's about the notability of the subject. The addition of the material from the website will not help with that. In any event, please post a link to the OTRS resolution. – ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Please provide the link to the GNews lawsuit story.AlpineSkiingCanada (talk)
    - Comment: Please don't be so petty. The OTRS issue is relevant to the article. The non-existence of a law suit just adds to non-notability. – ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Please don't make up stories about GNews articles that don't exist. In regards to the OTRS ticket (cut and pasting from the website), there is already permission on commons for using the text from the website.AlpineSkiingCanada (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        Comment: I have searched on Commons and the only thing there relating to "Bob Muran" is the image page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Well another admin has stated that there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Muran so one of you is not telling the truth. ` AlpineSkiingCanada (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        Comment: I have asked for clarification. But, even if you copy and paste from the website, that will not improve the notability of the subject - in fact it will make it look like a promo piece probably falling foul of WP:Spam. And BTW I am not an admin. – ukexpat (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: You are running out of excuses. The article is not intended for promotions. It is intended to highlight and commemorate the teaching and coaching career of the subject. Discovery Channel and OMNI Television's "Z Ukosa" are both reliable sources. If you are not an Admin then you should leave this to someone who is as they are more knowledgeble and have executive decision making.- AlpineSkiingCanada (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        
        Comment: User:Zureks is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--Outdent Comment: Please be civil. Any editor is entitled to call into question the notability of an article as I have here. Even if you do not intend it to be promotional, with the website stuff added, it will read like the website and what is the purpose of the website if not to promote the man and his activities? Have you actually read WP:RS? – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So there aren't any articles on Wikipedia where information is taken from the subject's official website? Plus, the "about us" page of the website is not intended as promotional text but as a biography and career highlights section. The "lessons" and "trips" pages serve the purpose of promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlpineSkiingCanada (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Of course there are, but not as a direct copy and paste, especially by an editor with a huge conflict of interest. But let's get back to the key issue here and that's notability. I think we each know the other's view on that so we will have to await the consensus of the rest of the community here. – ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: You said that the Discovery Channel is not a reliable source and you keep forgetting that there is permission to use the text from the website. - AlpineSkiingCanada (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    - Comment: Let me spell it out for you: 1. Permission to use the website content is irrelevant to this discussion - it will not help establish notability, because it is not "independent of the subject"; 2. Even if Discovery channel is a reliable source per WP:RS, one mention there and another on OMNI Television do not meet the basic criteria for notability in the guideline for biographies, nor the general notability guideline in WP:N - "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (my emphasis). – ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Johnny Carson, Wonderama, New York at Noon, A.M. New York, Citytv, CTV, Global A, OMNI Television - You may contact the following parties to verify. = AlpineSkiingCanada (talk)

Delete While this man may have an impressive sounding (to some) client list, the absense of verifiable, reliable, sources writing about him is the issue at hand. As far as I can tell subject fails WP:GNG. L0b0t (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no verifiable sources; the website is irrelevant to the AfD discussion since it would not add a reliable source (per WP:RS). Drmies (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ok cocksmokers delete the article then. - AlpineSkiingCanada (talk)
- Wow--I've never been called that before. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searching fails to find reliable, third-party, published sources. Notability not established per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the four "delete" !votes above have been restored after AlpineSkiingCanada first deleted them and then changed them to read "Don't Delete". JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. However, the lawsuit does seem to exist: [19]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongomatic (talk • contribs) 11:10, 30 January 2009
Delete - notability not established; the lawsuit doesn't help. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Scapler (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the article use to say "internationally known" or something like that--without citation--and I removed it. So if you think that's a claim of notability sufficient to let the article stay around until someone can demonstrate it, you may wish to reconsider. Bongo matic 01:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That would be a reason to decline speedy, but we are beyond that, we are into lack of notability per guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep and rewrite to avoid the copyvio, and we can judge better. DGG (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand your logic here. Numerous editors have made good faith searches for reliable secondary sources and have drawn blanks. Why does a rewrite change that, unless its written by someone who has access to other information--in which case bringing that information to bear now in the artcile or in this AfD would seem to be more appropriate. Bongo matic 03:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither do I - there is no copyvio as the stub now stands nor would there be with the addition of the website content as there is apparently an OTRS ticket confirming its release. This is purely a notability issue and of that there is no evidence. – ukexpat (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OTRS:2384522 relates to this issue. Awaiting a proper copyright release. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't matter as the copyvio material does not help establish notability, the concern giving rise to the AfD. Bongo matic 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just reverted the vandalism and incivility by AlpineSkiingCanada and filed a report at WP:AIV - enough is enough. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef. by LessHeard vanU. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and came back as George6495 (talk · contribs), indef blocked within 5 minutes. JohnCD (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...also note this edit by User:LacrosseChamp92--kelapstick (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly a sock, anyone want to volunteer to report? – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I realize that it is highly unusual to semi-protect AfDs, but the sockpuppetry is disruptive. I've semi-protected this AfD until after it should be closed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 3 February 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 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard e. schiff

Delete non-notable autobiography Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent sources establishing notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7-bio and as autobiography, unless notability can be established per WP:RS --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Appropriately, Yale has also just published the complete works of one of Flavin's artist heroes: Barnett Newman: A Catalogue Raisonné by Richard Schiff, Carol Mancusi-Ungaro, Heidi Colsman-Freyberger, Bruce White and Ellyn Childs Allison (653 pages; $200)."[20] San Francisco Chronicle. He's also mentioned in some other stories. I see strong indications this person may be notable. Let's not be hasty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's also quoted here [21] in the LA Times which says he is "professor of art at the University of Texas at Austin". No enough in and of itself. But let's at least make sure the person isn't notable before deleting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Included in numerous articles (you have to wade through the West Wing citations even when you include "artist"), but most of them aren't availalbe online so I can't see what they say. "the University of Texas' own highly respected Cezanne scholar, Richard Schiff," from the Jul 25, 1996 Austin Stateman. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Richard Schiff I'm finding seems to be a somewhat notable art historian. I'm not sure it's the same person though... "Boston Globe - NewsBank - Feb 8, 1995 Panelists are art historians Richard Schiff and Ann Gibson, and John McMahon, a painter who was de Kooning's studio assistant in the 1960s. ... " and "San Antonio Express-News - NewsBank - Feb 23, 1992 As the center's director, Richard Schiff, said, "Beauty . . . is a word that some people speak with embarrassment. An artist may not want his works to be ... " and there's quite a bit more... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've concluded my investigation. I would say Richard Schiff the art historian is quite notable. If Richard e. schiff is someone else, an artist?, I see no indication that this person meets the guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But if someone wants to write up the Art History prof. I think that would be legit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the prior article, speedily deleted as copyvio, came from http://www.richardschiff.com/richard_schiff.htm I have not yet looked in any detail at that article to work out which Schiff this is, nor what we should do with the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me on reading the link that Richard E Schiff is probably not the notable gentleman. One option is to ask the eponymous user who created the initial article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, so nominated. ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy removed,let the consensus decide, there's certainanly an indication ofpossible notability-- which is enough to pass speedy.DGG (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep probably under both creative professions and WP:PROF, If the presence in the museum collections can be demonstrated, he is certainly notable as a creative professional and nothing more needs to be shown. Similirly, as he is the author of a Univ. of California Press book on Cezanne, Conversations with Cézanne" he might well be notable if there is additional published work. DGG (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author is a different Richard Schiff, a prof at University of Texas in Austin, and not this artist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing WP:V and what DGG charitably calls an indication of possible notability is weasel words: maybe he's a janitor and his work is at the museum; or perhaps he's a plumber and has fixed the loos at a few notable locations. Why cannot the author say "His artistic works are displayed in the permanent collection of..." and back it up with something that we can verify. The burden is on the keepers to show notability by significant coverage in reliable sources or by our other guidelines and nothing's been shown so far... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

don;t you think the plumber or janitor analogy is a strawman? that you are is looking for weird and unlikely possibilities? if a work is in a museum's permanent collection it is in its collection, and if one can show it from a catalog or other suitable resource then it is demonstrated, and having hem there is one of the key things that makes artists notable, and it by itself its sufficient if the museums are actually important. For the sort of art that can get put in museums, I think its overwhelmingly the main factor. & has the advantage of being able to be demonstrated. A list is as good as a paragraph, and a suggestion that only a specific form of word swill work is alien to the spirit of Wp. I admit however, to continued confusion over whether there are one or two people here--I see no reason why an art historian could not also be an practicing artist, though most often they're separate. DGG (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be asserted. I see self promotion instead. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article's primary claim to notability is "Schiff's work is in the Jerusalem Museum of Fine Art." (Wikilink added by me in this quote.) However, the closest I could find via Google was the Israel Museum. Just in case the name was wrong, I went to the Israel Museum's site and searched on "Schiff" -- and got no results. I suggest that the article may fail verifiability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More research - The Art Students League of New York is an art school (if I read their web site correctly); "Life Member" according to their membership page means someone who was a paid member for 10 years. I openly question whether that qualifies as notable. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I have added fact tags and a banner at the head of the article questioning notability and verifiability. Since the originator purports to be the subject he seems shy of adding citations etc, and of participating in this discussion. That always rings hollow with me, so I say Unverifiable" "not notable" and "self puffery". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:34, 30 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 and move to List of emoticons.

Various considerable aspects both in favour of deletion and keep have been mentioned in this debate.

Regarding the points having been mentioned in favour of deletion, the following ones seem to be noteworthy: Firstly, it has been explained that the article would not meet our standards for verifiability and for notability. Also, quite a few participants have expressed concerns regarding the page title: According to them, the word “common” constitutes POV. The last point to mention is that some users deem the article unsourced and thus want it to be deleted.

On the other hand, numerous arguments in favour of keep have been explained. Those arguments are partly even addressing the points that have been named by the users who said the article should be deleted: There would be more than enough potential reliable sources (quite a few have even been named in this debate as examples); the sourcing problem could be addressed by adding them to the article. Regarding the notability concerns the vast majority of the participants agree that the subject of the article is a notable expression and is notable enough for inclusion. Thus, the subject of this article would constitute a reasonable subject for a list. Finally, the POV problem can be solved quite easily; simply by moving the article to List of emoticons, as explained below by some users.

Taking all these points into account, I think it is safe to say that there's a clear consensus for keeping the article. — Aitias // discussion 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of common emoticons

This page does not meet our criteria for inclusion. It belongs on Wikisource or some other project, but it is entirely unreferenced and unsuited for an encyclopedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it would be a fun pet project on Wikia, this is not encyclopedic in the least and doesn't belong here. ←Spidern → 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emoticon, leaving the possiblity to split back off to a list once these "common" emoticons get sourced. It's not an unreasonable thing for which to search. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing because this is an interesting and valuable article. Searching for "emoticon" on Google brings this page as result #2. I have used it several times to decipher what people mean when they use odd and new emoticons. This article should be left alone inside Wikipedia or improved to conform better with normal standards. Nate88-seriously (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if an article is interesting, useful, or ranks highly on Google (like all Wikipedia pages). All of those emoticons need to be verified with sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How it even possible to have sources for emoticons? They are simply something that someone made up and have pervaded our culture. There is no original source. Yet this page is still highly useful as it teaches the uninformed about internet culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.56.180 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example. It's not like this article can't be sourced, it's just that we should source the main article first and then expand per Wikipedia:Summary style. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So explodicle, do you really think people made these up? lol. Or are you just trying to fit in the whole "I'm an awesome and proper sysop" act? 72.221.76.103 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't it be both? :-P --Explodicle (T/C) 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "All of those emoticons need to be verified with sources." This is the wrong forum to force editors to improve this page. WP:INTROTODELETE, WP:POTENTIAL "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." Remember, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD): "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Editors can see this article as useful, and ignore WP:AADD. Ikip (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to say that essays are in no way binding, WP:AADD just prevents having to repeat yourself. Also, I agree that deletion is a last resort, and that we should not delete this article. However, WP:V and WP:RS are not essays; they describe a strong consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve needs ref improvement. It's encyclopedic, useful, and worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this article is useful is completely subjective. If you or someone else can make the ref improvments you suggest, then we can keep it. Otherwise, unverified information should not be on Wikipedia. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD): "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Editors are welcome to see this article as useful, and ignore the "subjective" WP:AADD. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using WP:AADD as if citing policy, I'm using it to elaborate my own point. An encyclopedia article is only as good as its sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of the entirety of human knowledge. We have standards for verifiability and for notability. This is an indiscriminate collection of information for which no definitive authoritative sources exist. Emoticon already covers that which is verifiable and notable about this subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and redirect - The entries here could all be added to the wiktionary category Category:Emoticons. Then, we could make a soft redirect or add instructions like the List of SMS abbreviations page. This would keep the data useful and also searchable through Wikipedia. Scapler (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a useful compendium of information. Gerardw (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Usefulness" is not a factor in deletion decisions. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD): "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Editors can see this article as useful, and ignore WP:AADD. Usefulness can be a factor in deletion discussions. Just because another editor quotes an acronym, does not make it iron clad law. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't. However, one could claim that any article up for deletion is "useful". We need to make our decision based on facts, not opinions. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sufficient sources to document these, & if one cant be,m then its just a question of editing. DGG (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is not the threshold for inclusion as an article. Furthermore, it is not "just a question of editing" to attempt to find authoritative sources where none exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, unfortunatly, the policy verifiability, in the very first sentence, contradicts your statement. WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" The five pillars of wikipedia, the most important rules, state: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references." It is a question of editing, editors can find references, and add those references. Have editors who support delete looked for references themselves, if not, how do you know that none exist? Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it It's a useful listing and part of the current culture.--Halbiz1065 (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC) — Halbiz1065 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Usefulness" is not a factor in deletion decisions. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness is the paramount criteria in assessing what makes the encyclopedia better. This is fundamental and all the other guidelines are built on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is and is not "useful" is completely a matter of opinion - one could also argue to keep the list because it is "super awesome". How about some proof? --Explodicle (T/C) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, i keep having to clarify this essay, I agree with Child. What is and is not notable is also completely a matter of opinion, yet it is the reason a majority of articles get deleted. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD): "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." Editors can see this article as useful, and ignore WP:AADD. Usefulness can be a factor in deletion discussions. Just because another editor quotes an important sounding acronym, does not make it iron clad law, heed at your own discretion. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Wikipedia, what is and is not notable is not a matter of opinion; you can find the definition at Wikipedia:Notability, which is a guideline (not an essay) backed by an editorial consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources for this notable expression of Internet culture. See any random "how to use the Internet" style book for a start. Reasonable subject for a list. If it is currently unsourced, the solution is to add sources, not to delete it, per WP:DELETION. JulesH (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to do that? When? --Explodicle (T/C) 16:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of simply throwing out "there are sources somewhere", why not make your speculation concrete? Please provide the references here, or add them yourself. Still, I think they are definitions which should cross-wiki link to Wiktionary. Scapler (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD, like most AfD's is summed up in a saying by User:MichaelQSchmidt "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." A lot of editors complaining that someone else should fix the article. Ikip (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently POV, who can decide whether the emoticon is common or not? Stifle (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do believe that the word "common" is unnecessary (though not necessarily "inherently POV"), but that can be fixed with a rename. DHowell (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of emoticons (which is currently a redirect without significant edit history that would have to be deleted in order to move this page there). Lots of reliable sources list emoticons, and so should we. See this in The Register, citing a Cingular patent application found here; this article in The New York Times with this graphic; this article at Appscout (by PC Magazine) listing 6 emoticons and their origins; the books Targeting Media: Radio & Multimedia, The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Internet, The Press of Ideas, and Transl8it! Dxnre & Glosre: Yor Complet Guid 2 Onlin Ch@ & Sms Txt Lngo; I could go on and on, because there are plenty more. DHowell (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree whole heartedly. The article should be kept but renamed. Take out the "common".--Companioncube31 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dhowell is absolutely right. Important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Broad interpretation is what led to the project's success, but philosophy aside, this doesn't even require particularly broad interpretation, as DHowell demonstrates. Would be anti-encyclopedic to destroy this content. --JayHenry (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informs the reader on differences of emoticons between different cultures, in a limited list format taking in only universally used ones; one hardly can get more encyclopedic than that. Sources are ridiculously easy to find, as shown by DHowell.¨¨ victor falk 11:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at least in some form, I could see Transwiki and redirect a la List of SMS abbreviations as mentioned by Scapler above.

