Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 27

< December 26	December 28 >

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 (attack page) by Orangemike. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jud_gardner

fictitious content designed to cause damage to a private individual

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Purging

Does not seem to meet criteria for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the same type of company as Sandbag (non-profit organisation), which has an article. Seems Carbon Purging is larger in scope in that it covers not only EU permit trading but also US permit trading. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable organisation that falls well short of meeting WP:ORG. Carbon Purging returns 38GHits, 2 wikis and 36 unrelated to the organisation. Nuttah (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although fairly non-notable currently, that is only due to it being a new organization. Its scope is larger than said similar article (Sandbag (non-profit organisation)). Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable with potential is still non-notable.Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I saw a blurb about it on the news in Derry, NH. I'd say the news covering it is notable. Zmscwst (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:ORG "Primary Criteria" says that coverage in secondary sources (like a newspaper) must be significant. A blurb is not significant coverage. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Unless you saw the news item, please do not assume its significance. I will try to contact the person who posted that to find out what, exactly, blurb means. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I apologize. What I should have said is that generally speaking, what most people would call a blurb would not be significant. I hope we will get a response as to how detailed the news coverage actually was. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy - I don't think there's any reason to wait for a response from whoever is supposed to be getting back to someone about some news report they might have seen. If there are no references added to an article after being listed for deletion for 5 days, the article is usually deleted. It can always be re-created if and when a source is found. I suggest it be removed from article space in the meantime and userfied for possible recreation at some later date, rather than holding up the deletion debate to wait for some hearsay evidence. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:23, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Oroso (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:CSD#A7 certainly does seem to fit. The article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and required by A7, and the article is about the organization itself, and does not make "any credible claim of significance or importance" so WP:CSD#A7 does apply. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of an article on an organization where the subject's importance is discussed. Also, should the article not be about the organization itself? If not, what should it be about? Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's admittedly shakey grounds, as who's to say what makes a group important? But here: United Way of America seems to do an adequate job, whereas Carbon Purging says "The organization was announced in 2008 by environmentalist Mike Jewett." The organization was announced -- the article doesn't even say that they've done anything yet, are organized in any way, or have any members. It just says some guy announced that he created an organization, and then describes its website. I'm not sure what the exact threshold is for the assertion of importance or significance, but this article sure hasn't met it. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:54, 29 Dec 2008 (UTC)
I gotcha. One small clarification point - when you say "organized in any way", what do you mean by that? Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of officers and roles, a description of its hierarchy, mode of operation, office locations... stuff like that. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:04, 29 Dec 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Microsoft, Apple, Inc.. All of those articles in some way make it clear why the organization is notable. It may not be openly stated, but a quick reading of the first few paragraphs makes it clear. Kinda like porn and the SCOTUS, you know it when you see it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But... No amount of editing can make a non-notable organization notable. In this case, the organization is just not notable enough to merit inclusion. It fails the common-sense stink test. Just announced, mostly unmentioned, with no proof of achievements. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for the good info! Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable, independent sources are present in the article and I have been unable to find any. Without reliable sourcing there is no way to verify the information in the article or show the group meets the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for organisations. Whether the group will become notable in the future is should not be relevant as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shanna Katz

Not clear how this person is notable. That she was named "11th sexiest blogger" by some website seems her main claim to fame. Otherwise, she apparently has written a few published articles about sex. I don't see that internet-based sexual journalism is particularly noteworthy in this world. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not supported by reliable sources. Óðinn (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Vanity and/or NN. roux 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Notobility guidelines . Agathoclea (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Corruption

Page reads as unfounded attack on a product, lacking citation, context, or sources. ThuranX (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am an engineer at Microsoft, and this is really the major cause of corruption. I love Microsoft Excel, just that well, sometimes it get corrupted by bad reference, especially in multiple version use (excel 2000 to 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if it's true -- It needs to be verifiable and notable. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:52, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Notable it is, excel has more than 300 millions users worldwide. Verifiable, well you would need a collection of excel corrupted document from tech support in some company, and make stats about what percentage are corrupted by which method —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the information here on what is and isn't considered notable on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Notability. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:24, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Delete: This unreferenced article has hardly any content at all, it's like a poorly written section of the excel article was just copied into an unnecessary article. – Jerry^teps 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons already stated by others. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:53, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? I mean Excel is a very popular software and if 0.1% of people experience corruption issues, that article could help hundreds of thousands of people. --Nicholasethier (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia isn't here to help people :) Or rather, the fact that an article would help people isn't reason enough to keep it around. Wikipedia has very specific instructions for which articles are to be kept. Read the information at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:46, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)
    - Please be more specific why YOU don't believe my original reason why it is notable or verifiable are not valid one? Just giving me links to very long general text is not helping— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs)
      - It would help if you read them. In short, you need independent reliable third-party sources -- in this case something other than the Microsoft website -- that talk about the issue. Otherwise the topic isn't considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you need more info on the rules here, feel free to read my useless links. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)
        Do you know any Independant reliable third-party sources that discuss of Excel corruption Except Microsoft website? If you do, let me know so that I can search in them rather than anywhere else— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs)
        No I don't know of any offhand, though you have about 5 days to improve the article before a decision is made. I would recommend reading through the notability guidelines though, so that you know the best ways to edit the article, and whether or not the topic could ever even be considered notable, which there's no guarantee of.Equazcion •✗/C • 00:59, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing that couldn't be in the Excel article, if it could be verified. As it stands, delete per ThuranX and others as not verifiable and not notable. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, if Microsoft website Knowledgebase and 300 millions user is not notable enough, well nothing will satisfied you guys and knowledge will not be dispersed. Could we settle down with a mention that some quote in the article needs independent sources? I would hate that such useful knowledge be lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasethier (talk • contribs) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We've got around 2 million other articles on Wikipedia, so I think it's a slight exaggeration to say that nothing will satisfy us. What would be a start would be if you actually read the rules first. If you want to create articles, that's the first step. It's unavoidable. Once you read those, you'll have a better understanding of what the article needs and what you can do to improve it -- and, whether or not it can be improved enough to keep, since as someone else suggested, this info could go in the Excel article, and probably doesn't need its own. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 28 Dec 2008 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable as well as unverifiable original research. MuZemike (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please userfy to my page not copyvio, so good enough. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As tempted as I am to say G1, I'll settle for WP:V.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4single

There are many thousands of online dating thingies. This one has just 15,000 members, according to this article - that's a lot, but nothing compared to many of them. Also, the fact it is orphaned rather suggests it isn't notable compared to anything else. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, no sources, blatant advertising. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:31, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)
Delete obvious advertising. It may have some notability as thousands of users use it, but it is not encyclopedic and too adverty. Tavix (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an unsourced advert. Matt (Talk) 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset (comics)