Since the emoticon article passes WP:V, WP:NOTE, etc, a "list of" article does not need to pass all those requirements for each entry. The Emoticon#Examples already has external links to lists of emoticons supported by major IM providers, those seem like reasonable sources to me.

When this article was deleted w/o any AfD or discussion, I debated pulling it back just so that an AfD could be done. I decided not to because I didn't think it would be worth my time. For a couple of years now, I've been trying to babysit the emoticon article against the constant flood of vandalism and people inserting their favorite emoticon or whatever they made up in school today. One of the ways I've been cutting back the bloat there is to tell people to put stuff into the "list of" article, but my interest in that article didn't even extend to having it on my watch list. I see that Aaron Brenneman has currently been heavily editing it, convert this "list of" into move of an article than a list. Unless someone wants to put a lot of time babysiting this article, I predict it will return to a very long list of very marginal emoticons, random comments and content that duplicates the emoticon article. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JayHenry. Five Pillars says at the very beginning that WP properly contains elements of almanacs and gazetteers. To take the analogy further, next to the gazetteer in my Webster's is a list of punctuation marks and a list of "arbitrary signs and symbols", which covers alchemy, music, etc. I feel that emoticons fall into the same category. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unsourceable (failing to be verifiable). Classed as an emoticon by whom ? Emoticons common by whose definition ? Common in what context or language ? The list is by necessity going to only express one small part of culture's definition not only of what an emoticon is but how common they are. The subject is packed full of original research and synthesis. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emoticon. On the Punctuation page they have a list of common punctuation symbols on the right hand side of the page may be something like that can be put into the emoticons page and just redirect this page to that one. Pete168 (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wiki is not paper. Article is encyclopedic and sources can be found easily enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.58.187 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is kept, it should be moved to List of emoticons; if this is deleted, they should both be deleted. I'm pretty sure that there was a list of emoticons that was deleted once before (I think it had the content that is on this revision of another page). Does anybody know if I'm right, and if so, what that page's name was? As for the issue at hand, people make up emoticons all the time. So having a "list of emoticons" would be indiscriminate. I think merging truly common emoticons back to the Emoticon page would be the best course of action. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of emoticons - "common" is largely subjective and difficult to define, source what can be sourced, remove what can't be, merge to Emoticon if that turns out to be the best solution in terms of article size and style. Basically what User:seresin said. Guest9999 (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of emoticons - I agree with the Guest9999 to move the page. Referencing "common" in the title would automatically infer that some statistical analysis is used to derive the values. I also think the lists should be greatly expanded upon. Although many different emoticons exist (have you used Y! messenger or Trillian lately?), I do not believe all of them need to be referenced. The "clown" and "cowboy" 'emoticons' come to mind. I, do, believe that this current version of the list is substantially lacking and that more pure emotionally-centric versions of the emoticons should be added. --Brent.austin (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayHenry, Dhowell, et al.; or, if needed, move, per the above discussion. Lots of this can be sourced easily. Just try a little harder. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename without "common" and only include emoticons that are cited in a reliable source (that way the content will not fall into things that are made up in one day category). A few of the references DHowell put in look like they could be incorporated now.--kelapstick (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promoted leaf-pile guards...appeared, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side

Strong keep per JayHenry, Dhowell, Kelapstick, Bearian, Squidfryerchef, etc. Article can easily be sourced, WP:INTROTODELETE, WP:POTENTIAL "deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." Ikip (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the almost two years this article has existed, and the time of this debate, we have ended up with an article with zero references. Where (all those saying references can be found) is there a single reliable reference saying there is such a thing as a recognized common emoticon to have a list of ? Peripitus (Talk) 09:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was willing to do what none of the delete editors have been, this article is now referenced. "Where is the single reference backing up the existance (sic) of the topic" Take one second and scroll up to DHowell's response. I would like to answer your question too, check the page's references, it is now referenced. I would like to introduce the template {{findsources3}}, in the hope that those editors so eager to delete other editors contributions can now contribute to this and other pages. Ikip (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator This page has been updated with references since the Article for deletion tag was added. Ikip (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Umm, people... you don't need to look at it being useful or not. Look at the nature of the page. Of what it will eventually become. Also take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT I'm gonna be lazy and not tag each part but here are some of the reasons : "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" (look at #3 in that part. I donno about you but I can easily see these emotes as having a similar nature to slangs or idioms.), "Wikipedia is not a directory" (this makes reference to things like a phone book, but the subject in question is not the nature of having such personal info posted but that its just a massive list of objects), "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (The whole thing of siting some dinky lil page will only get you so far. Given the arguments of how this kinda thing is very cultural and ever changing you'll never find appropriate sources for every single possible emote.), etc. Honestly if you people want a list that badly heres what ya do: get ur own site, make a huge list of every possible emote you can think of, come back to wikipedia and put a link to your list. The idea is nice, but its really not something that belongs in Wikipedia. -posted anonymously (by someone who's never posted on Wikipedia before, sry for all the things i did wrong) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.170.48 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really consider this article 100% dictionary definition - it explains the context behind the emoticons in depth. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete define "common" with reference to reliabel independent sources. And then get consensus to change WP:NOT to include a slang or idiom guide. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of emoticons and limit the entries to those that have been reported in reliable sources, like Time and Newsweek (both of which had articles on emoticons a decade ago). The new name would eliminate the question of the subjective "common"; requiring a stringent standard of citation for inclusion of the appropriate emoticons would reduce (if not eliminate) WP:OR and WP:NOT considerations. B.Wind (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ikip, Halbiz1065, Squidfryerchef, etc. Renaming (remove "common") also supported--Buster7 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's 800+ searchable online books that should help. The lede needs beefing up bu every issue raised seems to be clean-up ones not deletion ones. -- Banjeboi 13:38, 4 February 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 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Plewinski

Prod'd and prod removed. Ed Johnson in his prod noted "Article has no reliable sources, such as coverage in newspapers, magazines or books. He was a finalist at the national pre-selection for the Eurovision Song Contest, but that is unlikely to satisfy WP:MUSIC, which is quite demanding." I agree with this.

Now people will look and go "but what about all of those impressive festival awards!" as best I can determine those are accredited by a (for wont of a better word) a "festival mill". There is an american company called FIDOF - you sent them a cheque and hey presto you are running an "international festival" - all of his awards seems to directly or indirectly related to those non-notable "send me some cash" festivals - I can't even determine if some of those festival even ran. None of them are notable to our standards as best as I can determine. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My reason for deletion has already been summarized above, but I'd also note that winning a contest or award on which Wikipedia has no article isn't very persuasive. WP:MUSIC sets out conventional milestones for recognizing performers, and I think they work, when they are routinely followed. We see no sources commenting on this performer, so we have little to work with. The performer's own website doesn't appear to list any press coverage. There is an article on him in the Polish Wikipedia, but it was only just created, and its sourcing is just as bad. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, the username of author Management artists (talk · contribs), the nature of the article, and repeated removal of the AfD template by Polish-registered IPs with no other edits, suggest a promotional agenda and a possible COI. That's not itself reason for deletion, but it causes one to look extra hard at the evidence for notability, and I don't think this reaches the standard required by WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ed. Solid notability not established. Dayewalker (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some news articles on Google News (if you use the appropriate alphabets), but all but one are in Polish or Russian, so I can't tell what they say. That one, from Belorusskie Novosti[22], is a brief mention about a third-place finish in one of the festivals mentioned in the article. No AMG profile for Mr. Plewinski, which isn't necessarily a determining factor in and of itself. I'm going to have to abstain, since I'm not really qualified to judge this one, and the evidence isn't clear. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as far as I know, concur with reasoning of nominator. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam, self-promotion, no references, fails WP:BIO, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:22, 31 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 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Emery

This is a vanity piece about (and possibly by) a non-notable journalist. Very few relevant ghits, no evidence available of his having any kind of influence. He's interviewed a notable person, which is what journalists do, but notability is not inherited otherwise every journalist would automatically be notable.

Fails WP:CREATIVE: he's not widely cited by his peers, nor known for a new concept or technique, nor won significant critical attention, etc. andy (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've already speedied this once. Deb (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sources for him just a bunch of sources about people with the same name. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reference given is not about him - it is an article by him. There was a failed guideline sometime ago which might have given notability for that fact, but not now. Agathoclea (talk) 12:23, 30 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) Mayalld (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Egyptians

Indiscriminate, unreferenced, open-ended list. ~~A great deal of this article is in a language other than English, and some of the article seems to consist of the resumes of some fellows of Egyptian extraction.~~ L0b0t (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC) resume removed and large paragraphs of Arabic(?) removed, thank you Edward321 and Jmundo. L0b0t (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not indisciminate and organizes articles in a way a category can't. The not-English parts are clearly the various individuals names in their native language. And non-notables can easily be removed by just trimming the redlinks; I've already done a little of that. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article also replicates content found at List of ancient Egyptians, List of Egyptian athletes, and List of Copts. Perhaps I could be convinced to support a merge of all four, provided that every name has a cited source of course. L0b0t (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not indiscriminate. Not very useful, perhaps, but that's not a sin. andy (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not indiscriminate,but Very comprehensive list,extremely useful for researcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raafat (talk • contribs) 29 January 2009
Keep A useful list that could not be done in any other fashion. Many such lists exist on wikipedia. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 14:16, 30 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#G3 - vandalism. Pedro : Chat 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Dildo

complete hoax Waterjuice (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothnegal

Nonnotable unsigned band, only sources are band's own website and one blog. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable unsigned band that fails all standards for notablility. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. No major tours or reviews, no albums released by significant labels. Fails all aspects of WP:N and WP:MUSIC so should be removed until the band becomes notable. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, non-notable unsigned band, almost an A7. ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while they do technically pass WP:MUSIC#C6 for the members Kevin Talley and Marco Sneck [23], I'm going to exercise the "common sense exceptions" clause just because of the lack of reliable sources out there. For a band who have gained "attention from the international media and to have high profile musicians in their lineup", all I could find was the one above, this & this trivial mention. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:46, 29 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 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZiPhone

No indication of notability. The author claims to have created this page because he believes that "this article needs to be here because no one has written one for ZiPhone yet" עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That "no one has written one for ZiPhone yet" is a pretty strong indication that there will be no reliable sources available to use as a basis for a Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:Notability (software), which holds regardless of what that header says. There are a lot of notable iPhone apps that have been featured in the press and tech rags, but you can't have a Wikipedia article for every single thing in the Apple store. §FreeRangeFrog 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Jailbreaking iPhones is a popular activity but there aren't too many applications to do it. This one seems to have enjoyed some success judging from the ghits. It's the sort of thing that someone would want to look up. BTW it's not in the AppStore - quite the opposite. andy (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep* I feel that there is a need for this article. A lot of people I know want to Jailbreak, but they have no idea how, and Ziphone is a very quick application to do this. I used this for my very first Jailbreak, and writing this article means some to me. And at Od Mishehu, I am saying that I feel it should be here is because on other pages, in Wikipedia, have you ever clicked on something and it hasn't been written yet? I am just contributing to Wikipedia. When I say it should be here, I'm not saying something like this has never been written, I am saying there is no records of it on Wikipedia. This is normally the first place a lot of people go to. Devteamtools (talk) 20:32, 29 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 a7, amateur league, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Elite Soccer League

No evidence of meeting WP:GROUP and it's main WP:N, 49 google hits, almost all of them mirrors, almost nothing in reliable sources with the exception of a couple of passing mentions of one club in the local town newspaper, and the team website Delete Secret ^account 14:06, 29 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 (G3). ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh glazer

utter non-nonse Waterjuice (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say CSD it under G3. E Wing (talk) 13:47, 29 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 Waterjuice (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamet Kyçyku (Çami)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Waterjuice (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep his is one of the main Albanian bejtexhinjs, poets, who wrote a new kind of pomes called, bejte. Also, he is considered as the first poet of National Renaissance of Albania. Thus, he fullfills WP:BIO.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Apparently a notable poet within the national literature of his country, with coverage in the academic literature. Avoid Systemic bias, just because he isn't well known in English doesn't mean we shouldn't cover him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this can probably be speedy closed, as the nominator has said it was in error [24]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe this article already exists "see [25] Waterjuice (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That`s on Albanian wiki. Please close the nomination, if you have no argument.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:21, 29 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 consensus and author request.--Kubigula (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technogeekaphobia

Contested prod as non-notable neologism. It's also an unencyclopedic essay. And thinly-veiled spam. Note that prior to prod removal, text contained the statement "The word hasn’t quite made it into the lexicons yet. It will." Article also contains a link to a website that clearly seems to be gearing up for some sort of commercial operation, and formerly contained a link to an associated IT website. Steamroller Assault (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising, nonnotable neologism, WP not a dictionary. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NEO and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leftosphere. A protologism to the extent it isn't WP:BALLS, and written in an unencyclopædic style. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An essay that's intended to be funny, as well as a plug for a website by that name. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per all the above ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, bring on the snowflakes! Tavix (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam, as well as a sort of attempt to communicate. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies folks! I'm the author of the Tecnogeekaphobia article. If I should delete this myself, please point me to the docs for instruction on deletion protocol. Should I delete the text or just wait for an automated deletion process to occur? . I'm obviously new at this. Although Technogeekaphobia is an idea that I intend to promote through books and articles, I was not intenionally spamming. I simply misunderstood the open nature of wikipedia. No harm intended. I now understand that it violates, in particular, the Crystal Ball theory as well as the others. When the first delete notice was posted, I edited what I thought was the offending statement, not trying deceive, trying to improve. Again, apologies to the community. --Dhouchin (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion tag added to article by author --Dhouchin (talk) 03:14, 31 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kolt Kendrick

No claim of notability. After comprehensive Google search and Google News search unable to find any signification coverage in anything approaching a reliable source. Bongo matic 13:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Let's not pussy-foot around this one. This artist has not yet reached notability (his group Sowing Season was founded in 2009 -- that's THIS month!!) Marked article for speedy deletion -- there is no need for an AfD on this one. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 29 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adtwifyrdi

The reference given for Adtwifyrdi simply mentions the name Bede gave to the location; there's no evidence this has any currency. Googling and subtracting references to Wikipedia and to the exact wording used in the article leaves just about nothing. Google Books has a single use from 1917 in a passage that recounts Bede's use of the word and then glosses it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Obviously not in use today, but it's still verifiable, so it should be merged in the relevant article's history section. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think anyone really knows where this Twyford was, so merging it into a particular article is problematic. (The source in this article says Alnmouth, the Google Books hit mentioned by the nom suggests Whittingham, and I'm sure other nearby sites have been proposed.) The place is already mentioned in the River Aln article, with basically the same information (except for the identification with Alnmouth) included here. Deor (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep places in famous historical sources such as Bede should continue to have articles, even if there is no clear identification. People will look for them. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and they should be able to find out here what is, and what is not known about such things. Part of the role of an encyclopedia is to deal with such unfamiliar matters. DGG (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I left the house on a business trip today and won't have access to my books till next Wednesday evening. However, I believe it is the case that editions of Bede in translation do not use "Adtwifyrdi". Certainly there are none that do accessible via Google Books (and it does have some old editions fully online). I'd be very surprised if there exists an edition with "Adtwifyrdi" in it which does not gloss it at the same time. Regardless, someone might search for it -- but we don't have to have an article on everything that could be searched for. Perhaps some future List of placenames in Historia Ecclesiastica could be a redirect target, but we'd have to find a reliable source that produced such a list (there may be one). Anyway, my point is that retaining this for utility seems very low value. It's pretty hard to encounter this word in any way that won't tell you everything a Wikipedia article could tell you. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with the above) As the nom pointed out, no one in modern times uses this Latin form of the name, which to the best of my knowledge occurs only once, in the text of Bede's Ecclesiastical History. When referring to the place's only claim to fame—as the site of Cuthbert's election to the bishopric of Lindisfarne—synod of Twyford is the name that is used. The Loeb edition of Bede, for example, footnotes "Adtwifyrdi" as "Twyford in Northumberland." We don't have articles for the Latin names of known places in Britain, and we certainly don't need one for a place whose location can only be guessed at. Deor (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's those that we do need articles for, especially if there has been scholarly debate about the identification or location of the toponym. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, though in part I agree with all of the above (this is a tricky one). Sure, the place is mentioned only in EH IV.28. But in my edition (Odford UP: 1994, by McClure and Collins) it's spelled (per usual v-w interchange) as "Adtuifyrdi"--so Mike Christie's hunch (a well-educated guess) is invalidated. This suggests to me that it's worthwhile keeping, since the name does occur in a modern, widely used translation. Then again, merge to where? Keep, therefore. Incidentally, the 684 synod also deposed Tunberth of Hexham, which might add a tiny bit of flesh to the matter. MGM, care to make a redirect for the alternate spelling? (BTW, Mike Christie's suggested article is a good one.) Drmies (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a fairly thorough search, I did eventually find a passing reference to Adtuifyrdi in EH IV.28 as Drmies says; but I'm very definitely with Deor. I can't agree that there's "scholarly debate" here; I think it's a horrendously obscure piece of Bede-trivia that should certainly be denied its own article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The sentence Here, according to Bede's account in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, Book IV, ch. 28, Archbishop Theodore presided over a synod in 684 (in the presence of King Ecgfrith), at which bishop Tunberht of Hexham was deposed and Cuthbert elected bishop of Lindisfarne is worth preserving, either in River Aln or Synod of Twyford, and we should probably mention this bizarre piece of Anglo-Latin and have a redirect. But not an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a Synod of Twyford article to host this (and more) material. Deor (talk) 22:04, 30 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. Notwithstanding the need to pare it back. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Hobbs

I started editing this to source some of the claims (see my recent work--I've been attacking the list of articles without references).