Completely unremarkable comic books. roux 23:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've CSD'd it. We'll see what happens... flaming lawye r^c 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough.. it didn't seem speedable to me (not quite within any of the CSD cats). // roux 23:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, it isn't. I declined the speedy, as A7 clearly is limited to exclude books. Regards So Why 23:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh darn. flaming lawye r^c 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Lack of sources to establish notability.--Jmundo (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I would have turned it down for CSD as well, but that still doesn't mean that it is notable. Trusilver 07:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G7 - author has blanked the article. _Talk Islander 01:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who (revived series)

unnecessary fork from main featured article Doctor Who and completely without discussion, let alone consensus. WP:SNOW should apply to this maverick creation. Rodhull andemu 23:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being the nominator, I have resisted closing this Afd, as a breach of responsibility; but the creator of the page has now blanked it, and I have deleted it as CSD#G7, and not for the first time today. Whether its author intended that, I cannot tell, because no edit summary was left. However, doing so has consequences, and they have followed. Should any other Admin think there is merit in developing this article, it can always be copied into the editor's userspace to be worked on. Meanwhile, this has been a sorry experience for all concerned, and the article's creator should not take it to heart. --Rodhull andemu 01:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Keep: This article is to make it easier for people looking for the revived series easier to find; and easier to find the information they need. And when it is FINISHED it will provide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pic Editor960 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC) — Pic Editor960 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep:The new Doctor Who series differs in many ways from the previous run and can be considered separate in many ways, and will make it easier to find this information. NoVomit (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant with main Doctor Who article and unlikely search term. Rklear (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's all covered in Doctor Who. flaming lawye r^c 23:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - redundant to Doctor Who, a featured article. This fork from a featured article was created without discussion, let alone consensus (consensus to fork would never have been gained in this case). Moreover, the creator was made well aware that discussion should occur before forking. No need to dilute a featured article into two articles. _Talk Islander 23:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was made to help people looking for the revived series get the information they need easier than the main page (LOTS of information; not just on revived) it is not finished yet either when it is you will see this. Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(LOTS of information; not just on revived)" - you what? You mean that this article entitled 'Doctor Who (revived series) will include lots of information on Doctor Who, but not just the revived series? You mean like how Doctor Who contains lots of information on Doctor Who, but not just the classic series? Your argument's flawed. That aside, you still haven't explained why you're bulldozing ahead without much needed discussion. _Talk Islander 23:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there is lots of information on the main page and its hard to find things on the revived series as it is slipped in here and there. This article is ONLY on the revived series. Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (MULTIPLE EC's) Let's not devalue an FA with a fork like this. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This article is better than having the main article and the new revival series together. It seems to have more information than the main article; or atleast seems that it will provide it. 86.161.254.105 (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC) — 86.161.254.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe this article should be up for deletion yet, wait and see what information it will provide when it is done, you are deleting before you see its potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pic Editor960 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also you should try to see the potential of this article as it will create a faster way of people finding what they need on it or even just to see whats going on with the current series not just the classic. Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. No reason to create a fork, especially to create such a lightweight article. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fine delete :@ i just want you to no i tried to make this article so it was easier for you guys to get info, but no-one seems to care. Wasted two hours of my life for fuckin nothinPic Editor960 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." is displayed at the bottom of every editing page. It's not our fault if you didn't notice that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; "current" information has no more significance over older info. Surely, if there is going to be a revived series article, there should be a classic series article as well? Therefore, what is the purpose of the main series article? Such a system will likely result in our having duplicate, redundant information, and it is confusing to not have a main article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I love the revived series of doctor who; and this article has provided an easier way for me to get information on it. PugLoveruu (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC) — PugLoveruu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep - I completely agree with the comment above mine, this is an easier way for me to get information —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSI"66666 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC) — CSI"66666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Better than having the main article all as one splitting the revived series out was a good idea. 86.161.254.105 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Duplicate vote stricken.[reply]

Delete There's no reason to keep this article, as the information within it can be kept in the main article. Bad fork and abysmal behavior by obvious socks wanting to keep this. They can stop anytime now, please. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Great Article - well done on creating it. Celebrations000 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC) — Celebrations000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment per User:Mrschimpf, any further disruption by single-edit accounts to this discussion will result in sanctions being imposed. --Rodhull andemu 00:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I like the idea of a separate article to view easier way for info. 86.161.254.105 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC) third !vote by blocked sockpuppet SPA stricken.[reply]
- Note - I have struck out all blatent single-purpose accounts (SPA) up to this point in the discussion, i.e. those with only one edit to this page. It's fairly clear that the creator of this article isn't familiar with WP:SOCK, along with a load of other policies. _Talk Islander 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary fork Sceptre ^(talk) 00:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeta P.

Fails WP:MUSIC; NN. Also is an identical recreation of a previously-speedied article by the creator (Verbalskillzrecords), who is almost certainly the subject of the article and has been blocked as a promo-only user. roux 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Óðinn (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC Matt (Talk) 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Talmud

The page was previously deleted through some combination of CSD and PROD and moved to the userspace, with the user being warned (at length) about the inappropriateness of the article. Despite this it has returned. The article in question is in an essay-like format and has distinct elements of original research. The referencing is an obvious problem; the bible is not what I would describe as an independent, reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In this form it is unacceptable. The topic may be notable, but this article is a negative for the project. Note that copies of the page are on the user's page User:Standforder and in a subpage here User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud. Verbal chat 23:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOR and is written like a personal essay. NoVomit (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is notable, and could well be handled in detail from several different aspects, possibly in separate articles, but this article is not a practical way to start. It isn't OR exactly, just too disorganized to be useful.DGG (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious essay- almost entirely synthesis. Nevard (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, criticism of the Talmud is well within the Jewish tradition. However this is not an encyclopedia article. Author should find another outlet for his work. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be possible to have an encyclopedic treatment of this topic - but this article isn't it. Jon513 (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify The topic is worth an article, but this isn't it, per my agreement with most of the delete !votes above. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit It's in point form, it is not in an "essay form", it can adjusted by editing serving as the basis for a future article. that's non-sense it lists many, many references, it quote professional sources in bold type. It quotes the bible to compare the basis of the critisim on the basis of theology. Deleting it is utter non-sense! Remember Freedom of speech, & freedom of belief. Deleting would only reveal your bias beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 20:55, December 28, 2008
Really? It would show our biased beliefs? See, that's odd, because you've been accusing me of accusing you of being an anti-semite and generally acting like a spoilt child since I put the AfD up, and that wasn't even close to it actually being deleted. When a user starts harping on about freedom of speech and belief it is normally because no policy will support them and they are grasping at straws. There is freedom of speech; you are free to say something, we are free to take that something down. There is also freedom of belief, although I don't quite know how that comes in here; you are free to believe whatever you want. I, and the majority of the editors here, are free to believe that your page should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation in proper style, per Jon513. As it is, this is an unencyclopedic essay. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be a decent article on this subject someday, but I just don't see any way the present content or history can be of use. Jonathunder (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the cited sources are largely trivial and insufficient to establish encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerraud Powers

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

Strong Delete ~~High school~~ College athlete whose claim to fame is being bitten by a dog. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 22:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's actually a college athlete, but whatever... flaming lawye r^c 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good evidence of notability and recognition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep-- Per the references provided above, meet wp:athlete. --Jmundo (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, unless college football is now fully professional? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His notability is established by substantial coverage from reliable sources and a notable award for being the defensive player of the year at Auburn University. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: WP:Athlete suggests that no amateur athlete is notable enough, unless they compete at for instance a World Championship (or a BCS title game, I imagine?). (That means no Rashad Johnson or Andre Smith, since the Tide is only in the Sugar Bowl?) Anyway, I would like someone to weigh in on this, since that's the rub. Despite one editor's hard and diligent work on the article, I don't think this athlete is notable enough--the Zeke Smith award didn't even make the paper here, and I live an hour and a half away. Now, getting bit by a dog, I remember it well! But then, I'm a Alabama fan... (so, I'm leaning toward delete...) Drmies (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ample media coverage of Powers in a variety of settings seems to meet the more general notability guideline. And I would think getting an award as the best defensive player on your Div 1 team (Kevin Greene got it...)is competing at a pretty high level of Football. But I agree it's not a slam dunk. I would like to point out the extraordinary conflict of interest regarding Drmies being a Bama fan. :) Should he be blocked from editing any Auburn related articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the most blatant accusation I've had to face since I got out of walking the dog yesterday (bad hamstring...war wound...). What's with the biting, Child? Got a jaw-fetish? Just to show you what a good sport I can be: here. (Hope the link works for you--the archives for the Montgomery Advertiser are not accessible to me, strangely.) Now, in the interest of full disclosure, my paycheck actually comes from Auburn. There. And I'll see you at arbitration, if my dog doesn't bite you in the hand first. Oh, grudgingly, I might stop leaning toward delete, if only because, as the Bear used to say, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. (OK, that doesn't really apply, but come on, it's not a bad find.) Drmies (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough as a college player. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete From the onset appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Most of the sources cited are reliable, but I'm not convinced that he's notable enough. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 07:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ample coverage could've satisfied notability guidelines that trumph any ATHLETE specific ones, but the majority of references are trivial mentions. The coverage is not significant enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Davies

I originally declined an A7 on this article as having an album that "continues to sell an average of 50,000 units per year" is a pretty good assertion of notability but I have been unable to verify this claim and there is little to no coverage of this guy in reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the IMDB page for the film Charity does not list him in the credits ([1]), and I haven't seen any proof of a Phonogram record he's done. Misinformation was to make him notable, IMHO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK it is a bit weak but the seed of an article is there. He is credited at the end of the movie (which is available from the directors website) Have left a note on notability on the discussion page in case others are able to verify the information. Lame Name (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article lacks substantial 3rd party verification. JamesBurns (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by CSD. (WP:NAC) flaming lawye r^c 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Needle

Nothing here establishes any notability for the article's subject. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I CSD'd it, we'll see what happens... flaming lawye r^c 23:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. _Talk Islander 13:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Davis

No reliable sources to indicate notability. Only a very short mention in an interview and an album review, and a non-reliable forum posting. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've CSD-A1'd it. flaming lawye r^c 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant A7. flaming lawye r^c 23:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't qualify for A7 since there is an assertion of significance there. However, I'll say delete per nom. I searched, and found a mention in an article in the Buffalo News but it is so brief as to not even help verify anything in the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - delete Though my CSD was declined, I still think it's A7 material, so delete. flaming lawye r^c 22:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!It is mentioned on Hot Topic's website as per new link. Seems legit. Also - why not try contacting him at the e-mail address provided in the statement on the forum's website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.193.152 (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting trivia, but one news blurb cycle, or a date with a model, does not make one notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic capabilities of modern world leaders

An indiscriminate list of world leaders and the languages they speak. What languages should be included? Which leaders should be included? Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could understand a category that joins these types of articles, but not a listing. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at the moment - it's just really interesting, & it cites its sources ... could it find a home on a sister site? A merge? Franciscrot (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be nothing but trivia, and much of it is unreferenced (eg, to whom is it 'unknown' whether the leader speaks various languages?). The decision to limit the range of languages to Japanese and eight European languages (including Swedish for some reason) is also rather odd and highlights the pointlessness of such a list. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't call this an indiscriminate list. Which leaders should be included? - The head of state of any nation. What languages should be included? - The 6 official languages of the United Nations, Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. In addition two 6 columns for those 6 languages, I would add a 7th column to note the leader's native language. It would also be kept up-to-date with the current head of state for any given nation. An 8th column could also be added to note any additional languages the head of state speaks. I would also change "modern world leaders" to "current heads of state" in the title. LinguistAtLarge 22:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that would just result in a long list of political leaders who spoke none of the UN's six official languages, and a sea of red (or one colour) in the table? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Linguist. flaming lawye r^c 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreliable inconsistent sourcing. Probably not possible to do properly without OR, DGG (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - very interesting concept; execution needs to address some concerns: (1) How is this table not going to become huge and unwieldy? Who will be excluded, and why? (2) How, really, are these "capabilities" verifiable? Even if someone is said to "speak" two languages, how is that determined? In other words, don't we need variables like fluency, reading vs. speaking vs. writing, etc? And doesn't that bring the problem back around to one of a potentially huge and unwieldy table? (3) What is the context for this list? There's no introduction or framing-- just a table. I am saying "keep" in spite of these concerns, because I believe they could all be addressed with improvements to the article.Jlg4104 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaders who speak only their native tongue shouldn't go into the main table. They can be organized differently. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much per DGG. Trusilver 09:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is fun and somewhat interesting. However it is not an encyclopedia article so it would be better to post it elsewhere on the Internet and give an external link in Multilingualism. I also suspect that part of the purpose is for citizens of one nation to be able to say, "See how great our leader is. He can speak 5 languages. Your's can only speak one." Also the Pope is included. How about the 14th Dalai Lama. At least 3 or 4 I would think. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The Pope is far and away the most accomplished speaker. Perhaps there is an agenda here to glorify him. Not that that is a bad thing to do. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page I suggested changing the article to "List of multilingual world leaders." That would take care of most of the problems mentioned here. I could also mention that it is hard to add a name in the current format and that listing single language leaders seems a bit mean spirited. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just created "Category:Multilingual World Leaders" Steve Dufour (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even if it was renamed to that title, it doesn't address who counts as a "world leader" (just current heads of state, or a more inclusive set of criteria?) Also, that would mean, anyone who spoke two or more languages would be considered multi-lingual, again raising the issue of linguisticaly talented heads of state vs. those who only speak two languages. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to make the category a little vague, to include Herbert Hoover, noted for his Chinese, and a governor of Hong Kong who spoke 100 languages.Steve Dufour (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the category page would include world leaders past and present, as long as they're individually notable? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I intended, as long as the person's language skills are also noted in his or her article. I don't think a person speaking his native language and English, or an American speaking English and Spanish, or a Canadian speaking English and French, etc. are worth mentioning. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Info is relevant, and I think this keeping does add value to WP. I understand the POV concerns that have been raised, but as single-language leaders aren't included, I think we've avoided that. Needs an intro, though. Graymornings_(talk) 20:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If single-language leaders aren't included, then the article would have to be renamed to something like Linguistic capabilities of multi-lingual current heads of state, or something to that effect. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could come up with something shorter. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Multilingual World Leaders, has been nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 30#Category:Multilingual World Leaders. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending out the heads up. I like the category (which is natural since I created it) regardless if what happens with this AfD. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 18:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War dialing