However, this egregious puff-piece seems to go beyond stretching the truth--without even making any serious claims of notability. While it would be fine if it were left to other editors to fill in some of the references, here none of the possible hooks for notability are backed up.

A particularly troublesome part of the article is "she created 'KNOW TV' in collaboration with The Learning Channel (TLC), winning a Golden Cable ACE Award for the Discovery Channel in 1994." However, there is no evidence that either she or this project won the Golden Cable ACE Award. Please see http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/CableACE_Awards/1993, http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/CableACE_Awards/1994, http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/CableACE_Awards/1995-1, http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/CableACE_Awards/1996, and http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/CableACE_Awards/1997 (the Golden CableACE Award is at the bottom of each). This span of years should be sufficient to capture a 1994 production. I was unable to find an enumeration of the awards at the ncta.com website, but IMDb is considered reliable.However, the award was given solely to TLC, and the subject does not appear to have been granted the award.

I was unable to find any evidence that Tuning in to Media: Literacy for the Information Age received any Parent's Choice award. There is no data on awards at parents-choice.com for television awards prior to 1998, and there are no relevant hits for searches within the entire parents-choice website for either "Tuning in to Media" or "Literacy for the Information Age."

There is no suggestion of what award My Pop Studio may have garnered (nor is there a suggestion on the web site).

Please let's delete this immediately and if any verifiable claims of notability can be made, let's have them in a fresh article. Bongo matic 12:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's unfortunate that Ms Hobbs found it necessary to create her own autobiography, which we all know is strongly discouraged. However, she does appear to be notable. Her bio on the Temple University website backs up the claims in this article (and one can hope, if not assume, that some department chair is vetting these bios before they are published). Also, a Google search on her name comes up with a fair number of hits associating her with the topic of Media Literacy. If her claims are found to be unverifiable, then the article should be edited to include claims that ARE notable, but I don't think it should be taken down. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does not "back up" the claims, it just recapitulates them. Can you identify any one of those hits that gives rise to a presumption of notability? Bongo matic 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: Even if the outcome here is keep, the article is ridiculously distended relative to the subject's importance. If the outcome is keep, it should be shorn down to three paragraphs max (obviously no point in wasting time doing so now, since the outcome here may be delete). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though "ridiculously distended" it is. Maybe a graduate assistant was given an assignment here. However many the problems are with this article (and I added two more cn tags), the subject is indeed notable, as suggested by this Google News search--plenty of meat there to establish a three-paragraphs-at-the-most article. So Keep, and as soon as that AfD is removed, the removal of inflated and/or unverifiable claims. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2: I added citations for the [Cable Ace Award]http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/CableACE_Awards/1995-2#Golden_CableACE, the award for [My Pop Studio]http://www.interactivemediaawards.com/winners/certificate.asp?param=43138&cat=1, and other historical evidence relevant to the claims.

Comment The article is definitely a bit bloated with promotional content from primary sources. Perhaps a wp:coi report and communications with the author(s) would be the best approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:44, 3 February 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 History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1948_-_1994#Modernisation_continues . MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Smith (fireman)

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously through an AFD, and was kept as no consensus with a sentiment that there must be some notability in being involved with the last steam train service in the UK. I started researching to create an article on the last steam train in order to merge the information but found information contrary to what was expected. I asked for some help from Wikiproject trains, and it turns out that Vale of Rheidol Railway was the last steam service and it ceased operation in 1989. See Talk:Frank Smith (fireman). Given that the run he worked on was not in fact the last steam service in the UK, I don't see him meeting notability. Whpq (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator changes to merge - The suggestion to merge to History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1948_-_1994#Modernisation_continues given that the last steam service that caused me to nominate this for AFD isn't really regarded as mainline. Merging to the historical event seems like the right thing to do. -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frank's article actually says: "Frank is most notable for firing the final steam powered train into London's Waterloo Station". If we were to keep articles on every person who was the last to fire a particular steamtrain into a particular station, the list would be endless. Since evidence has been found that the assumption in the previous AFD were incorrect, I can't do anything but agree with the nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted in the original Afd, this articles falls under WP:BIO1E, and since it has been discovered that even the event is not as notable as it was claimed, this article really has no legs to stand on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I read the article, Smith didn't fire the final steam powered train into London's Waterloo Station (the predicate of Mgm's comment above), he fired the final steam powered train in mainline service into London's Waterloo Station. I'm inclined to think that's notable enough. If my reading's correct, Mgm's comment is inapt and should be reevaluated (it may, of course, still come out as a delete), also. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The assertion is that he was the fireman on the last steam powered train in regular service. It happened to be pulling into Waterloo station. The event would be notable, as discussed in the first AFD, however, there is strong evidence showing that was not the last steam powered train run, and in fact, steam powered trains still ran until 1989 in regular service in the UK on the Vale of Rheidol Railway. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's regular service and there's regular service. It might be true that Chaosnet is still in regular service in some tiny little campus somewhere, but that wouldn't change the fact that the protocol is dead. Likewise, the article says that Smith fired the last steam train in routine mainline service, and the fact that Vale of Rheidol Railway - an incredibly small thing: it's a twelve mile stretch local service running on narrow-gauge rail - continued to run for a while after that makes no more difference to the analysis than our rogue chaosnet user, to my mind. Unless the article is wrong - if there was another steam train in routine mainline service after Smith's - I think this is notable enough to keep. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for differentiating between the mainline service and the small non-standard rail service. One of the difficulties I have is that when doing the research for the last steam train service in the UK, what I found where this article and this article. These would seem to indicate that the era of steam train service in the UK ended in August 1968, over a year later than the run noted in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep edit history and Merge into Waterloo Station - does not deserve stand-alone article, fails WP:BIO. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Renaming to event per LinguistAtLarge below is also acceptable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Merging to a different related target is also acceptable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge, leaning to Delete Looking at the Waterloo Station article, I don't think this event is even notable enough for inclusion there. If it's not merged, then absolutely delete it.--Aervanath (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep In many cases, a single event can be notable--if it's for something that's actually significant, or an historic accomplishment. The question is whether this is in that class, or rather in the class of people who happen to be involved in an accident, or win a lottery. Frankly, I'm not sure. But in this case, the event is notable, and the clearest way to have an article on it is by having one on the person--there's no good way of evading the issue, like our customary "Murder of X." As for whether he is the right person, that's a discussion for the talk p. I suspect the Vale of Rheidol Railway will be regarded as a special case, since its narrow gauge, but that f can be dealt with by qualifying the claim. DGG (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would it be appropriate to leave a note at WP:Wikiproject Trains to ask for their opinions? The intent is not to WP:CANVASS, but rather bring in editors who may be more familiar with the subject matter. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting notices on wikiproject talk pages is common in AFD debates. Just do it in a "mere notice" tone not a "please !vote this way" tone. This AFD has already been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Living_people as noted above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Too many people above are apparently missing the point, evidently thinking that the significance is that it was the last train into Waterloo. I think that's a mistake, so I've reworded the article slightly to make it clearer that Waterloo was simply the incidental destination.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; or in the alternative Merge relevant material to History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain_1948_-_1994#Modernisation_continues and Steam locomotive#The end of steam in general use, in the subsection "United Kingdom". This event is not notable in and of itself. Maybe it could be expanded into End of steam rail in the United Kingdom or some such, which would be a sub-article of those two articles.--Aervanath (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Aervanath. If I understand this article properly, the subject participated as a fireman in what may have been the last steam-powered mainline railway run in the UK (although, as Whpq indicates, it is not clear that this trip was in fact the last one). However, since he was only 20 years old at the time and had been a railway employee for only 5 years, I would tend to think that he just happened to be assigned to this particular run, as opposed to him having achieved some special distinction with relation to this run. I could understand if he were mentioned in connection with the event (the end of steam-powered rail service in the UK) but it doesn't seem to me that he caused history to be made or that he personally achieved notability through this event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I mostly stand by my opinion in the previous AFD. That tourist attractions and curiousities (which is basically what the line in question was) continued to run steam trains after their use throughout the rest of the country was terminated does not change the main thrust of the argument. The fact that this line was run by BR is an interesting quirk (I had assumed all lines of this nature were run by private companies) but does not detract from the fact that this person was apparently the last of his kind, i.e. a professional fireman on the national steam engine infrastructure of a major country. For all practical intents and purposes, that profession did die after his last run; the fact that a few (and the number must have been extremely small) were retained for a small rural line that could not practically be converted to run on diesel engines does not really change this. JulesH (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. The event itself is the subject. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect OR renamed the article - The subject (Frank Smith) is only notable for this one event, thus we should cover the event, not the person. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tough Love Baby

This article was created by a representative of Aurora Publishing as a form of promotion. The work has received almost no coverage from reliable third-party sources and only received one review that WP:ANIME can find. However, that one review does not meet the significant coverage test of WP:NOTE. See WT:ANIME#Aurora Publishing review for more details about the WikiProject's Aurora Publishing review. Farix (Talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with only one review and no other coverage beyond Aurora's own promo stuff, fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough coverage to meet WP:BK. The author doesn't seem to be notable, so there's no merge target. That spells a tough love delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss All the Boys

This article was created by a representative of Aurora Publishing as a form of promotion. The work has received almost no coverage from reliable third-party sources and only received one review that WP:ANIME can find. However, that one review does not meet the significant coverage test of WP:NOTE. See WT:ANIME#Aurora Publishing review for more details about the Wikiproject's Aurora Publishing review. Farix (Talk) 12:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too dubious, not enough third party coverage, Fail the notability. No licensor in France, Germany, Spain & Italy (Save you time :p )--KrebMarkt 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with only one review and no other coverage beyond Aurora's own promo stuff, fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to meet WP:BK, and as author also doesn't seem to be notable there's no merge target. (And was I going to AfD it myself today, honest.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By spending just a few seconds Googling the name of the manga and the writer, I found a notable review site giving a detailed review about it. I added that as a reference. Dream Focus (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and other self-published sources do not demonstrate notability. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto...that is not a reliable source and the link has been removed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:04, 30 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 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lalukhet Grammar School

This is a hoax. It was input on 3 Jan 2009; curiously, it had a "refimprove" tag dated Feb 2007 already in place, and was liberally sprinkled with "citation needed" tags. It certainly needs references, but I have searched and can find no confirmation. The number of pupils (50) seems improbably small. The article says the school "is commonly referred to as the Eton of Pakistan," but a look at Google shows that distinction belongs to Aitchison College in Lahore. None of the articles on supposed notable alumni mentions it (the author inserted it into Shaukat Aziz but it was soon removed); several of them give a different account of their subjects' schooling. One of the "notable alumni", Hoshu Sheedi, died at the Battle of Dubbo in 1843, but the school was not founded till 1857. The founder, Alfred P. Algar, "was the headmaster at Eton College," but does not appear in List of headmasters at Eton College. Zaha Hadid is said to be designing its new campus, but her website doesn't mention it. And so on...

The author Peter1001 (talk · contribs) has produced hoaxes before: see this AfD for the mythical financier "Ghulab A. Khan", and there was an earlier article "Ghulab Khan" deleted by PROD which may also have been his work. Delete as hoax. JohnCD (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a hoax (though you'd be surprised at how small schools can actually get. 50 pupils isn't improbable at all) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete clearly a hoax - when are we going to create a speedy cat for nonsense like this? ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - blatant hoaxes alomg the lines of "Phil Pearson was, yesterday, elected ruler of the world" can already be deleted as a G3. However, where a Google search is needed to establish that a page is a hoax then the consensus is that at least a short-run AfD is sensible to get a second opinion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Hoax Mayalld (talk) 14:13, 3 February 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 redirect to Magic smoke. Boldly redirecting. Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke emitting diode

Article is about a particular example of the Magic smoke joke. I doubt that the subject is notable enough in its own right for an article. I suggest deleting and redirecting to Magic smoke Papa November (talk) 11:46, 29 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) Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StoryBoard Quick

Blatant advertisement, regardless of notability. Fact that it was written by someone affiliated with the product makes that advertisement even more blatant. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11. -- 128.97.245.99 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems unbias and clean. The program clearly is of note to the community it's a part of and the evolution of that community. —Andurrr (talk) —Preceding undated 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep it. I don't see what the problem is. I use Wiki to look up info on software apps.--Halbiz1065 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid rationale for keeping the article. Please consider reading through WP:AFD for further details on how AfD comments are weighted; this is not a vote, and rationales which are based on personal opinion rather than policy are likely to be discounted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles are not deleted "regardless of notability" just because of COI. They are rewritten to remove the bad bits. The article evidently has several reasonable sources (along with quite a few poor ones) which establish that this is a notable piece of software. If necessary, stubbing it and temporarily semiprotecting (to prevent editing by the ton of meatpuppets who have appeared on the article talk) is a potential solution to it being used for advertisement rather than description. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reading the article, I think it's a strong starting point. Could use notations, but like all articles, that will come in time.--WLasa (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. This software is notable because it was really the first software of its type. I used it back in 1995 when the only computer-based option was Photoshop. Every director I've worked with since has used this for storyboarding. I can understand having an issue wrt a conflict of interest, but it doesn't read like an advertisement to me. It is quite neutral and a good starting point. I think it should stay. Zenslug (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I think that this article is valid: it was the pioneer of its field, and completely created the entire market for storyboarding software. I don't feel like I'm being sold on the software, it seems like it's just a factual list of what this software does, sans bias. It's a fair explanation and is noteworthy enough to warrant preservation on Wikipedia. PhilKin1244 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you got rid of every article on Wikipedia that was originated or edited by someone with a close connection, you'd probably save a lot of server space. And remove a lot of valuable content as well. I see no sign of spam here. The product is described in a neutral way, and it seems quite notable too. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 2 February 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) 10:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SecoBackup

Non-notable software, no independent reliable sources found. Declined speedy as spam (article edited since then to tone down). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 09:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non-notable software, original editor has a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = Not verifiable. A search of Google News shows no hits for any time period. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:05, 2 February 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 SNOW. It's a good article, already at FAC. Consensus is it's sufficiently sourced and notable. If the nominator doesn't like it, s/he is welcome to edit it to improve it. StarM 13:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 382

Ignore the fact that this page is well-written and prepared because you need to read WP:PRETTY before going on to the rest of my reasons as that is not a valid reason to keep something around.

This DEFUNCT ROUTE FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS linked up NY 17 with a town of a MERE 38 residents! More people knew my late grandfather than most likely knew about NY 382. And if I wrote a page pertaining to my grandfather it would be shot down, even though his funeral was attended by 1,528 people. I would say this route clearly fails WP:Notability too. It's former sister-route,Allegany State Park Route 2, which still exists and is longer has reduced to a simple sentence or two within Allegany State Park. Now you're going to look at the page and see 18 sources and say, sure, this page is notable. Well, I urge you too look at them closely and see that they don't directly pertain to the article in question. Most are tour guide maps of the area. My street can be found on a map, but is it notable? NO! Other sources are postcards and photos of the town that held the route. I can get a postcard of my town with my street in the picture. Does that make my street notable? NO AGAIN!

And every single thing in this world can be technically deemed as notable to someone, but where do we draw the line. I think the notability line has been compromised way too much and needs to be fixed. This article somehow has made it to "Good Article" status and is being discussed for Feature Status. I'm for this page getting the heave-ho, but at the very least it should be reduced to a sentence or two like its living Allegany friend.