Unreferenced since creation, and about half the article is about something else (wardriving etc.). Guy (Help!) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll be back later, but the topic itself is notable and important. Sourcing is out there. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The term is one of the oldest phreaker terms, and extremely notable. The article is crap, but this not a reason for deleting. Very notable, and an encyclopedic article on this topic is needed. I'll try to get to it when it survives. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - We definitely should have an article on this topic-- although it may not seem it based on the current article, the term is actually very very notable. Obviously, much room for improvement in the current article. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Extremely notable topic; poorly written, unsourced article. LinguistAtLarge 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- Very notable- as for WarXing... Nevard (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable (examine any book on computer hacking/security), & Guy's concerns could be more simply handled by excising several paragraphs of clearly tangential material -- & providing references. This is turning into a snowball keep. -- llywrch (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Here's nearly 300 online searchable texts, and these; hundreds for war driving, and these which, IMHO, are fine to keep together as they are bundled concepts in hackerdom. -- Banjeboi 13:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, due to the following factors:

(1) All established users apart from the nominator participating in the discussion supported the retention of the article, at least in some form. I considered "move" comments to favor retention of the article insofar as moving the page would not involve any deletion. The "keep" closure only disposes of the question of whether the article should be deleted entirely; editors supporting renaming are free to propose a move on the talk page and at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

(2) The sources provided in André_Dallaire#References indicated that André Dallaire has received sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline.

(3) WP:BLP1E, which the nominator cited as grounds for deletion, is inherently quite subjective in its application. Since no other established users participating in the discussion believed that it supported complete removal of the article, it would have been inappropriate to delete the article on such grounds.

(4) The article contained no extreme policy violations that would compel its deletion in a manner decidedly against consensus, such as clear copyright violations, or being comprised entirely of unsourced controversial information concerning living persons. John254 02:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

André Dallaire

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, as he is notable for one event. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy keep and close - He is not notable for a single event. He is notable for multiple, related events: 1) The Breaking 2) The Arrest 3) The Trial/Legal proceedings 4) The security repercussions his actions created 5) His coverage by the media. The article as it stands is crap, and doesn't cover him or the events correctly or totally, but this is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to expand.

I must point out that my request to speedy close, is because this article was mentioned in one of the AfDs for the Gitmo prisoners, and after more than two years it is now that this is raised, a few hours after the mention. Before I do so, please tell me why we shouldn't think this is a WP:POINTy AfD? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not five events; it's the series of consequences proceeding from a single event. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked how some other article could be deleted when this article existed; I checked this article and considered that Mr. Dallaire was not notable. I certainly wasn't trying to make a point. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep depending on the event, the people can be notable . The attempted assasination of a head of governments is significant enough historically to count as notable. DGG (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Attempting to assassinate a president unfortunately makes one notable. It seems this AfD was made in bad faith as I found it coming from here and it seems it was done to make a point. NoVomit (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an article about the event. He is only notable for this event and the event itself is far more notable than the man himself. The references give further proof of that. DoubleBlue (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an article about the event per DoubleBlue. While I can see the point that attempting to assassinate a national leader should constitute notability, this is far from being on the level of John Hinckley, Jr. The event is notable; the person is just the answer to a particularly obscure trivia question. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how is it different from Hinckley? Hinckley's previous obsession with an movie star? that's the sort of thing we normally think totally by itself unnotable as gossip and tabloid fodder. What made each of them notable is the attempted assassination. I agree it's less well known to people in the United States, but that's not the standard. DGG (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people, Canadians and Americans alike, if asked "who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan?" could say "John Hinckley, Jr.", whereas even Canadians couldn't tell you that "André Dallaire" is the name of the guy who broke into 24 Sussex and attempted to stab Jean Chrétien. The incident is certainly notable, nobody's disagreeing with that — but even most Canadians can't actually name the person, which is why the article should be about the incident. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, as pointed out already it was nominated to prove a point by a user who wished to delete the biography of a Guantanamo prisoner. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (A Canadian who obviously can name Dallaire and believes he easily meets notability criteria)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted G12 as a copyvio of this page (click on Walterschied's name) Black Kite 11:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Walterschied

Grand, uncited claims in bio - says he has represented "A" list actors and screenwriters, but none listed. Seems like a vanity article. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete. Heading up an award-winning company would make some notable if the awards are real and themselves notable. But that hasn't been proven. My position can be summed up as "delete, until or unless reliable third-party sources are presented". - Vianello (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to defend this page and say that everything that is mentioned is confirmed by IMDB, Internet Movie Data Base, a site that takes into consideration what is factual and what is not. IMDB goes through a process of checking facts before it is published on the site. Scott's bio is factual, from who he's worked for to what companies he's headed up. Check your sources before questioning Wonderland Productions awards. Founders, Bill McCullough and Dan Klein are both emmy-award winners, as is their company. Keep this page, it's not committing a crime, just a simple bio of Scott Walterschied's career thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pprice1 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMDB is not considered a reliable source for biographical material. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb is an essay/failed proposal, which users can "Heed them or not at your own discretion." Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb was being considered as a guideline for a year and a half and it failed, because not enough editors supported the article being a guideline. travb (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is a credible source in Hollywood and is used by all the Professionals in the Industry so I have no idea what Mr. Vernon is talking about. Lauren West —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenwest99 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Mr. Vernon is not in the industry if he is questioning Mr. Walterschied. I have been a Casting Agent for many years and he is substantial producer out here. Laurenwest99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenwest99 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren, your talk page says you work for Wonderland Productions, which is where Mr. Walterschied also apparently works. In any case, IMDB only claims he has produced three released items - two music videos/documentaries, and a small independent film. Hardly "substantial." Can you provide some secondary sources outside of IMDB? Surely someone of his important must have some press coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in this discussion, This is Pprice1 here, I simply posted my one discussion at the very beginning, discussing IMDB and Scott's bio. Like I said from the beginning, I'm not creating this page to commit a crime, I'm simply posting Scott's factual career bio. If you do your research and read the Wonderland Production site, then it is clear that this is an award-winning company and Scott is the Vice President working in Business Affairs. The two Wiki users who have marked this page for deletion are arguing that there is no list of "A" list actors and screenwriters that Scott represented... with that, I have edited that portion of the bio. And the 'award-winning' fact is cited on the Wonderland Production site. That is my case, and I've done what I can to discuss this and I do hope that this page will not be deleted in the end. The page is clean and true. Thank you for your discussions and I hope you take mine into consideration. (Pprice1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pprice1 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

First of all Mr. Vernon I do not work for Wonderland Productions. The talk page was a response to your comments. Please read it again. I work for Wilshire Casting and have been in the business for 11 years. You seem to throw around allot of inacurate statements without carefully reading. Do you work for Wikipedia? because I don't see the benefit of your comments and to attack IMDB as a viable source is quite offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenwest99 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misreading it. However, this is not about me, or you for that matter, this is about whether Scott Walterschied is notable enough to be included. IMDB has much user-generated content which is why many don't consider it a reliable source of information. Do you have any secondary resources on Mr. Walterschied - newspaper or journal articles, perhaps? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for Wilkpedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenwest99 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to a discussion on whether Wikipedia should have an article on him? Please read up on how Wikipedia works: Wikipedia:Introduction. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is check and re-checked by the staff there, and I think the Movie The Game is quite substantial and doing films with Laura Bickford (Academy Award Winner for Traffic)also. I just dont see why you are spending so much time attacking PPrice's submission, it makes no sense to me. In any event I am done because I find it getting on the border of childish. Mr. Vernon unless you work for Wilkpedia you should find some better use of your time, you seem to be a intelligent person. Why fight over this? He is a player in Hollywood and I don't think he needs Wilkpedia to tell him or us that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenwest99 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you or indulge you in responses to personal attacks. If you have proof that Walterschied is a "player", then link to it in the article. I did a Google News Archive search for his name [2] and nothing appeared; there are only 16 ghits on his name, and outside of IMDB and a one-line mention of a work he produced on Comcast. Surely anyone this important in Hollywood is going to have a lot more written about him. But if you can give us some cites that prove he really is as notable as you say, I'll gladly withdraw my AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing, like I said I am done I dont care if you withdraw it or not. I just think you have too much time on your hands and anyone attacking IMDB or a Hollywood Producer who was previously an agent at ICM does not know the industry. Again what your motivation is for spending so much of your time on this is something that absolutely strains credulity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenwest99 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no luck at finding references I haven't been able to find a mention of the last name "Walterscheid" in Variety [3]. Neither does Hollywood Reporter [4]. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is really the last thing I am going to say there was a article in Variety last week on him and the Asylum project attaching Ethan Hawke. I do not know if you say things just to say them but now I really think your credibility is in question now. Good night Mr. Vernon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenwest99 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I thank you for supporting this article (Laurenwest99). As for Mr. Vernon, I'm not sure why you are spending hours upon hours trying to find proper citations for my article. All I can say is, I hope you're getting a check at the end of the day for this, if not, then you've gone too far in trying to argue against this innocent and factual article. If you work in this industry, then you know who Scott is, you've heard of him. I don't want to go back to IMDB, but I will because IMDB's process of publishing credentials is much more in depth than Wikipedia. Apparently Wikipedia allows anybody whose anybody argue against articles. You, Mr. Vernon are exhibit A, someone who doesn't know anything about the entertainment industry, except for what you have at your Google fingertips. This process is not worth it and I won't waste my time anymore here, I'll let you do that job, Mr. Vernon. Good luck on your quest to work for Wikipedia, because I'm pretty sure they haven't signed any checks over to you thus far. (pprice1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pprice1 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to teabagging. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corpse humping

Non-notable game aspect. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as per Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content travb (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to teabagging. It's the exact same thing. flaming lawye r^c 00:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not that it's not NN, but it can be found in more than just the mentioned Halo; Counter-Strike, World of Warcraft, and others off the top of my head also have this phenomenon. Note this is just a comment; I think that because of its widespread use that it's likely that corpse hunping has made its way into other media, but that might take some digging. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to teabagging per Flaming. Possibly could be merged with teabagging as another section on teabaging in gaming. Matt (Talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to teabagging. Not sure there is a lot of information on this. But a redirect is a good short term solution. Expand the main teabagging article with information about video games. If it gets too long, split it. But not before. Keep these together. Randomran (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per withdrawal by nominator. (WP:NAC) flaming lawye r^c 03:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mancave

Neologism. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like something a 'lad's mag' might say. Non-notable neologism (which is something I do say...). Peridon (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A classic triple-n: Non-Notable Neologism. - Vianello (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is occasionally heard in popular culture references like TV Shows and commercials, and occasional references on TV news, but probably still a non-notable neologism. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have rewritten and sourced the article. It now meets the guideline for articles about notable neologisms and has multiple reliable sources reporting directly about "man caves", not just using the term "man cave". LinguistAtLarge 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep very well resourced. travb (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the additional sourcing, going back a few years, I withdraw my AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. discussion to merge can take place at the talk page –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Alphabet from A to Y with Bonus Letter Z