Please read this on minor state routes. This page may barely qualify to be on a list of minor routes in New York. You may read the page and see alot of history. But almost all of it is about the town of Red Point, about the state park and about postcards! Wikipedia is not a place to write a paragraph describing a postcard as seen in the article! There is a lot of writing on this page and I'd say maybe five words actually pertain to the route itself. GroundhogTheater (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- What in the world? You are campaigning that one of my favorite articles be deleted, especially when its on WP:FAC? You are being ridiculous. Why can't you accept its existance? Its notable, and it meets it well enough. Also there are flaws - Red Point doesn't exist, its Red House, and there is no history of the state park in this article. The postcard makes one or two sentences. Also, most of what you have said is a lie, because it makes no sense, like the Allegany sentences. They are a state highway, and I can easily go ahead and write articles on ASP 1, ASP 2, ASP 2A, and ASP 3. They have been defined as notable and you are just causing WP:DRAMA.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per precedent, state routes are inherently notable. While this road is not a state highway in the present day, it was in the past, and therefore coverage of its time as a state route is inherently notable. Thus, keep. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and nominating articles that are on FAC for deletion seems WP:POINTY, to me at least. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Very strong keep If it has no third party reliable sources to demonstrate notability how is it so well referenced? Maybe because it has loads of good sources which demonstrate notability.--Patton^t/c 11:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is well-referenced, hence it is notable (per the Wikipedia definition). The number of people the road serves is not an issue for notablity. There are articles on little hamlets with fewer people than that and that have virtually no chance of being expanded. Notability is not the same as importance. Wikipedia has tons of article on things things that are not important to many people. --Polaron | Talk 12:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced and it shows the route has historic significance. Just because it's now defunct doesn't mean it loses notability. Plato has been dead for ages, but he's still notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:05, 29 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. Should be discussed at RFD. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veg*n

Nothing Encylopedia like , no text, no meaning aidar24 (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for lack of content. I have tagged the article as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No content whatsoever. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or relist at WP:RFD. This is a soft redirect and by that guideline should not be assessed as an article, though perhaps its usefulness as a redirect (which may be limited, since it does not meet the criteria at Template:Wi) should be examined at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. See the thread here, a conversation between the admin who did speedily delete it and the admin who requested its restoration. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Soft redirects are exempt from A3, and the {{wi}} tag is a useful way of discouraging people from creating bad articles at the title. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 3 February 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 g5, created by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forced normalization

A definition wrongly picked from the cited medical article abstract, out of full context, probably due to poor understanding of English articles (a/the). - 7-bubёn >t 07:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per original research. Waterjuice (talk) 08:11, 29 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) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argadorian Calendar

non-notable (searching on "Argadorian" gives basically 1 google hit); perhaps a classic case of "something made up in school one day" Brianyoumans (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research, no confirmation from any independent source. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously non-notable original research. It might be interesting, but it does not belong on WP. §FreeRangeFrog 16:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¡Must not be deleted! ← Since other similar concepts and proposals like the ones named in the following are included in the Wikipedia, I think, this article deserves it as well. Since it describes mainly a specific proposal, which, however, is based on a variety of facts, most of which can be looked up elsewhere in the wikipedia, its main and proper content, the specific idea of the Argadorian Calendar, cannot be better and in a different way be presented than by a description of this proposal itself, that is, it must be or at least and mainly include a kind of (shortened) copy of the description of the Argadorian Calendar, which, of course, is quasi original.
- Similar, concurring concepts, which are represented by an own article in the Wikipedia, are e.g.:
- Since the memory space needed by this article is probably not so great, that it constitutes a problem, since it does e.g. not include any images, there should be no important reason, why it should not be included, since it does not hamper anything or anybody else.
- Moreover, I use Wikipedia as a kind of principal reference, where one can get a kind of encyclopedic information and links to sources related to the topic of interest, about, hopefully, almost everything on earth and beyond. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia so far often does not satisfy these hopes, particularly as far as somewhat older things of minor practical relevance or historical significance are considered. However, since it are particularly these things, about which one usually cannot easily get information anywhere else, I consider the Wikipedia especially important for the provision of short, comprehensive information on these things and starting points to further related resources. The articles about phenomena of general interest are in this respect much less important, since they can in similar form be found in any printed encyclopedia ...
- By the way, I find it very nasty, when articles are already marked for deletion a few minutes after one has begun to write them — and when they therefore cannot have been read already. Similarly, I also find it very inappropriate, when articles are marked for deletion, which may apparently describe, often in only very few words, a phenomenon of minor significance to the general public, but for which the writer may have — which will often not be recognizable — needed hours or even days (or weeks or ...) to ascertain the necessary information. Article of mine, which I have found affected by such a ‹deletion addiction›, have e.g. been short articles (a few lines) about older scientific magazines, which have changed their name or have been merged with other ones or are no longer published … Since they in these cases have not own websites, e.g., it is otherwise very difficult to get such information. And since to a reader a short or specific article about a topic, which cannot easily be found in any currently published printed reference work, is of more crucial importance than articles on e.g. "Time" or "Space" or "Music", which often are full of memory-expensive photos and do hardly contain any information which one cannot get easily elsewhere, I, if you will forgive me these words, think, that 'Wikipedians' should have better things to do than to permanently look which new articles can be deleted, and which other 'Wikipedians' be frustrated by time-consuming discussions about or arbitrary deletions of their articles, which certainly in almost all cases have costed enough efforts to be worth to be honoured ...
- ↑ Auriong (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read the policy on original research. Articles on original, unpublished ideas are just not appropriate for Wikipedia. The calendar articles you list above are historical articles on proposals that were published and have been written about. Some of them are in fact not very notable and perhaps should not be kept. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR; no indication this is anything other than an unpublished proposal by the creator of the article, and thus not suitable for Wikipedia, now matter how potentially useful it may be, or (sadly) how much effort went into creating it. Anaxial (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable OR Tim Ross (talk) 17:22, 2 February 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) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8001000A

un notable Waterjuice (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to PlayStation 3 system software. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete per Tartarus. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no proof, I went to the PS3 website at the bottom of the article and typed in "8001000A" and the website found nothing, see here. TARTARUS ^talk 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wow, Playstation 3 has errors. This is not worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a service manual 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unnotable; no redirect needed due to the improbable nature of the search term and lack of use to anyone redirected through it; also WP:V per Tartarus above. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and not obviously capable of being expanded to more than a sentence in length. Anaxial (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. decltype 16:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia Tim Ross (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktababa

Article is about a non-notable Indian saint with other non-notables (redlinks) for support. Net search shows the only other article is by the same user on Hindu Wiki, and there is some inherent COI/promotional intent. The name comes up as "...Bhakti. Baba..." excerpts in other transcripts but not supporting this person. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously. --PS T 11:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable ref.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the method of referencing may leave something to be desired, it does cite references. At this stage I can only assume in good faith that the references support the article, and I see nothing here that makes me suspect a hoax. Obscure Hindu saints just "belong" as certainly as obscure Christian saints belong. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis, at least until someone qualified in Hinduism reviews it. Lack of online references is insufficient justification for removal. – 74 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Let's see if we can't get some reliable sources to establish what appears to be a notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless at least one reliable reference is found to establish notability before this AFD closes. I searched online and didn't find anything; the closest was this website of Badarikashrama (the name of the institution Bhaktababa supposedly founded) but this one has a different founder, and does not even mention Bhaktababa. None of the listed "references" in the article comply with WP:RS. Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article author left the following comment on the article talk page, which may help people looking for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC):[reply]

Hello to both of you, and Thank you specially Mr.Phil Bridger, for going through the article. I've tried to mention the notability of the Person as titled in Bhaktababa. And, as to the comment put forward by Ms. Rossi, I beg to mention the Bamdeva and famous saint Bamakhepa of Tarapith of West Bengal are the same. So, you may once research about Tarapith on the Internet, and may get something about Bamakhepa. Thank you both. Anirban16chatterjee (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep per Smerdis. The article obviously has problems, but I'd prefer to have it tagged with a lack-of-sources template, along with citation-needed flags wherever appropriate, until reviewed by an expert. The author is a newcomer, who has made a couple of newbie mis-steps over at the refdesk. It's certainly possible that he is trying to promote a very local celebrity to sainthood in the article. But I prefer to assume good faith. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient notability. Jdrewitt (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no reliable sources... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:22, 2 February 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 Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song)

The song does not meet notability requirements, and it fails WP:NSONGS as well. Notable people worked on it, perhaps, but that's it. It didn't chart, it wasn't used in some popular/notable way, there was no real independent coverage, etc. SKS2K6 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, delete it if you think thats the right thing to do, i mean its very small with no info but i think its better to have a little bit of info on a lot of things considering that we have endless space.The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely choice for redirection, absolutely no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreleased song. Tavix (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby., the album that this song is a part of. Frank Anchor^Talk 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:05, 30 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. Will userfy on request. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ched Beckwith

Fails WP:CREATIVE. He does have an IMDB entry, but as an uncredited video technician. JaGa^talk 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article subject not notable, ref's not non-trivial. Mrathel (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; notability not discernible. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy back to the author. Mister Beckwith's best shot at showing notability is his sharing non-blog non-personal website reviews of his works as an artist or as a director. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:24, 31 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 WP:AGF Gnan garra 14:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indonesian rock bands

This list has remained orphaned for over two years - the links are not disambiguated - and other lists already have Indonesian musicians listed, and those found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Indonesian_rock_music_groups do not even coincide. it serves no useful purpose Satu Suro 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 05:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. But, I think we need List of Indonesian pop-rock rap bands . Can someone please create?--Merbabu (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless list, none of the links match the category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete an article/list that is crappy if the subject is notable. If we were to delete this article, and not articles like List of British punk bands, it would be a case of systemic bias on our part. By deleting this, we would be saying that either Indonesia isn't notable or rock bands are not notable, something that has not been supported by the consensus of the community. I'll go through and clean the article up right now, but AfD isn't the way to handle a poorly-written article/list. SMSpivey (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've removed all the incorrect disambigs and added many Indonesian rock bands who already have Wikipedia articles. I left in a redlink for a band that has a fairly detailed article on Indonesian wikipedia. SMSpivey (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable, impossible to maintain, unreferenced, and a category should be used instead because a category does more at the moment and is easier to maintain. Tavix (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm a little confused about how this is unverifiable and unmaintainable. If the list is populated only by bands who are notable enough to have their own articles, it can be easily maintained and verified. There aren't an infinite amount of Indonesian rock bands in the world, much less on Wikipedia. Sure, there should be a category, but a category doesn't have the ability to hold other information about the subject. Also, the community consensus is that categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. I suppose I just disagree with you. SMSpivey (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there aren't any other information to put there. And also, yes there are an infinite number, just where do you draw the line at what to include. At least with categories, only those with articles get it. Tavix (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are an infinite number of rock bands in Indonesia??? I didn't realize that part of the world was that overpopulated! DHowell (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it was a little bit of an exaggeration. What it means is there are a ton of bands, but it is impossible to figure out which bands to include to make it a reasonable and manageable list. Tavix (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I had no problem using reliable sources to find notable bands to put in this list. I'm sure I've missed a few, being completely unfamiliar with the Indonesian music scene, but from what I could tell there weren't so many notable Indonesian rock bands to make this list unmanageable. DHowell (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Listcruft (If you feel the need to nominate List of British punk bands please do so). 5 of the 13 bands listed here would be prime candidates for AfD's - no significant 3rd party notability. Tavix's suggestion is practical. JamesBurns (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the British punk band article up for prod. I'll see how it goes, and I'll let you know if it needs to be AfD'd. Tavix (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: someone removed the prod but no matter. JamesBurns (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, as per WP:ITSCRUFT (applies to AfDs) and WP:NOCRUFT (in general) please don't call other editors contributions cruft. Ikip (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind you two of WP:PRESERVE policy "Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to..." Wikipedia:Notability: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." WP:INTROTODELETE & WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort." It is quite easy to criticize other editors contributions, it is much harder to find sources yourself and work to improve the article. Ikip (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the PROD of List of British punk bands is WP:POINTy. Ikip (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - personal explanation by nominator. As found - when I checked it it was a 2 year old orphan, and had no connection with the category of similar title. Now in a quandary - I have no problem about either delete or no delete - as the arguments for the category and not the list have been seen many times before in various contexts, and I can see the serious benefits in that as placed by Tavix. By the nature of the Indonesian project - many eds with limited english add their favourite band as a red link and - never return to either make an article or add a ref. So for the moment I will stay with delete on the argument for category - unless convinced otherwise

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates&action=watch - has discussion of policy in this matter Satu Suro 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand what is going on here. This, along with the British punk article I gave as an explanation, are WP:Listcruft because they are lists of organizations by nationality (and therefore are unmaintainable)? Apart from my feelings on the fact that these are not listcruft, it is very unwise to piecemeal delete certain types of lists only with the consensus of three or four people. You are fundamentally rewriting consensus on list notabilty, against the general consensus of the rest of Wikipedia, via this AfD. If you think that lists of organizations by nationality are listcruft, you should round all of them up and put the up at AfD as a group, explaining your reasoning. Or bring it up as a policy debate on AfD discussions. By PROD-ding them, you are saying that it is uncontroversial that you are deleting them. Removing some of them, but not all will result in uneven application of an interpretation of Wikipedia policy. SMSpivey (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable from a reliable source in toto - and therefore risking bias against entities which can be included but are not. The long-term orphaned status would suggest that it is indeed cruft. A category is sufficient. Orderinchaos 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The idea that this is unverifiable is easily disproved. I agree that before SMSpivey's improvements, most of the links were useless (at that time only Slank appeared to be a proper link to a rock band). But this Google News Archive search turns up 24 articles, from which I can find the bands Slank, Sheila On 7, Dewa and Padi. Expanding my search I can find non-English articles on Boomerang (this article lists other bands), and Jakarta SCTV Music Awards, which lists bands such as Gigi and Naif. DHowell (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, we know the bands exist, but that doesn't do anything to meet the other concerns listed in the AfD. Tavix (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bands don't just "exist", they are clearly notable if you'd bother to look for and look at the sources. I've just added references to this list for several bands that don't have articles but have sources which indicate notability. I've also removed your {{prod}} from Koes Plus (many sources describe this 1970s band as "legendary"), and I've created a new, well-sourced, stub article about the band Radja to replace the former redirect of that title to Raja. This is how this list can be used to improve Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like it would be more appropriate to have a category Category:Indonesian rock bands, especially if this list grows. But I don't see a problem with having this list, if it gets cleaned up. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've now added information on rock music in Indonesian culture to the article. There is a ton out there, but it would be a tad easier to put together if I spoke the language. Also, we have some cute little "experimenters" peeking around the page, so check the page history to make sure it hasn't been vandalized or accidentally had content removed before you make a judgement on it. SMSpivey (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per SMSpivey and DHowell. Article has been cleaned up significantly. There are several lists like this on wikipedia.[26] Ikip (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing administrator The article has been cleaned up significantly since this article was put up for AfD. It now has 18 well referenced footnotes. Ikip (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - strong keep due to cleanup? - it is now more of a mess than when i first tagged it. referencing red links? - one of the major problems with the Indonesia project is the creation of red links in Indonesian lists, and articles - which are never followed up - to reference red links is reducing the credibility of the Indonesia project further Satu Suro 12:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - reason being was that of the two sets of info in the Indonesian project when I nominated did not coincide in any way - the purpose for the afd was so that the category could be developed and the list removed.

The subsequent response has not helped the situation really - but to continue with the Afd seems pointless in the face of the various responses. I remain unconvinced that the list is providing accurate or balanced information - however if sufficient diligence in watching for WP:RS free red links is remedied - perhaps there will be no need to revisit this mess of a list in the mid term. Satu Suro 14:49, 31 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) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

28 Months Later

Goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL, in an interview the director said their 'may' be a sequel[27], not that there is one (or that its even being produced). Only indication that the movie in pre-production is IMDB, which isn't a reliable source. If this movie becomes a reality and if it has significant coverage, then it should have an article, but it's too soon. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references provided. Waterjuice (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: IMDB can't be trusted as a source. A quick search of Google News has a recent Danny Boyle interview saying they've got a good idea for 28 Months Later, not that its in production so it completely fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. For now the small section on a possible sequel on the 28 Weeks Later page is all that's needed. Alberon (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article. Speculatory. Slac speak up! 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 28 Weeks Later#Sequel, where it is mentioned. Too soon for a separate article, as there is a lack of significant coverage (WP:N), and not enough confirmed information (WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL). —Snigbrook 14:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. This film is in "pre-production" according to IMDb. It is too early for an article until the film is actually shot. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as this unsourced stub is way too premature, and there is already significantly more information about the sequel at 28 Weeks Later. No sense having a seperate article at this time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 31 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) 10:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute

Non-notable band. The article makes some grandiose claims: they perform "all over the world", "started to make it big", "praised by many", "popular", "highly professional and accomplished musician[s]", "popularity continuously ... on the rise", "loving tribute ... has amazed audiences around the world", "across the globe", and of course, "please visit the official website". But let's try to sweep away some of this puffery. First, none of the sources is independent: of 15 links, 7 are the band's own site and 8 are self-published sites or blogs. And second, this "popular" band has just 130 Google hits - not much real-world confirmation of that "popularity". Obvious self-promotion here, so delete. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. My first impression was to keep, but trying to verify the information provided seemed a bit harder than it should have been. If the information is not able to be verified, it fails notability. Mrathel (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: MissPijon excised this vote that happened not to agree with her position -- a clear breach of policy. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Someone just has it out for this page for some reason (nominating for speedy delete then immediately nominating again for deletion when the admin decided to keep it!). Frankly it's ridiculous, regardless of what malice Biruitorul has against the Fab Four, let it stay. The creator makes a good point, if the Fab Faux can have a page (and THEIR page is clearly self-promoting!), then the Fab Four can have one. Also the person who made the claim about Google hits is wrong - try searching for just 'Fab Four.' Here, I'll even give you the CORRECT link. [28] The Fab Four and their website, www.thefabfour.com, comes up #1 and has over 1,040,000 hits. In the real world, news articles are considered "verifiable" - not sure what planet you're coming from there. And if you actually looked at the links, I think most people would consider playing for Tom Hanks, Eric Idle, Paul Stanley, Dana Carvey, Billy Crystal, etc., AND playing at places like the Hollywood Bowl and Carnegie hall "notable." How can you GET more notableMissPijon (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— MissPijon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The fact that an admin refused speedy doesn't mean he/she thought it was worth keeping. It meant that the criteria for speedy deletion were thought not to have been met (note that they are different criteria than we have here in AfD), or a longer discussion was required. And here we are. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ad hominem attacks aside, let me address your points. First, regarding the Fab Faux, see WP:WAX. Second, most of the hits (at least on the first few pages) seem to refer to the Beatles or other entities, not this band. Third, the "news" articles cited in the article are not from reliable outlets, but rather from self-published sources; see WP:SPS for that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to question User:MissPijon's "keep" recommendation above. The phrase "fab four" did not originate with Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute. That's a nickname that was originally applied to The Beatles themselves. It doesn't hurt the notability of this particular group that they are the #1 Google result for the phrase "fab four", but they can't take credit for most of the other 1 million-plus hits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is harping on the name "Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute." If the creator changed the name to "The Fab Four," which if you will read the article IS the name of the group (and has been since 1997), would this settle everyone down? I think the creator was trying to be descriptive with the title, but the name of the group is "The Fab Four."MissPijon (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it I have seen these guys perform. I can verify that they do play around the world, and you can verify that yourself just by going to their site and clicking on "calendar." They played in Liverpool just last year and Paris the year before. In the next few months they'll be all over the US, from California to Florida to Oregon to Georgia, and up in Canada. Penn Gillette of Penn & Teller introduces their shows. They are a huge part of the Beatles tribute community and this article should stay. I do think the name for the article should be changed to just "Fab Four" or "The Fab Four" though. I think this should be required for this article to stay. The title now is really confusing and probably ticks off other tributes.Jedi1985 (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC) — Jedi1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "I have seen these guys perform" is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a Beatles cover band. Cover bands are usually not notable, and this one appears to fail WP:MUSIC. As far as I can tell, they have not released an album on a notable label, been reviewed in reliable sources (at least, there are none cited in the article), charted a single, etc. The only claim to notability I can find in the article is their appearance on a few TV shows, but this alone does not confer notability according to WP:MUSIC. Amazinglarry (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but PR puffery, absolutely fails WP:MUSIC by lacking sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete PR puffery at its worst, clearly not notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puff. I don't regard so-called tribute bands as particularly prone to notability with one or two exceptions. This one isn't one. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable tribute band. No substantial independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most sources are from the band's own website. Fails WP:BAND. Plastikspork (talk) 17:06, 31 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. Only keep reasons are 1) statement of notability without any actual evidence for it (plus a very bad attempt at intimidation) 2) statement of potential, without again any evidence for this, 3) procedural keep, which I don't agree with, since most opinions in this debate have been about the article, not about the editors, and the debate was highly visible anyway. A lack of reliable sources is a perfectly normal delete reason, and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. The reference added to the artiucle at he last moment was hardly a reliable source, and more importantly did not discuss the character, only indicated who portrayed him in an overview of the cast. (Oh, and the debate has run its full five days, as it did at the time of the previous close). Fram (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Tate

No reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to justify notability thus failing WP:V Also nominating

These pages do not qualify for inclusion as a result of those issues. If any reliable sources have been found, provide links and cite them on the articles. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable characters of a notable television program, notability exists beyond the work of fiction itself. If you put anything else up for AFD with this same rationale (no sources, but you clearly know it's notable), I will seek that you be blocked Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely in-universe plot rehash, with no evidence of external notability. Eusebeus (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable outside of work, there must've been like a hundred Power Rangers by now, what makes these 2 so special? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete, I was not able to find any reliable source on this fictional character. As such, this article is unverifiable and should be redirected to the article on the television show they come from (Power Rangers: S.P.D.). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Power Rangers. Insufficient notability to justify separate article. --DAJF (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable trivial cruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Usually for stuff like this there is a characters page, not an article for the each character. Res 2216 firestar 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we are discussing a merge or redirect as the outcome, the proper article would be S.P.D. Power Rangers, not Power Rangers as DAJF suggests.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely plot summary without real-world development, context, analysis, or critical commentary for a non-notable fictional topic which has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: No out-of-universe information, and no sign that such information exists. --Carnildo (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this entry and any entries relating to Power Rangers. Anyone who thinks the Power Rangers show is notable needs to get a life.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a truly noteworthy instance of IDONTLIKEIT, worthy of being used as an example on the bad arguments page. DGG (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Should I like it? I don't like it because it's against policy due to a lack of notability. By the way, you mis-spelled "I don't like it."--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's spelling it how the redirect spells it. I'll give you the link: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per Ryulong. ~~Per: Wikipedia:Notability: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Nominator did not bother to look for sources.~~ So per WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL, "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." Ikip (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the nom "did not bother to look for sources" does not mean that "reliable", "independent of subject" sources that assert the notability of the subjects outside of Power Ranger SPD magically exist somewhere. Until you find these sources, your argument contradicts itself. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I did bother to look for sources. Where did you get the idea that I didn't look for sources?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry, this user's argument is tantamount to gaming the system. It basically says "I don't think the AFD process was followed properly, therefore article must be kept", all the while ignoring that notability is the reason for deletion. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood, "If any reliable sources have been found, provide links and cite them on the articles." Sorry. Reminding editors to follow wikipedia guidelines is not gaming the system. But it was my mistake, sorry.Ikip (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now your argument for inclusion is; article should be improved not deleted, yes? Well the reason for deletion was that these subjects are not notable, "improving" the articles on these two fictional characters will not make them anymore notable. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. If an article is not about a notable subject, all attempts to improve the article will not make the subject any more notable, so basically only real-life will make things more notable. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for (ahem) procedural reasons. Now I don't know the cause of this, but somehow this deletion discussion has become part of a dispute between two users, & which I suspect has unfairly influenced the outcome. At this point I feel the best thing to do would be to close this discussion as No consensus, wait two weeks or a month to make sure tempers have cooled, then list this article again. Its presence won't hurt Wikipedia (if you don't like an article, you don't have read it & its existence is not preventing anyone from creating an article you might want to read), & perhaps someone who cares about the article will take the opportunity to provide the material needed to keep it. (As a note, I have to say that I know nothing about the Power Rangers, have never watched an episode, nor do I ever care to. I just want useful information kept in Wikipedia.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the Power Rangers talk page.Ikip (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you continue to threaten well-meaning editors who wish to prune the encyclopedia of non-notable silliness, I will seek that you be mocked, Ryulong. And don't think I won't do it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you watching him right now?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hoehner

~~Delete:~~ Nomination withdrawn ~~fails WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria #5, as Dallas Theological Seminary is not a "major institution of higher education and research", and articulates no other claim of notability.~~ Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: DGG has added material to the article, but it is still just a resume+bibliography, lacking any third-party sourcing, or encyclopaedic biographical detail. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination as I have been informed that, first impressions notwithstanding, DTS is a major institution. I would however suggest that it would prevent further misapprehension, and be a less misleading treatment of the subjects, if both the article on Hoehner & on DTS gave a clearer articulation of their notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Возможный отказ знаменитости и нехватки содержания. Waterjuice (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Translation: (approximately) Non-notable, not enough content. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An inadequate article does not always mean inadequate notability, nor does teaching at a non-mainstream university mean lack of a distinguished record. It turns out from search in WorldCat that his major book, published by Cambridge University press, is held in over 550 libraries., and he has 3 other books held in over 200 libraries each. (I added them) Having that sort of publication record including a press of the highest possible standard in the subject shows recognition as an expert in the field, and meets WP:PROF. it is wiser to look before nominating for deletion--one might be able to improve an article. I haven't yet looked for papers and other books. Yes, I am a little surprised at such a record for someone with the board membership he has, but that's just my prejudices showing. DGG (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no adequate sourcing, means no reason to presume the existence of adequate (and particularly third party) sources, which in turn means no presumption of notability. I would further point out that citing the number of libraries holding his books is WP:BIGNUMBER and does not address any of the specific criteria (the closest would be #1, but that criteria must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources" -- not mere library-search hits) of WP:ACADEMIC (or even of WP:BK for that matter). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DTS probably counts as major enough in its field for #5, and he is one of 3 distinguished profs there along with John D. Hannah and J. Dwight Pentecost. His books, like the Herod Antipas one are clearly taken seriously. 550 is indeed a big number, people with books half that widely held usually pass, under criterion #1 or #4 (see Notes and Examples #12). Gbooks has links to scholarly reviews of it. This review of another book calls Hoehner's "For more than thirty years the standard comprehensive study".John Z (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per John Z, DTS is certainly among the top handful of influential seminaries in the U.S. Article can obviously be improved, and should be. Per a Google News search, Hoehner appears to have been quoted by the NYT, per Google scholar his books appear to be cited by others in his field, which makes sense in light of Google books' knowledge of books bearing or mentioning his name. There's no question that Hoehner meets the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator is demonstrating his ignorance, DTS is definitely one of the top seminaries in the U.S. and qualifies as a major institution of higher education and relevance for this field. (I don't care for the theology they are the flagship seminary of, but they are what they are, and it would be much less a part of American culture (e.g. the Left Behind series if they weren't as influential as they are.) The major institutions in religious education are generally not the major institutions in secular education. The major technical schools generally don't have a seminary program, the major liberal arts schools generally no longer have a significant seminary (though the began centuries ago with a focus on that form of education). Jclemens, and DGG know what they are doing, and John Z's evidence is also convincing. And I see at least one scholarly paper on contrasting his theory for interpreting a particular biblical passage with another theory that has itself been cited. When people are citing papers like this, it is safe to conclude that the scholar is significant and merit an article - it is also time to conclude that the material exists for us to write about his work, but that effort just hasn't been done yet. This isn't a close call. GRBerry 16:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit my ignorance. Neither the article on DTS nor Dispensationalism gave much impression of prominence (the fact that the latter appears to be associated with no particular Christian denomination further diffuses any impression of prominence). If I was premature in this nomination, then I apologise. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand, and source. Artw (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Nominator has a point though that notability should be front and center. -- Banjeboi 04:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sonw keep. Tag for expansion, as simply being a stub is no reason for deletion of a notable subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Comment: a final question -- if an editor were to replace DTS & J4J with a Catholic seminary and organisation, would anybody be the wiser? The article tells nothing about the man that couldn't be found, with very slight differences in exact university & date, in the resumes of hundreds of other theologians (and academics more widely). It doesn't really tell us anything about him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs expanding to turn into a decent bio stub, in the fleshing out of details and sources a more complete picture should emerge. -- Banjeboi 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the attention that it has already gotten due to this AfD, including the 'rescue' template, I see very little chance that it will be turned into a "decent bio stub" once the spotlight has been removed. There's nothing I can do at this stage, but I have to question the value of the concept of 'inherent notability' that perpetuates the survival of articles with no substantive content. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Then you've missed quite a few stubbies running around that are all of a sentence or two. That's the nature of a volunteer-led encyclopedia. Articles limp along sometimes until the right editor dusts it off and starts fixing it. We're not in a rush but boldness is also encouraged. -- Banjeboi 13:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do such insubstantial stubs actually aid in the eventual creation of these articles? And what proportion of these stubs are actually improved into 'decent stub' status (let alone non-stub article) in anything vaguely resembling a timely manner? As far as I can see, wikidedia keep no metrics on stub-creation and/or expansion, so these questions may be unanswerable. However its failure to be able to answer such questions severely weakens any argument for the retention of such insubstantial stubs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things actually do work, much like Redlinks which wikilink to an article that someone thinks should exist but doesn't yet. There are projects devoted to all aspects so likely data along these lines does exist. There is, for instance, a project devoted just to stub sorting. There is also many sayings along the lines that the higher quality of article, the more likely it is notable with the inverse also in effect. -- Banjeboi 13:53, 2 February 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) 10:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Golvan

Nice little résumé there, uploaded by the subject himself (no doubt a paragon of impartiality), but really, there are better venues for this sort of thing. Fails WP:N, as well as WP:V and WP:COI. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aucune référence n'a fourni. Waterjuice (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not met. Mrathel (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Self-promotion much? Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a résumé, not an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, self-promotional piece. TJRC (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 31 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sepeda motor

This article was created 2 years ago and was considered dubious then. Two Indonesian project editors consider it worthy of speedy deletion - however another editor has removed the speedy tag. It has no purpose in the Indonesian project - as it is identifying conditions in Jakarta and the utility of motorbikes - part of the content would be more relevant as a stub in wiktionary - and otherwise the issue raised needs to be expanded in broader terms in either Transport in Jakarta or Transport in Java. Satu Suro 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complètement rate des références de manque et une notabilité. Waterjuice (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:INDISCRIMINATE Davidelit (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motorcycle, which is what this Indonesian word means. This could be a useful redirect for Indonesian editors who use the English Wikipedia. Also, add {{R from alternative language}} to the redirect. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWould this not set a rather ludicrous precedent? What's wrong with just having a link to the Indonesian article on the motorcycle page? - In fact, there already is. Davidelit (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is not a ludicrous precedent. In fact, there are many redirects of this type. See Category:Redirects from alternative languages. Even though the Indonesian editors can click on the English link from the Indonesian article, there is no harm in redirecting this Indonesian term to the English article. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~/Redirect to Motorbike~~, its nothing more that an Indonesian/English translation Dictionary definition, Gnan garra 08:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect isnt necessary as describe by Merbabu below, what Indonesian speaker would use an English WP to fine out the definition of an Indonesian word Gnan garra 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As speedy decliner, I do not see the encyclopedic value of this article. Nor, however, do I see it meeting any particular speedy deletion critera. Either redirect or deletion sound like perfectly fine outcomes to me. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - provides no encyclopedic value. Needs to be in a Indonesian-English dictionary. I can't see the value in a redirect. Why would an Indonesia use english wikipedia to research sepeda motor? And we are not a translating service for either english or indonesian speakers. --Merbabu (talk) 13:30, 29 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/SNOW keep. Bad-faith nomination by page-move vandal; clearly notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue (duo)