I just don't see that there is anything to distinguish this book from many, many others much the same as it. I suggest that there is not enough notablity for this article to remain, but as always I remain open to evidence to the contrary. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep The people involved are fairly big names. I wouldn't have started the article, but letting it be does no harm. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Steve Martin, and maybe start a new section for him as an author. There are plenty of reliable sources mentioning this book (NYTimes, Washington Post etc), but all the stories were as much focused on Martin and his new venture into authoring as they were about the book itself. So unless notability can now be inherited, this book is not notable and should be mentioned in the article about the author. To put it another way, this book's only claim to notability is that it was written by Steve Martin. Is that enough to make it notable? LinguistAtLarge 20:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here are several reliable source reviews that allow this book to pass the notability requirements of WP:BK:
- "The Alphabet from A to Y with Bonus Letter Z!." Publishers Weekly 254.39 (Oct. 2007): 55-55. Abstract: The article reviews the book "The Alphabet from A to Y with Bonus Letter Z!" by Steve Martin and illustrated by Roz Chast.
- Cooper, Ilene. "The Alphabet from A to Y with Bonus Letter Z!." Booklist 104.6 (15 Nov. 2007): 42-43. Abstract: Reviews the book "The Alphabet from A to Y with Bonus Letter Z!" by Steve Martin
- Cardon, Donna. "The Alphabet from A to Y with Bonus Letter Z!." School Library Journal 54.1 (Jan. 2008): 144-144. Abstract: The article reviews the book "The Alphabet from A to Y with Bonus Letter Z!" by Steve Martin, illustrated by Roz Chast.
- "A IS FOR AWESOME, B IS FOR BOOK." Parents (10836373) 83.1 (Jan. 2008): 26-26. Abstract: The article recommends the book "The Alphabet From A to Y With Bonus LetterZ!," by Steve Martin and illustrated by cartoonist Roz Chast.

A Google News search: [5] also provides several newspaper articles.--Captain-tucker (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews do seem to exist, and I doubt we can adequately describe the book in the main Steve Martin article without going off on an awkward tangent. Zagalejo^^^ 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ansiklopedika.org

Article about internet project with no third-party refrences or anything else asserting notability, probably subject to systematic bias--Ipatrol (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as a non-notable website Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rejected; It has 6,000 articles, but what the heck. Delete as non-notable per my rationale. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't seem to meet any of the three basic criteria for WP:WEB. If/when it does, it can be re-created. LinguistAtLarge 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable website. Res 2216 firestar 20:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It serves for the same ideals with Wikipedia. It has nearly 6000 articles. That's More than lots of wikipedia projects in different languages. Has more to give than those projects and it deserves more to be kept. It does more good than harm if it is to be kept.MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those reasons fulfill WP:WEB, the criteria for websites and similar. Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands articles and lists of porn stars here on wikipedia. How come they could be notable enough to be on wikipedia; but Ansiklopedika that serves nearly 6000 articles for free to the whole world is not notable. Better ask Jimbo Wales if porn stars lists is better to be on Wikipedia than Ansiklopedika. Regards. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the biographies of pornographic actors fulfill the notability criteria set out in WP:PORNBIO. Please read the WP:WEB page as directed to see the criteria your page will have to fulfill to be kept. "Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep a page. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go and delete than. Why open this page for comments? MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you removed the PROD tag, thereby signalling you had an issue with the page being deleted via policy. Thank you, however for confirming that even the articles creator doesn't think it fulfils the notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove any tag. And second is if it is to make you more happy to keep porno stars but not a 6000 article source of free knowledge go ahead and delete it. That was what i ment. I am not confirming it does not fullfill the notability as u say so. Thanks and regards. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I directed you to the guidelines it has to fulfill, you replied that we should "go and delete". If you do feel you can fulfil the notability guidelines, please go ahead and do so. Ironholds (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wont argue with you my friend. Go and do what makes you more happy. Pls dont reply me once again. Concentrate on the issue not me. Thanks. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I am concentrating on the issue. I feel that the page cannot possibly fulfill the guidelines set out in WP:WEB, and as such wish for it to be deleted. You, on the other hand, feel otherwise. Feel free, as I said, to expand the page in line with those guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. Epbr1 space23 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply for Omulazimoglu Don't fall into the numbers trap, with a lot of time and server space someone could theoretically create a website with thousands of pages, millions of bytes of text, and trillions of links to and from it and it wouldn't nessecarily be notable. Being a wiki dosen't make it notable either, it just indicates there's a given number of users who spend a given amount of time to create those pages. Not all Wikipedias deserve a page either of course. Wikipedia has a page because it's been covered in the news and has had an impact in popular culture. So I nominated this page because it could not demonstrate its notability by itself. Therefore I reaffirm my stance as delete.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eipix

NN video game company, has done some minor farmed-out work for a couple of the big guns, reads like pure marketing hype anyway. roux 18:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Google/Gnews didn't turn up any reliable sources, which if this company is notable, it certainly should have. LinguistAtLarge 20:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable company WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsUp_Gold

Several months after discussion, still does not meet guidelines for notability. Needs to be reviewed for deletion again. Sammael 42 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, What little material is supplied to support keeping the article does not constitute notability. Also questionable WP:NPOV given history. Sammael 42 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable software. Meatychode (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Mason (trumpet player)

Only notable for one event (and WP:BIO1E). The nearest notability criteria is WP:MUSICBIO - criteria 10, in which the recommendation is a redirect. This was redirected to Penny Lane, but contested. I have looked for sources myself, but they tend to point back to him playing in Penny Lane. In favour of him having a standalone article is that he is named as a soloist on certain recordings, such as this. How far that makes him notable I'm not sure, as I have not yet found reviews of his contributions, or anyone writing about his music playing, other than in reference to Penny lane. I suggest a redirect to Penny_Lane#Production. SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not believe articles about older artists should be deleted just because internet sources are hard to find. Someone with access to British newspaper and magazine files could do the work needed. I do not have that access. If the content is deleted, anyone wanting to find out about the artist's other work would be hindered. Is not one purpose of the encyclopedia to help people find obscure information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the original redirect contested? If no one provided a good reason, you don't need AFD to reinstate it. -- Mgm|^(talk) 18:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was contested on the basis that information on his notability could be found. I have found information that he exists, but nothing yet that indicates notability beyond Penny Lane. I think this is a fair topic for AfD as there are grey areas here and I did not wish to simply assert myself over the other user. SilkTork *^YES! 13:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt me (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article certainly needs more work but I don't think that deleting it is the correct way forward. It's a little unhelpful that some of the "contentious" material (itself a contention which I dispute!) was removed immediately before its being listed here. The not-wildly-contentious claim, that Mason did other work of note beside just being eternally blessed/cursed with the Penny Lane label, just needs a few refs and this can, I think/hope, be done. The user Hullaballoo above is also, I feel, right - the way information on Mason is found and presented has something to do with Internet bias, which can't necessarily be treated as a fair estimate of his notability. Keep, please. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that redirecting to Penny_Lane#Production is not a deletion of the information about Mason - simply putting the information in the most appropriate place. Other than his involvement in Penny Lane there appears to be nothing interesting about the chap - he was a profesional musician who also did a bit of teaching. There are a lot of people like that, and the general consensus on Wikipedia is that for a stand alone article a person should meet the criteria on WP:MUSICBIO. SilkTork *^YES! 13:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more data, properly cited, to the article, and have another bit to do. Please don't delete this while I'm working on it. Sorry, I don't meant to ignore your points in the para above! - I'm just muiltitasking, badly, right now ... DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bit obscure but just barely passes notability as written and sourcing has been introduced. If we can site the award(s) and any recognitions that would help. Also a prior version noted he had taught many of the current musicians in some field (concert orchestras?) which also seems worth noting. -- Banjeboi 02:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agil Etemadi

SC Heerenveen's third goalkeeper, hasn't played an official match for the club yet, so doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Know zilla 19:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Good faith disagreement over what material passes NOR criteria, however there is a strong enough belief that a substantial portion does pass it. Therefore a close of NC with an encouragement to rigorously discuss content at the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Reason Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that an encyclopedic article can be created on this topic: original research. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inherently original research. A very good school or college essay, but not suitable for Wikipedia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep that expresses your own opinion; "Unlikely" to be unencyclopedic; no what are you going to do to this article: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Indian_states_and_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) ". "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_US_states_and_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) They dont come from one source that compares them either. I challenge you to find one part in the article that is synthesis; like the articles above, I have listed the facts for each empire side by side without making a comparison. As to those who edit or delete saying that it is "unlikely" to be encyclopedic or they have "strong opinions", thats OR.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for allegations that say the article is OR and not based on sources, see Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [2](accessed December 26, 2008) which is one of my sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also want to delete this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Cricket_and_Baseball Teeninvestor (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three new sources have been made available, showing that there is a lot of comparison of the two empires. this is not original synthesis. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (comment: I started the whole process so I'm unsure if my vote counts at all). Teen I have some very limited knowledge about history, historians, former versions of history written by early historians (who in former times "proved" that one contry was indeed better than another to the resounding applause of their contemporary contrymen). I know nearly nothing about Cricket or Baseball. IMHO that article is also very strange and probably also worthy of deletion. BUT as I know nearly nothing about the subjects I'm not going to propose it for deletion. I like to think that I'm an amateur historian and not an amateur sport-specialist. I'm also not a Wiki-laywer. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can keep this but only if you can find other people comparing the topics, instead of doing it yourself. Actually this one is much better than the cricket vs baseball one in that respect. - Wronglostboy

~~*Preserve*~~ Article creator Teeninvestor has already 'voted' dougweller (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Earth and its peoples, World history outline, <http://www.course-notes.org/World_History/Outlines/The_Earth_and_Its_Peoples_4th_Edition_Outlines/Chapter_6_An_Age_of_Empires_R_0> (Accessed December 27, 2008)
Hyper history net, Decline of Roman and Han Empires, <http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw07hanromecollapse33100120.htm>(Accessed December 27, 2008).
Princeton University, Monetary systems of the Roman and Han Empires, <http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf>(Accessed December 27, 2008)
Comparing two classical civilizations, China Institute in America, [6](accessed December 26, 2008)

Is this not enough sources on this subject??? Theres a ton of material about this on the web. These sources and probably 100+ others you can find on google shows this article is not original research. THERE ARE FOUR SOURCES SHOWING THIS. Is that not enough?????Teeninvestor (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. I suggest that we study the presented sources carefully.

The 1st seems to me to be a site which collect essays written by American students for American students.

The 2nd seems to be (quoting): "a global community effort. Thus, essays do not use the first person nor are they written from a uniquely American perspective. In order to reflect the collective authorship of the dynamic content contained on Hyperhistory.net, the pseudonym of "Rit Nosotro" has been devised. (Writ is an archaic past tense of "written" and Nosotros is the plural pronoun for "us" in Spanish.) The authorship is "written by us"."

The 3rd is an article about the diffrence of coinage. I just know that you're going to argue that it compares the two empires but it doesn't. It could be used in relevant articles about Chinese/Roman coinage though.

The 4th is a short resumee of an organization which intends to foster US-china relations.