I nominated it for deletion in March 2008 and they are even less notable now. With Obama's election racism is passing further into oblivion...furthermore there has been no news of this talentless band for over a year and a half...the hype was extremely temporary and they are completely forgotten now. The article also lacks secondary sources, and contains info the girls' family have stated they do not want (such as their middle names, their sister's name, etc.) Barrier, mate (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Objectionable their music and motives may be, but notability is not temporary. I knew which duo you meant just by reading the name of the article, so you can't say they've been "completely forgotten". If the article lacks secondary sources it can be improved, and any BLP concerns can be removed. --Canley (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Previous discussion resulted in unanimous consensus to keep (and was speedily closed as bad-faith nomination, to boot). Notability doesn't expire, and certainly not this fast. There are at least two secondary sources cited in the article (ABC and the Yale Daily News); I'm not sure why you say there are none. As for BLP, that's a reason to fix the article, not to delete it. Also, even if it were true that racism were "passing into oblivion," does that mean that all mention of racism should be expunged from WP? Of course not. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary. The sources are there; ideology is not a reason for deletion. Just found another secondary source (the article already has enough to pass WP:N, in my opinion), from Newsweek. Perhaps it is time for the nomination to be withdrawn, for a speedy keep, for WP:SNOW? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are from 2005 or 2006. Can you find any reliable source that even mentioned them from within the last year? If so, I'll vote for it to be kept. Barrier, mate (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something from 2007: [29]. It's not the last year, but it's more recent. Here's one from one year and one month ago: [30]. As for this one, I have no idea if it's a reliable source, but it's a source from only a couple of months ago. Here's one from a week ago. Notability doesn't expire anyway. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As abhorrent as these young ladies are they do meet notability criteria. - J 10987 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Please note that the nominator also has nominated this article previously in March 2008 and it was kept in that instance, while the nominator was blocked for refactoring comments. He has also moved this article to Prussian Jew (duo) in the interim, which is highly unacceptable. Nate • (chatter) 05:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, please note Barrier, mate's contribs list; I move for an immediate close of this nomination as placed here by a hijacked G***p account, and an indef block of Barrier, mate. Nate • (chatter) 05:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Barrier, mate has been indefintely blocked. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 29 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 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

AfDs for this article:

Violates practically every Wikipedia rule in the book, particularly (but not limited to) WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. This article has been nominated for deletion several times in the past, and each time, the deletion has been defeated by a well-organized cabal of ideologues who are apparently alerted and rounded-up via IRC, etc. J.R. Hercules (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per user:SlimVirgin's 22 February 2007 comment on the 2d nom. To the extent there are problems with the article, WP:SOFIXIT. I hesitate to add (since I don't know the position of your tongue relative to your cheek when you wrote of a "cabal" opposing deletion of the article) that you may also want to review Wikipedia:The Truth: "If you're trying to bring The Truth somewhere, then clearly it doesn't already exist there. And if it doesn't exist, then there must logically be a cabal obstructing it. ... [A]nyone who opposes The Truth is unreasonable or part of a cabal, and both groups of people can safely be dismissed." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It Violates WP:NPOV. Waterjuice (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't like the article at all (too much prose), and the suggestion made a few nominations ago that this is one of the better articles on WP is silly. That it would violate WP:NPOV can only be if the article substantiates the tendentious claim made by those referred to in the article, and that it does not do, in my opinion. I see plenty of problems, and one of them (that there is no clarity very early on about what the anti-globalization consists of) does lean towards POV, but that could and should be edited. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly legitimate topic, it's been well documented by scholars and and this article easily meets WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. - Epson291 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before (in the second nom), I voted "weak keep," but this article has become stronger in the interim. I still see no serious POV problems (and if there are any, point them out please so that they can be fixed). As for WP:SOAP, this is not an opinion piece. It is to some extent an article about opinions, but it is about notable opinions. Some of the weasel words are gone now. It was okay before, as evidenced by the consensus in the 3rd nom, and so it's certainly okay now. Incidentally, I'm not part of any cabal. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you specify precisely which changes made to the article that cause you to now label the piece "stronger"? J.R. Hercules (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. First of all, the lede has become better (although there is definitely room for improvement); at the time of the last nom, it was highly weasel-worded. Now it cites some names. The organization at that time was strange as well; since then it has become more straightforward. Also, criticism of the various points of view has been added, and brought closer in the article text to those points of view. More sources have been added (right now I am noticing Larry Summers, Maude Barlow, and Walter Laqueur), which backs up the assertion that this is a widespread point of view and also damages my earlier concern that "I'm not sure this needs an article." --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The topic seems a bit WP:SOAP to me. It is evident that the article intends to push the idea that the two are connected, and while there may be credible sources arguing that the connection is valid, it seems that the discussion belongs in the anti-globalization article. Mrathel (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SOAP and WP:SYN. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massive WP:SYN violation. While there are some sources that connect these two concepts, there is not a body of scholarship or other published work recognizing this as a single concept or distinct category, and certainly the phrase "anti-globalization related antisemitism" (as used in the info box) doesn't appear anywhere outside Wikipedia. There might be some quotations here that belong on other articles such as new antisemitism, but it seems particularly bizarre to treat this as a separate category. csloat (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: The issue of WP:SYN was raised and specifically addressed in the third nomination. A user there rejoined: "It's definitely not a SYN violation as someone suggested. When I last checked, the sources specifically discussed anti-globalization and antisemitism" (SlimVirgin, 01:36, 11 March 2008). What has changed since then to make that response unsound? And could you give one or two specific examples of the article's supposed syns? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "changed" that I am aware of; it's just that Slim's response was unsound then too. The point is that this is not a coherent concept in the published literature; the fact that a few articles in the popular press talk about two different things in the same article does not change that fact. This is at best a sub-topic of antisemitism or perhaps new antisemitism; what makes "anti-global" antisemitism qualitatively different from other forms of anti-semitism? I don't see accusations of antisemitism in the anti-globalization "movement" as inherently any more notable than accusations of antisemitism in the U.N., the Communist movement, or the GOP. There are plenty of published articles discussing such things, but we don't have a new encyclopedia entry every time someone calls someone else who is part of a particular movement or organization a Jew-hater. csloat (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly it wasn't unsound enough, because the consensus then was that the article didn't fail WP:SYN. If nothing significant has changed, this question has already been argued and decided. The critics lost. Unless you have more basis for WP:SYN than was present at the previous noms (and you've conceded that you don't, as I understand it), or some other issue that wasn't fully discussed and rejected in the previous noms, I don't understand why this nomination shouldn't come out any differently than its predecessors. Is there a good reason to depart from the existing consensus? It seems to me that the people who keep relisting this - one of whom is a self-confessed anarchist - may benefit from reviewing Wikipedia:STICK, WP:IDL, and WP:SOFIXIT. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST isn't a reason for deletion. If there's a body of scholarship on antisemitism in the United Nations (and I'm sure there is), then maybe it's time to create an article on that as well. Articles like this one (already cited) certainly aren't just "talking about two different things in the same article." --N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; I never "conceded" anything. If your argument is that consensus can never change, then you're wrong. If your argument is, "some editor made a comment a year ago and that invalidates everything you say," that's just not convincing to me. The way I see it, this article is a complete WP:SYN violation, for reasons that I explained pretty clearly. The article Shar links really doesn't do anything to further establish notability of this as some kind of independent phenomenon. You putting words in my mouth or making personal attacks on your fellow editors isn't helping to convince me otherwise. Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attack on you. You may not have meant to concede anything, but you responded to my question about what has changed since earlier nominations by saying you weren't aware of any. That's a concession that there is no more (or, in terms of the article standing alone, less) basis for the WP:SYN charge now than there was then. Whether that concession matters depends on the weight (if any) one accords to the failure of the WP:SYN charges to garner consensus during earlier nominations. If one thinks that the earlier consensus for keeping the article is irrelevant, as I take it you do, then one will think it's little concession to say that the article seemed WP:SYN then and remains the same. I would give a little more deference to the community than that, given that this is a repeat nomination premised on the same arguments about the same material - arguments that have failed to gain traction during three previous nominations.

Consensus can change, yes, but this article has been nominated for deletion five times (twice each by two users, and an outlier), and twice in the last twelve months.[31][32][33][34][35] At a certain point, repeated nominations of an article by the same people starts to look less like a search for consensus than its manufacture. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didnt attack me; you attacked those who created the AfD, and I still don't find those attacks helpful or convincing. Although it is fascinating that the same guy who warns people above against conspiracy theories about "cabals" is now offering his own conspiracy theory about a cabal of deletionists. And please stop misinterpreting my words; that's not helpful either. I explained the SYN violation, and if the previous AfD inaccurately ignored that violation, well, it's a good thing we can have this discussion again. But simply citing previous deletion discussions from a year ago and claiming that nothing has changed is not convincing in the least. csloat (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the links to previous deletion discussions were useful; I didnt participate in those discussions myself. The first two are actually one nomination; there have only been four total, not five as you claim. The first one led to a clear majority supporting deletion, but the result was "no consensus to delete." The next two deletion votes are also very close although keep is in the majority. So there is a pretty clear lack of consensus in all the previous discussions -- which means the default was to keep the article, but for you to imply that these issues have been settled by an overwhelming consensus is incorrect. It doesn't surprise me that the article was suggested for deletion once again, and the canvassing issues mentioned in the previous deletion discussions do suggest that a more thorough discussion would be helpful. csloat (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a "personal attack" or a "conspiracy theory" to point out that if this isn't precisely what WP:FORUMSHOP ("repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like") and particularly Wikipedia:Consensus#Forum_shopping ("Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue") describe, it looks a lot like it. Consensus went against the nomination last time, implicitly rejecting the WP:SYN theory as either wrong or insufficient basis for deletion, and either way works). Now the same critics are back for yet another go, and what has changed? Not the article, you've conceded. Not the standards of WP:SYN. The only variable that may be different is who shows up - precisely Wikipedia's definition of forum shopping. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus to delete" is not the same as "consensus to keep." Especially when there are repeated procedural irregularities in an AfD, which is what I believe is at stake here. "Forum shopping" implies using different forums. And once again I would really appreciate it if you stop misrepresenting my words - I have not "conceded" anything about changes in the article or about previous AfDs (and, in fact, I haven't participated in them or followed the article's previous incarnations closely enough to have an opinion about the matters you falsely accuse me of "conceding"). And, frankly, a difference in "who shows up" may be important, when there were canvassing violations that brought a particular group to the AfD a couple of times previously. In any case, I think when you have this significant of a lack of consensus in either direction, the article will continue to be suggested for AfD until an actual consensus emerges one way or another. When there is no consensus, Wikipedia default is to keep, which is what appears to have happened in previous AfDs (although the first AfD leaned more heavily towards delete). csloat (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Forum shopping certainly involves multiple fora; your error is in assuming that forum is coterminous with venue. Two debates may be held on different nights in the same venue, and one of the speakers may even be the same, but whether they are the same forum depends on whether the same people show up. So it is here. Wikipedia:Consensus#Forum_shopping plainly contemplates that forum shopping can occur in the same venue: editors may seek to "create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue." (2) I'm not misrepresenting your words in the slightest - like it or not, you conceded that the article hasn't changed since the last nomination, and it's no less a concession because you don't think it's of any relevance. Anyone who doubts that need only scroll up. At any rate, we're just spinning wheels at this stage, and I've made my point(s), so I will drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're being civil so I probably won't respond to anything further you have to say about this matter. Despite your false claim to the contrary, I have not conceded that the article hasn't changed. I'm not sure why you keep lying about that - I actually haven't checked the article history but it is easy to tell whether or not it has changed without making up phony allegations about concessions made in an argument. And if you're right that the article hasn't changed, that is even more reason that a new AfD was necessary, as most of the people who voted "keep" in the previous AfD said that all the problems requiring deletion could be fixed by editors of the article. If those problems still haven't been fixed a year later (or two years after the one opinion you have cited here), they are possibly endemic to the article itself, suggesting that it is a good idea to relist the article. csloat (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The fact that there are reliable sources out there that address this topic means there's notability. If there's problems with it being NPOV, that can be dealt with by cleanup, deletion is not necessary. (And for the record, I don't belong to any cabals). Umbralcorax (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a valid topic, and i agreewith those who think it's not all that bad an article. DGG (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article more choppy than optimal, the topic is certainly encyclopedic and a good many of the chops have references - a rarity in AfDland. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic seems to be notable and the article is well referenced Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The primary argument for deletion is issues of synthesis. This isn't very persuasive since much of the article uses secondary sources talking about the claimed connection. If this used primary sources to show that anti-globalists were being anti-semitic there would be much more of an issue. As this stands I don't see a problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting the SYN violation. It's not that people are citing primary or secondary sources; it's that none of these sources, primary or secondary, discuss "anti-globalization and antisemitism" as an independent phenomenon of study. csloat (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The Mark Strauss piece for example does so pretty explicitly. In the title in fact. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - valid topic and might I add that a 'cabal of ideologues' is the best (read: worst) argument I've heard thus far for deleting encyclopedic content. There are off course some really bad articles out there ~~(I'm not sure this one fits the bill)~~ but certainly, issues can and should be addressed. Actually, the article is quite well written and relies on secondary sources so I don't see any synthesis. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC) strike 05:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and has reliable sources. Anti-globalization could better defined within the article. It meets WP:NPOV and WP:NOR . Also, I am no cabal member.—Sandahl (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly uncomfortable but verifiable. Those concerned about NPOV should aim to rewrite those sections deemed to be biased (after forming consensus). JFW | T@lk 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, but prefer Merge into New antisemitism. I'm not entirely convinced that those two articles are on different topics (surely anti-globalization-related-antisemitism is new antisemitism?), and while I don't think this article is a POV fork as such, I don't see the need for both. Terraxos (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Observation - AFDs are kept open for at least five days. Minutes away from five days after the nomination, it seems to me that there is overwhelming consensus to keep this article, measured against the standards of other recent decisions to keep, even if there is disagreement as to the precise form in which it should be kept. The latter question, however, is beyond the scope of AFD, so I propose that the nomination be closed, and its result be announced as keep, by consensus.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Places of Worship in Banbury

Unfortunately we do not have a speedy category for this. But it is a straightforward violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I should note though, looking at the length of the article, it might be a good idea to create Religion in Banbury. Ottre 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest doing it the Wikipedia way, and expanding Banbury#Religion until such a point as a breakout sub-article is actually required. Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very Unencyclopedic, fails notability. Waterjuice (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator has identified this clearly. Just one note on the Religion in Banbury: are there reliable sources? Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just sent off a couple of emails to that effect. Ottre 04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  - Update: no responses, so I guess not. Ottre 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom, clearly. ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In regard to WP:NOTDIR standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an alphabetical list of names, addresses, telephone numbers, and web sites. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, and that is exactly what this is. Please contribute this sort of thing to Yellowikis. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:24, 31 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 Flanaess. (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plains of the Paynims

Non-notable fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM [TALK]} 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The D&D WikiProject is currently working on merging less-notable articles, like this one, together. Also, did the nominator try searching for sources per WP:BEFORE prior to nomination? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Flanaess until we come up with a better merge target. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other entries of Category:Greyhawk locations to form Universe of Greyhawk or List of Greyhawk locations per my earlier suggestion. Pagra shtak 19:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Flanaess, per BOZ. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT are not valid reasons for deletion. Topic can be verified in a published book. Merge discussions can take place elsewhere, but clearly no valid reason for redlinking and deleting edit history. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly agree that deleting is unnecessary, and would be fine with a Keep; however, this one was among those likely to be merged in the near future anyway, so we really could have just done that without the need for an AFD... BOZ (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. By itself this doesn't seem to meet RS or Notability guidelines. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per A Nobody and Boz. I agree with Boz that this AfD was unnecessary, per WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL, "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." Ikip (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. The article has improved since nomination. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Diary of a Wimpy Kid

~~List of characters by User:Extreme Boredom. The user said that the article has been deleted before, 1 J.Mundo (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I'm still working on it. E.B. (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable series; this is a reasonable breakout of material, and consistent with the treatment of other articles. JJL (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article on the book series isn't yet large enough to warrant spin offs. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What article do you want to merge it with? E.B. (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was deleted under A1, not enough context to identify (it had just seven random names). Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When there are multiple books in a series, a separate article on the characters is the proper way to go. It's a continuing series, and we would do well to set it up correctly now. DGG (talk) 19:56, 29 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, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Garnica

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability is made on the page either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not even asserted. From a search for sources, this person appears to be an up-and-coming actor/model who hasn't done much yet. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clearly not-notable, clearly a speedy, despite being declined. ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 29 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, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On da Money Show

Cable and internet tv programme. Written by User:TheOndaMoneyShow. No independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking I cannot find any reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this deleted before under another name? MuZemike 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It had been previously deleted in November 2008 under the name "The On da Money Show". JamesBurns (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:15, 30 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 by nom. (NAC) //roux 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Kingdom Fusion

Non-notable game. It's a fangame that seems to read like one of doctor frankenstein's later experiments; you know, the ones after he bought the Xbox. Fails notability guidelines, delete and move on. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn by Nom Ironholds (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because MKF is an important part of the internet. It has been featured on Go Nintendo, Mario Fan Game Galaxy, many blogs, Mobb, Gametrailers, and many more. Wikipedia is meant to provide information when you need to know something at the instant. So what is your first reaction when you want to know about this game that has just been featured somewhere? You search it on wiki.

Well personally if a game was featured on Gametrailers I'd be more likely to search there. And this game was referenced in west coast hip-hop? Wow! Is mario down with the hood, then? Ironholds (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't wikipedia suppose to cover everything? We have pages for fricken memes? And as a response to your first post

"And as a response to IronHold the game is actauly very well done, it has won many awards and the team working on it has ome impresive skills.

Here is one of the levels, level 4-4: Corpse of the Behemoth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI-HLM7YYgo

The game is still in beta!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theusedslash07 ([[User :::talk:Theusedslash07|talk]] • contribs) 03:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not meant to cover everything, no; if it was we wouldn't need to delete anything, would we? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it has won awards, link to them. Ironholds (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://mkfusion.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=3527 Shows link to website and entries that it won —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theusedslash07 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those awards don't qualify a game for inclusion, I'm afraid; the awards themselves are not notable. Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly dose this article need to be deleted though? Just because it's a fan game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theusedslash07 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it doesn't pass the notability guidelines found at WP:N. The fact that it is a fan game doesn't matter. Ironholds (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I can find some source that says that it is famous or holds importance then it could be an article, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theusedslash07 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from notable websites (so not a forum/blog) and sources that give significant coverage, so not 1-line about how it exists. Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://gonintendo.com/?p=65616

http://gonintendo.com/?p=52161

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/20/super-mario-fusion-makes-mushroom-kingdom-hearts-a-reality/

http://kotaku.com/346207/super-mario-fusion-a-happy-marriage-of-halo-and-mario

http://digg.com/nintendo/Super_Mario_Fusion_A_Happy_Marriage_of_Halo_and_Mario

http://digg.com/nintendo/Super_Mario_Fusion

http://www.supermariogames.biz/video/super-mario-fusion/

http://www.moddb.com/games/mushroom-kingdom-fusion/news

http://mkf.110mb.com/

Awards website

http://ncfc.taloncrossing.com/booths.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theusedslash07 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted; include them in the article itself and we are done here. Ironholds (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry for the mix up, how would I include these?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Baker, Sr.

One could validly tag this for speedy deletion as a non-notable bio of a perfectly undistiguished soldier. The twist is that he did his soldiering 200 years ago. But how does that make him notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; there is almost no info on Baker in the article, 90% of it is background essay. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the reliable references give the background story or are not used, the more specific sources are family history, and prove no notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Silas Baker, Sr. is a very well documented history of a Massachusetts Militiaman who took up the call to arms immediately when the first guns were fired on April 19th, 1775. He went on to serve with the Patriots who courageously took on the most powerful army in the world and in so doing brought about the birth of the United States. Several members of his family and town did the same, in significant numbers for their population. Certainly such individuals were notable. A difference to our present situation is possible. What a very small number of such people did has changed the world! He is a truly notable member of our past. He should be recognized. His story should be made available for those who search our nation's birth. s/s Silas K. Baker, Jr. (no name connection is given in the write up). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImnFLAOiC (talk • contribs) This comment was made on the talk page of this AfD but I thought it should be brought here because otherwise it might be missed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just being a soldier in a notable war is not an inherent claim to notability. According to Wikipedia's article on the American Revolutionary War, there were 20,000 American regular soldiers and 230,000 American militia who served in the Revolutionary War. Their achievements were collectively notable, but that does not mean we need to have articles about every single one of them. As Brianyoumans mentions, much of this article does not even pertain to Silas Baker personally, and the parts that do pertain to him have relatively little information about his experience in the war. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to ImnFLAOiC. -- I was the one who removed the PROD on this article in response to ImnFLAOiC's request not to delete it. -- I agree that the article as written does not meet wikipedia's notability policy but I'm concerned that ImnFLAOiC seems to have done considerable research, the article is excellently-referenced and there may well be a place for it in some future specialist Wiki. I also feel that ImnFLAOiC may have quite a bit of personal interest invested in this article and a straight deletion could well constitute biting a newbie. All in all I feel that while the article should not appear in the main wikipedia article space, in this particular case I would not want to see it made completely inaccessible to ImnFLAOiC; so I suggest it be moved to his personal wikipedia space for the time being.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not-notable, barely about the subject. I cannot even see the claims of notability to survive speedy. ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 29 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 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic exonyms

WP:NOTDICT (translation, word list, glossary, etc.), WP:INDISCRIMINATE. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. then convert into individual entries. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This has been discussed in the past for related, e.g. for European exonyms at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms all of them in Category:Exonyms.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. The rationale given for keep by several people amounted to "because it's useful", but WP:NOT gives plenty of examples of useful kinds of information that are nevertheless deemed to be outside the scope of Wikipedia—after all, there's a whole web out there for this information. It's also the kind of cross-product, subclassification that the guidelines suggest avoiding. A list of Hungarian exonyms is useful in the same way that a list of Greek words for different species of fish or a list of Chinese architectural terms would be or a list of Swahili accounting terms would be. These are all fodder for dictionaries, glossaries, etc. WP:NOTDICT strongly applies.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exonyms, as with the etymology of place names, are considered to be an encyclopedic topic. I'm surprised that this hasn't been done before. I can't say "keep" for this article on the topic, because the execution does not meet Wikipedia standards; it's not sourced, it's not written in an encyclopedic style, and it's not well arranged. As for the topic, if someone wanted to make a table out of it, that's fine. "There's a whole web out there", to be sure, and the best articles in here draw from the information from sources out there. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Are considered to be" by whom? On what basis? What makes names for places more encyclopedic than names for fish or for architectural elements? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By whom? Based on the existence of an entire category for the exonym articles and the outcome of prior debates, by many of the people who participate in the deletion debates, obviously. For whatever reason, geography, like sports and television, tends to get over-emphasized on Wikipedia. Is it a violation of one of the many Wikipedia rules? Probably. Does anybody really care? For the most part, probably not. You might be successful on deleting this particular article; good luck to you on the others. Mandsford (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that they're encyclopedic because people here have been treating them as encyclopedic. That's begging the question. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep no reason to single out Arabic exonyms for more negative treatment than the European ones which were kept. Exonomy is encyclopedic based on precedent, the number of articles we have on the subject, the blurbage in many more articles that reference the issue, and the fact that it keeps coming up both at WP and in the real world as being the object of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources: Macedonia, Kosovo, South Tyrol, Samaria, Ivory Coast, and even "America", many of their subdivisions, and their names in exononmous sources meet their own sufficient notability that many have articles here- see for some of them Category:Geographical naming disputes -certainly the subject meets it, and lists (of which this one is of poor quality) also meet it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't single out Arabic vis-a-vis European languages. This is an article I came across, and I nominated it, period. If you read my notes above, you'll see that I also disagree with the outcome of the previous deletion discussion. Next, you're basically saying, "it's encyclopedic because it's been treated as encyclopedic". This is hardly a persuasive argument. As for the specific examples you name, they are significant for reasons particular to them: the name of Macedonia is a subject of international dispute (and, by they way, it is has nothing to do with exonyms); "Samaria" is only the faintest offshoot of the long-time battle over the status of the West Bank/Palestine; "Ivory Coast" is a peculiar case of a country whose name consists of ordinary words, and yet the country's government insists that the correct name in English for this country consists of the French version of those words. As I'm sure you know, notability isn't inherited. The fact that some rock musicians are notable doesn't mean being a rock musician inherently makes one notable. I can't believe you're asserting that if a topic is notable, then any list of things associated with that topic are notable. Words are notable; that certainly doesn't mean people should create stand-alone lists of arbitrary sets of words. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've created a straw man. The proper analogy is not: "The fact that some rock musicians are notable doesn't mean being a rock musician inherently makes one notable." Your assertion here is: "The fact that some rock musicians are notable doesn't mean rock music is notable." That one doesn't fly - you seem to think the whole topic of exonomy is not encyclopedic, as you have admitted not just singling out Arabic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 26 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 02:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is suitable for an encyclopedia, even if the article needs improvement. Arabic is a major language, names of places in this language have significance, sourcing will be readily available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wiktionary is not the place for this--these aren't words in that sense. I do believe the topic to be encyclopedic, though I'd like to see it executed better, obviously. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The rationale of the nominator does not apply. On the other hand, if the article is deleted in its present state – without prejudice to later re-creation in a better form – little is lost. Although it is stated that "this list only includes names that are significantly different from the local toponym", almost all differences in the listed names result from the re-romanization of names rendered in the Arabic script. Hambūrġ is not really "significantly different" from Hamburg. To boot, in the few cases where there is a significant difference, the reader cannot see what the conventional English toponym of the place is. I assume that the creator intended to address this but was cut short and taken aback by the prompt nomination for deletion, less than 5 hours after initial creation and less than 35 minutes after the last edit. 88.234.217.196 (talk) 00:58, 30 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 The Pick-up Artist (TV series). MBisanz ^talk 02:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaro Orlando

Contestant is only known for "one thing", which is winning a reality show (The Pickup Artist). Plastikspork (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to show, not notable outside it yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no independent notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LMNO (video game)

No verifiable info yet. The only sources I've found so far verify nothing else except that the game is planned/rumored. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've noticed WP:CRYSTAL being cited frequently in similar AfDs but am not sure how it applies. As I understand it, WP:CRYSTAL simply admonishes unsourced speculation and analysis, whereas all (three) statements made in this article are sourced. And, as for notability, both citations in the article are from reliable sources, and more may be found. SharkD (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "LMNO" is not mentioned by name in any of those references. JamesBurns (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's true. SharkD (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's too early for that article to be written here. Alexius08 (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Recreate once it is officially announced. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:59, 31 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, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gregory Orchestra

Apparently non-notable musician/band. Article is referenced solely to a blog and also relies on a large quote which is entirely unsourced and seems rather anecdotal anyway. Google has very little on the subject and nothing RS apart from this passing reference. The author removes valid maintenance tags without comment and has not contributed to any other article. DanielRigal (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Dan Gregory Orchestra Hi Daniel, I am new to this but felt compelled to try to post an artcile on the Dan Gregory Orchestra. There is very little if any info on him. My Uncle Ray gave me a photo of himself in the Dan Gregory orchestra when he died. I also found a photo that was autographed by many members of that band. The only reference I could find online was wikipedia and andy sanella. I contacted the harrisburg pennsylvania library and Ken Frew contacted me back as did the organizer for one of the Harrisburg, PA high schools. She's in her late 60's and so is Ken Frew. My only true references are them. Ken Frew's father was the 1st trumpet player for Dan Gregory for over a decade and I qoute him in this article. I believe you should give much leway in my article for 3 main reasons not to mention there is a link already on wikipedi

1-The article is America's ONLY online source for the Dan Gregory Orchestra 2-My main reference is the lead trumpet player's son who played with Dan Gregory for over 15 years ( a research librarian is a notable and reliable source especially in the Hometown of the Musician in subject 3-I am not trying to promote a website or business of any sort. Rather, I am trying to give some basic (although not very thorough) information of a big band/dance band that many nationally known musicians played and more appropriately, toured with to get their starts in the music profession. Including Herb Taylor (elvis and benny goodman) Billy Ennis Bob Schaffner, Virginia Dare, many others. It is actually quite notable, even according to wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Sannella

Most of these people are dead now, but their decendants are still around. I understand your hesitancy to publish this, but considering the photos and the quotes from Dan Gregory's leadman, I would appreciate your input and even you editing this article. Kenny Frew of the Dan Gregory Orchestra is akin to Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. The "silent lead player" I am in the process of getting published third party and written documentation from the library in Harrisburg. Until proven otherwise, these are reliable sources for a rather obscure touring dance band of the great depression. I would appreciate any input from you Sincerely, Elrip1 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Larry Ripani Waukesha, Wisconsin USA (Home of Les Paul and The Bodeans) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrip1 (talk • contribs)

Keep: Gregory's orchestra recorded for Victor Records - THE major U.S. record label at the time - and contained notable musicians such as Andy Sannella and Skinnay Ennis. However, I think the article should be moved to Dan Gregory. /FredrikT (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: here's a link to a published book that mentions Gregory's band: [36]. /FredrikT (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we need to be careful of asserting notability based on multiple links of supposed notability transfer. "Band A being associated with Label B which also had notable Band C" doesn't really work. However, having had records on a major label is something worth looking into. How many records did they release? Were they reviewed? Did they sell? The book reference you found is the same one I described in the nomination as a passing reference. It is coverage but it is probably not significant coverage, as required in the notability criteria. That said, if you can dig up enough verifiable information for a decent stub then I won't object. What we can't have is a highly anecdotal article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a fundamental work-over, adding more sources and better wikilinks. Hopefully it will now be found as worthy to remain as many other articles on 1920s bandleaders. /FredrikT (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is a great improvement. I am still rather concerned about relying on a blog posting for so much of the content, due to verifiability issues. I don't have access to the other two references but they sound fine. The two major label releases are the main thing. I am now happy to switch my position to a weak keep. I am not sure whether we should stop the AfD now or just let it run its course. It would be nice to get some additional opinions and maybe suggestions for further improvements but if anybody wants to jump in and close it as a Keep then I have no objection. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Frew, who has participated with the most of useful facts on the dangregory blog, has apparently written some sort of book or article dealing with Gregory entitled "To A Harmony With Our Souls: a History of Jazz in Central Pennsylvania". I guess that most of the references to the blog could be replaced if we had access to that document. I also guess that there would be lots of contemporary information to find in articles and ads in entertainment periodicals such as Variety and Billboard, but unfortunately I do not have access to either (I live in Sweden). /FredrikT (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ken Frew and "To a Harmony with Souls" I have been in email contact with Frew and he said he would try to get me that article. I will let you know. Elrip1 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)elrip1Elrip1 (talk) 01:26, 28 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 01:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ordered the book on amazon and it should arrive in a few days. I talked with Kenny Frew's son today on the phone. His references are substantial and we will be able to refernce the book shortly. At the time (great depression) many groups did not publish any information that we see as crucial in today's era. During the depression, jazz musicians didn't want their shows to be too well known, as they were paid in cash and didn't want to claim any income taxes. These were "road music conservatories" were people learned to play jazz in it's relative infancy. One could not go to college to learn jazz music. They forbade it in college. One had to "learn on the road" as many great players did in those days. We should be able to change the blog references to a more substantial written reference in a few days. Elrip1 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)elrip1Elrip1 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Multiple sides for smaller record companies plus the Victor sides, plus they appear to have played all over Pennsylvania and as far away as Virginia (I found listings for appearances at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh and Virginia Polytechnic, among others.) He also co-authored at least two songs:Dreamy Argentina and Sadie O'Brady. Let's keep it. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the references from the book published by benchmark and changed one sentence to show how extensively they toured. I also added an external link to the publisher. It's a book with multiple authors who wrote different chapters so I put the editors name 1st. Feel free to edit. Elrip1 (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)elrip1Elrip1 (talk) 05:25, 1 February 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 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commo (Terminal Emulator)

Delete. I've never heard of it, nor has anyone on the Google News archive. I'm pretty sure it isn't notable. JBsupreme (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seemed pretty popular back in the dial up BBS days, that people kept talking about it as an alternative to other things. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Powermacros was a popular package, for the very popular BBS Door Tradewars 2002 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Popularity isn't a factor. We're writing a verifiable encyclopaedia here. Whether things are popular or unpopular is irrelevant. Things have to be properly documented parts of the corpus of human knowledge. So please show where this subject has been documented by people independent of its creator(s). Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This Google News archive search finds a couple of potential sources at pay sites, but it doesn't look like there's very substantial coverage there. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also pages 409–410 of ISBN 9780078816468. Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 24 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) 00:06, 24 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 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but compress a little. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book source found by Uncle G pushes this over the notability barrier. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan C. Splant Foundation

Recently founded charity organization. Claim of notability is "first and only of its kind in Indiana dedicated to providing direct assistance only to prematurity families," which does not strike me as notable (e.g. first and only squirrel in maple trees observation club in alaska would be notable under that rationalle). The purpose of the charity is great and touching, but does not follow through to notability under WP:ORG. Also, charity was founded in 2007, no independent third party sources seem to available and seems to be of local interest only. This is also a likely conflict of interest per the editor's name: MJSplant, who appears to be one of the founders of the organization. Declined speedy. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 06:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy, worked too long in non-profits and tend to see the possibilities. I think the claim asserts sufficient notability so as not to be an A&, but I admit I'm not finding much that proves notability per WP:ORG. However, it's been involved with Shop for a Cause which means someone has probably taken notice of it. I'm still looking for RS coverage, neutral at the moment. StarM 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the foundation doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Just because it is non-profit and works for a good cause (NPOV?) doesn't mean it gets a pass for inclusion. Themfromspace (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment I have addressed the COI concern on the talk page of the article. MJSplant (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment " Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." Anarchangel (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The COI is NOT the reason for this AfD...just a note. The deletion policy reason would be notability and lack of available references for WP:V. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:49, 20 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, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 24 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 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any real sources on this, other than press release sort of stuff. Who knows what they have done, if anything? Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:V and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 29 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 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaject

This entry seems to be original research, it seems to be originating from a thesis dissertation, a quick search in Google show that it's not really notable--Khalid hassani (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of Pu and Massalin, it doesn't seem like this term has caught on.[37] -Atmoz (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 20 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) 23:59, 23 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 01:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable references on the search engines, and this topic would be mentioned if it was used. It is therefore in the category of neologism, although an interesting idea it is not notable as not published by others. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PhoneGnome

This article does not provide sufficient references to indicate importance. It has been tagged since October and nothing has been provided. ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, article about a tech business (VoIP phone service) that contains no showing of importance. References given are to press releases, company websites, and blogs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. If the New York Times writes about you, you're notable. The article from the New York Times listed as a reference mentions a number of VOIP providers, but the discussion of PhoneGnome is significant. Similarly, Network World is a reliable source. TWICE Mobile is also a reliable source, and is a print publication published by Reed Business Information. GigaOM appears to be a reliable source as well. See the credentials of the staff listed at http://gigaomnetwork.com/editorial/ The TMCnet blog item is by the president and group editor-in-chief of TMC which publishes several magazines, so I would argue that it also is a reliable source. I am not familiar with Voxilla, but the coverage from the other publications is sufficient in my opinion to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:06, 20 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 00:01, 24 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 01:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources, including the NYT (coverage doesn't need to be exclusive to satisfy WP:N). This discussion really became moot after those sources were added, and can probably be closed now. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article does claim notability as being the first, and does have enough sources, and more refs could be added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have been nominated without checking for sources, and it does have them. DGG (talk) 19:58, 29 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 02:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Talks with CEOs

Non-notable student activity. The article does not pass WP:V and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pastor Theo. Our event that you said "Non-notable student activity." had been listed in 4 different newspapers of Turkey in January 29, 2009. And if you search it with its turkish name it makes 2 pages of results in different news portals. "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." is a shame for such an unprecedented student acitivity in Turkey. Please remove that consideration in the shortest term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acakdeniz (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our school's official website where the announcement had been published http://www.sabanciuniv.edu.tr/tr/?haberduyuru/goster.php?no=27001

And for the reliability by a third source please see http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=809290 http://www.dunya.com/haber.asp?id=35218&cDate= http://www.porttakal.com/haber-ogrenciler-ceo-larla-bulusacak-225686.html

Please remove your deletion consideration in the shortest term —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acakdeniz (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that the organization is notable beyond the scope of the university. As far as I can tell, the group is limited to one campus only, regardless of how widely traveled they are. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's failed to tell me what the heck they're even doing! The best guess I can make is that it's a higher level version of school Mock Interviews. And I never knew the Lib Dems had a CEO before. As C.Fred says, rather localised notability. Peridon (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep now they've made it clearer. Still wanting a bit more reference that works. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like most student activities at individual universities. Not even a student club, but a single activity of a few members of a student club--apparently some 13 students only on a trip to London, a single trip, having taken place once, for whom some group interviews have been arranged No evidence of broader notability. If it becomes a permanent multiuniversity program on a national scale, it will presumably get some real coverage and then it can be included DGG (talk) 04:46, 31 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. Numerically there are more editors advocating keeping this article. However, the complaint that the article lacks independent sourcing has not been rebutted, and I have not been able to find appropriate souces myself. I am happy to save a version of this in an editor's user space. If they are able to locate appropriate sources, I would be willing to restore the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow (codec)

Non-notable codec. No sources other than primary sources and self-documentation. Miami33139 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Can I please ask the closing administrator to note the two current keep votes are jokes, and not actually discussion. Miami33139 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find blogs and wikis but no coverage in reliable sources. It may be notable in the future not right now. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOT paper. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An argument which completely fails to address the issues presented for deletion, and makes no positive claim to address an issue for preservation. Miami33139 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per WP:SNOW. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Ifg anything, this article stands a snowball's chance in hell of being kept with it's lack of sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BRRR AndysCrogz1 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_{Indented !vote from an indefinitely blocked user. (See user's talk page) --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:42, 28 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) 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent reliable sources are found. WP cannot be a listing of every piece of software in existence, but only of the ones which have verifiable information about them. If there are reliable sources, then given the amount of coverage in blogs as well, this would probably meet WP:N, but at the moment it fails WP:V. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 01:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia seems to have many pages about free software, and I find it very useful when looking for information about free software programs (even the little-known ones). Many of them have few sources, but that does not generally impair the quality of these articles. Through WP: IAR, I believe that the rules can and should be relaxed a bit to help document the vast body of free software. This particular article is well-structured and well-written. I am confident that new sources will be added as they become available. It is useful and should be kept. To delete it would be to remove a lot of excellent work. Peteweez (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Snow is a codec, not just a piece of software. It is noteworthy because it was the only free wavelet based video codec until Dirac came about. Wavelet based codecs are supposedly the next step in the evolution of video and still image encoding (JPEG2000 is also wavelet based, the old JPEG and current MPEG codecs are DCT based). This codec is history in the making, and you can already tell. This article should be expanded, not deleted. And the fact that this article is not just a link and reference fest should be taken as a good thing. Wikipedia is more than collecting references to other sources, new things start happening in Wikipedia before they hit other, slower, more mainstream sources. 16:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.37.170.58 (talk)
- Comment. Wikipedia is actually about collecting references, to a large extent. You might want to read the policies on verifiability and original research -- while it may be true that "new things start happening in Wikipedia," that's really not supposed to happen. That said, I'll look for some information on Snow as a wavelet codec in particular, and see if I can manage to find some reliable sources. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The more I look, the more I am concerned about this article. This codec is clearly used by a substantial number of people and projects, but I can't find any reliable sources that document it, to the extent that I can't even confirm the assertion that it was the first free wavelet-based video codec. (By comparison, there are many sources for Dirac, but this is a bit unfair because the latter was developed by the BBC.) This is somewhat bewildering. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any geek can slap together a UI, call it a project and pull in some other open source libraries and get google hits. Everybody wants to make a media player and brag about supporting every codec ever devised. That is why these things are not notable even if they have "substantial number of people and projects" We have entirely too much un-referenced documentation on software based simply on the assertion that it is available for download. Miami33139 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 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 02:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warganism

No independent evidence of notability here: all sources are self-published. ~~Also, note that the interwiki links are all bogus, as they lead nowhere.~~ Biruitorul ^Talk 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Metalhead
and many others

In addition, numerous interviews and articles on the band, the album Centipede, and the live shows allongside bands like Samael, Napalm Death, Behemoth, and others can be found on:
Metalhead

and many others

Other online / printed media references can be furnished on request

— Victorstoica (Talk | contribs) 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:31, 25 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) 01:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources cited are reliable independent sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hammer is correct in their assessment of the sources; that sources can be furnished upon request is kind of a red herring. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:37, 30 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 02:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Soap Show

Fails WP:WEB. Sources are inadequate to establish notability; a short blog entry and a directory listing. Jfire (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:47, 26 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) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. --Peephole (talk) 20:29, 30 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 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New England Brokerage Corp. (NEBC)

No references and no clear assertion of notability. More than half of the article is focussed on a subsidiary part of the organisation. Most of the content is vague and uninformative. Tone is somewhat promotional. DanielRigal (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author has now removed the vague and promotional sections and the article now could be considered a valid stub. None the less, we still need a reference for notability. If that can be provided then I will withdraw the deletion nomination. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would think that a "boutique" bank would be inherently non-notable. Only ref is the company's website. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:20, 27 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) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this page and am in agreement with the proposed deletion. Qwert87 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 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 vandalism/hoax. ... discospinster _talk 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Constantin von Kasa-Hunyady

This article is a hoax by a conceited individual. Its content is completely unverifiable and lacks reliable third party references. The creator's first attempt (with the title: Kása-Hunyady Gábor) on the Hungarian Wikipedia was deleted just a few days ago. Please delete this page as it is 100% forgery. 5i9n0n (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probable hoax, article cannot be verified.Esasus (talk) 23:46, 26 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) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every source I checked fails to confirm the article, designed to be misleading. The person does not seem to exist in places like cuil.com Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:03, 29 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 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look Who's Talking (Boa Song)

The song fails WP:NSONGS (Moon) and (Sunrise) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 00:55, 27 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) 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't chart, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs, no sources found. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, non-notable. Delete. LexArt (talk) 11:07, 29 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 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marquise Brown

This person doesn't appear to be notable at all. Google turns up hits for other people with the same name; the only thing this girl turns up is IMDb. Closedmouth (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 24 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) 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she only played small parts in minor shows, does not pass the BIO standard, sources are not significant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Karmazin

Either nonnotable or hoax. The article subject's main claim to notability is a high rating on Comedy Central's up-and-coming comedians list and as author of cracked.com articles, but no sources are provided and none was found. Searching on the name "Alex Karmazin" gives a total of 32 hits, most of them unrelated to the article. General behavior of original author is suspect, totalling a handful contributions that include several vandal edits. Also, the author used subsequent vandal content from an IP address by slightly reworking it as new article content. Judging by a comment on the author's talk page, a version of this article was previously deleted in 2007 as nonsense. Article fails WP:RS, WP:V, and notability guidelines for people. Michael Devore (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 24 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) 00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 34 Google hits for the name, and not one supports any of the article's content. Thoroughly fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Either a hoax or non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxy. Most of the Google hits on this name are for a pediatric endocrinologist. Maralia (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a hoax. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 05:24, 31 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. kur ykh 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stevens (songwriter)

Could not locate any significant coverage for this individual for any of his careers -- acting, singing, songwriting, or religious. Tried "Mark Stevens" + variety of disambiguating terms. Seems to fail WP:BIO; tagged as such since September 2007. Jfire (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 24 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) 00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no substantial independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 00:35, 30 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 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Craig

I considered requesting WP:CSD#A7, but opted to PROD instead, which was contested by the article's creator. Musician that doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSIC, I was unable to find any third party coverage, and the record label that is listed is self-created as seen on its myspace page. Two of the bands that he has played for have already been speedy deleted [38], [39]. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of Google hits but almost all of them are not of this Donnie. Insufficient indpendent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 24 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) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I concur with JamesBurns, searching pulls up nothing of substance. Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Woody. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action sports arabia

Contested PROD, not getting any hits on Gnews only found one article that might be from a paper. Other than that mostly myspacey hits. §hep • ^Talk 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I wasn't sure what category to sort this under, so I went by the title and not content. Was that the correct way to do this, or should it be sorted under "Biographical"? Thanks. §hep • ^Talk 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 19 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 00:02, 24 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) 00:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, not even an assertion of notability (starting something is not notability, besides the fact the "subject" of the article is the organization/site, not the starter of it). So tagged. If not, then non-notable organization/person with no reliable independent sources. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 10:02, 29 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 02:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Srebre Delovski

CSD A7 denied and prod contested by an IP. The article does not assert the notability of the subject, only that he is a football referee in Australia and also an accountant. There is no mention of him being given non-trivial coverage in multipleWP:RS. The only sources provided confirm that he exists, but nothing else. I think its a clear delete per WP:N. Firestorm (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 20 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 00:00, 24 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) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only trivial mentions in reliable sources, although there are plenty of them. no notability is claimed in the article. Calling it Australian football is misleading as it is called soccer in Australia - Australian football = Australian rules football. It could be worth checking out CategoryAustralian football (soccer) referees for other things to delete, as normally we count players as being notable, rather than referees. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A9. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Node (music)

Not sure about this one, but WP:MUSIC requires two albums released and the article claims only one with no other assertion of notability SpinningSpark 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A9 since it's about the album and not the band, and the band doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you're right, I'm not thinking straight, going to bed. SpinningSpark 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band has a couple of releases, I´ll add more, but might take me some time. They also have done a couple of live performances. They use some very interesting ways to make their music which I think are notable, see http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/dec95/node.html?print=yes&session=15511f6b056401be4e449c9a0c1ad999 Hreinn (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:MUSIC first. "Interesting ways" != notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, I concur with the speedy delete. Even if there was a real band attached to the end of that link, it's still little more than a track listing, so fails WP:MUSIC#Albums anyhow. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 29 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 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armia

Not notable Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:51, 27 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 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, using an amazing search tool called google pulled up these non-trivial mentions, [40], [41], [42], thus they pass WP:MUSIC#C1. 13 of their albums have been released on Metal Mind Productions, [43], so they pass WP:MUSIC#C5 as well. Oh, and they've toured [44]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those all look pretty trivial. The first says (in its last sentence) that the band's album is almost impossible to find. The others merely reprint the text from the band's own Myspace page. Oh, and listing the same references twice (2 is the same as 4; 3 is the same as 5) does not exactly prove notability. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were used more than once because the info contained in it was relevant to more than one of the criteria of WP:Music. That aside, they only need to meet one of the criteria, and they easily do that with the album releases. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's an article in Gazeta Wyborcza, a newspaper of equivalent standing to The New York Times or The Times, that starts with the words "Legends of Polish punk rock, Armia, are celebrating their 20th birthday." If that newspaper thinks they are legends, and notable enough to mark their bithday with an article then who are we to argue? Also they have had albums released on Tonpress and Pronit, both labels that operated in communist times when minor labels didn't exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: having charted on a national music chart[45] they meet WP:MUSIC#C2. --JD554 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but there also seems to be a Russian band of that name. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:03, 1 February 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 Beastie Boys Anthology: The Sounds of Science . MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country Mike's Greatest Hits

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Country Mike's Greatest Hits

Unreleased album, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable unofficial release WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this could be a section of the Beastie Boys Anthology: The Sounds of Science article. --Bobak (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 29 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.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derwin Washington

Fails WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't this just be speedied? Katr67 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But why do you agree that this should be deleted?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL Isn't it obvious? OK, delete per nom and completely, absolutely, positively, non-notable. Also unsourced. ;) Katr67 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Looks to be an obvious candidate for WP:CSD#A7. No notability established or asserted. Google doesn't turn up anything significant. I just requested that it be deleted per db-person. [46]. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Besencon

A procedural nomination as this article was deleted by WP:PROD in December, recreated and prodded again. I have declined the second prod to bring it here. The rationale for deletion on the prod was "Not verifiable, not notable, no sources from Google or Google News. His clients are famous and notable, not him." Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Pages of MySpace-like hits on Google, zero hits on Google News. Bongo matic 20:24, 25 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 00:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a case of self-promotion. LSD (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any sources to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = The Prod was mine, so I of course agree with the reasoning. :) My research shows that there are no real references for him. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:51, 1 February 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 02:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JackHartedraft

Notability of the person based upon writing books which are themselves not notable as they have not been the subject to multiple reviews independant to the book it self. DFS454 (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've moved the page to Jack Harte (author). The original title was really bad. flaming lawyer 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in fact does cite several reviews of the subject's work in the Irish Independent, and there is this one in The Irish Times and this one in The Hindu. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 26 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 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one, there is a better article on him already at Jack Harte (Irish writer). He seems notable enough to me - multiple reviews of his work, published by major literary presses, etc. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:56, 29 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 speedily deleted Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming of the Age

No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. No professional reviews or evidence of charting found at allmusic. Prod removed without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no question. WP:MUSIC, WP:V, and more than likely WP:PROMOTION. Probably a candidate for speedy deletion. LSD (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, searches bring up nothing. Now tagged as CSD A7. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G3 by PMDrive1061. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ergal

Hoax. Look at the date of birth as an example. Aged 2! No Ghits for this alleged perosn Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,I surrender. It was speedied already. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 29 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.