None of them seems to be the work of a credible historian. Flamarande (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"PRESERVE The point is that there are many sources on the internet citing this and that there are other people who study this topic. that was the original contention of this dispute. These sources prove beyond doubt that the article is not OR. The fact is that these sources show that this article is not OR, undermining your claims about original research.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above message is a comment and not a vote, I have struck the bolded preserve. Aecis·(away) ^talk 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Other bad articles are not relevant and should not be brought up here, although anyone is welcome to take them to AfD. I won't go into the inaccuracies in the article except to say that they probably exist because it is an essay rather than reporting what reliable sources have to say about the subject itself. dougweller (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the sources before you talk, thank you very much. theres four sources in the article pointing to this subject matter. I would advise you read some wikipedia policy. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Teeninvestor, I'm afraid they're right about Wikipedia policies (though some of the comments fall a bit too close to WP:BITE for my comfort): there's nothing wrong with your article, except that it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (it's really more akin to an academic paper). I suggest working on the Wikiversity version (v:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires), and perhaps creating an article out of it later as you find more sources and prior academic treatments. Wikipedia's not for everything (see WP:PANDA for more on that) :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that 5 sources show ppl are debatign this topic, therefore I source them. Then i find another 5 or 6 sources which show details about both empires, which i list. therefore, we have "proof of notability", "proof that this is not original research(I'm not the one compiling the facts" and lots of good sources. therefore, this article should stay. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not the job of an encyclopedia to compare things, but to give the facts about each and let others compare. All articles which compare two (or more) things should be deleted. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, Category:Comparisons seems a mixed bag, but I wouldn't want to lose all the articles there. Anyone know if there are any guidelines re comparisons articles in general, & comparisons & notability in particular? In principle is it OK to bring together topics with a logical affinity, if they are separately notable, verifiable, etc.? Is juxtaposition OR? Franciscrot (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be an article comparing wolves and foxes, however both can be described in Canid. The Roman and Han Empires should be juxtaposed in Empire. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:Comparison redirects to WP:Lists, which doesn't mention comparisons at all. Not particularly helpful. :) --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this article is sourced, its accurate, and its notable therefore it should stay. Its notable, and its sources are reliable, its facts are accurate. therefore it should stay.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a fact that Romans and Han empire traded via the Silk Road. Perhaps unsourced sections of the article could be cut away, and all the information with reliable sources could be merged to a background section in Sino-Roman relations? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There arent unsourced sections; all of the material is sourced and cited. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What more reliable sources do we need. We have a book with ISBN, princeton essays, several books and encyclopedias, and others.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having ISBN doesn't make it a reliable source. Most books have ISBN. What makes it reliable is if it is published by someone who has credentials in that field.There are two Princeton essays, and one http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm, is more of a general comparison of ancient Rome and China. Of all the sources, only http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/020803.pdf is an actual direct comparison between the two empires. Most of the other sources are self-published projects, and fail WP:RS. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still two princeton essays make this topic pretty well sourced. Also, author of the books are experienced publishers who have published many books. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is clearly original research as almost all of the references only cover one of the empires, and don't appear to cover a comparison between them. Similar comparison articles have been deleted when they've been brought to AfD for this reason. The preferred approach is for the articles on the two things being compared to be sufficiently good to allow readers to make this comparison themselves. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a quite proper subject of scholarly study. For example, see From the 'Great Convergence' to the 'First Great Divergence': Roman and Qin-Han State Formation and its Aftermath. The exact scope of the article is open to change should we wish to include other ancient empires such as the Turks and we should allow for this in accordance with our editing policy. Note also that we have a whole category of comparisons. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is whether the article should stay. The point is that this article does fit the criteria for notability, accuracy, source, etc... Even if you disagree with the article's contentions, it is obvious this article fits the criteria for inclusion. As colonel warden said, this is also a subject of scholarly study. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have found a book directly comparing the two empires by an expert in the field who is a credible historian: Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires by Walter Sheidel, professor of classics and world history, stanford university. ISBN: 9780195336900 . You might want to work with that. I am already adding information from this to the article. As for more credible sources check this page http://www.stanford.edu/~scheidel/acme.htm. Teeninvestor (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article only gives a general comparison of Rome and China, not a thorough comparison of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article, remember, is abotu a comparison of the two civilizations in general(see effects of barbarian invasions)Teeninvestor (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very encylcopedic subject. There's a bit of OR, but it can be removed. No reason to delete the whole article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a link http://books.google.com/books?id=QjS7W-BtXOkC&pg=PR17&dq=Rome+and+China:+Comparative+Perspectives+on+Ancient+World+Empire#PPR7,M1 It is a direct online source about Rome and china being compared! What do you have to say about that! This is one of my sources. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very natural comparison, which has led to sufficient academic interest and production to support an article, as seen above and from the article refs. Any OR could be eliminated.John Z (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided there is a substantial rewrite. The topic is notable, Teeninvestor has found reliable sources, but the article itself cannot remain full of synthesis and POV. It has good potential, if the scope is narrowed. If failing this, the article should be merged into a background section in Sino-Roman relations. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is of course notable, and of course scholars would have written comparisons between the two empires. The point is, any comparison between two marginally related entities will be a comparative essay and not an encyclopedic article (that would better fit in either WikiBooks or Wikiversity). There can be an article about what comparisons have been done by the scholars, but there cannot be an article that makes the comparison itself. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to make comparisons between two topics, that is for the reader to do. _dk (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if edited carefully -- I didn't expect to say keep, but this is fairly well done. There needs to be an emphasis that not just the facts but the comparisons must be sourced to RS s that actually made thecomparison. DGG (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exists. The current article is nearly all synthesis though and it's due a major rewrite. Removing those sections that is not sourced to an comparison between the empires would lead to this; [7]. Taemyr (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur with DGG on this, the sourcing so far is admirable but we need to follow rather than lead so we need to show who has already made the comparisons and what they stated. I have little doubt that google books, google scholar and many articles delve into these areas. but these are all regular editing concerns. -- Banjeboi 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8v6 so far, i think this is definitely a keep. By the way, it is the policy of an encyclopedia to compare things. You can't follow wikipedia policy like dogma, that would kill wikipedia. I mean, use common sense. See WP:Common sense and WP:Ignore all rules. As long as it improves wikipedia and fits with its policy of neutrality, everything is fine.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, 8 v 6 is not automatically a keep, since this is a discussion, not a vote. What matters is the weight of the arguments, not the number of supporters or opponents. Aecis·(away) ^talk 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. I agree that the article as it currently stands is full of OR. But... based upon discussions at the NOR noticeboard, it seems that the primary editor of this article has recently found several new sources upon which to base a significanlty rewritten article. I think we should give him/her time to review these sources and do this rewrite. That said, I do wish to note that my keep opinion is based upon a rewrite actually being done... and if this is not done in a resonable time, I would take a much harsher view of the situation in any second AfD nomination. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the continued persistince of Teenivestor (who doesn't seem to shut up with his loud claims of quality of the article in question) I suggest that everybody reads carefully my final answer and arguments inside of Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (large post at the end). I continue to stand by my vote of DELETE but see no problem whatsoever with the proposal of Aecis. Flamarande (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did I propose? Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ups sorry, I meant Taemyr's proposal above. Flamarande (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aecis in terms of the weight of the argument, but the delete side has yet to produce any arguments besides "inherently original research", "Wikipedia should not have comparison articles", and other fallacious statements. I believe that is not a "forceful argument." Also, Flamrande, please check WP:Assume good faith and WP:Wikiquette. Remember, no personal attacks. If you continue, I may have to file a wikiquette alert. You have yet to produce one factual error about the article, that has not been corrected. Nevetheless, if you do find errors, please contact me and I will correct them. If you didn't notice, many of the editors here are voting delete because they think that shouldn't be any comparison articles on wikipedia, contary to your claim.

Quote Flamarande:

Teen, to be honest: I have nothing against you, the Han empire (I admit that I'm a bit pro-Roman though :), or with such an article (IF it is based upon proper works by accepted historians). I have been there were you seem to be now. Some time ago I have made OR in the article SPQR (and then learned from my mistakes). It's all too easy to do it, you read something somewhere, and then compare it with something else you read somewhere else. It makes sense and then you jump to obvious conclusions (that's what I did then and what you made now). What one must/should do in this case is read a couple of books in which these authors compare these two empires which each other (a single book is technically enough but the more the better). The subject of the book must be the comparison of these two empires. Flamarande (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Teeninvestor (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read the large post in question. Flamarande (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be subsumed into one of the Chinese history pages. It does not seem to constitute an independent field of study in academia. If it does, it should be edited to incorporate more established scholarly perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.167.221 (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it is revamped. I read this article yesterday and then again today, and it's far too messy and hysterical, almost, to a point of unprofessionalism. It's an interesting topic, an interesting couple of comparisons, but such comparisons as "In professor Sheidel's book..." should be removed, and the desperate attempt at sounding qualified should be rewritten. Also, I'm pro-Han, but the article is written in a way where the bias makes me incredulous. As a newcomer, I may not be as experienced in editing as many of you out there, but it seems fairly obvious that Wikipedia should look and sound credible. Lastly, not to pick at too many particulars, but after all this voting is over, perhaps someone could look over the grammar as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori-swann (talk • contribs) 03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) — Tori-swann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep in mind I am still editing the article by adding in new information. Criticism and help would be appreciated. Teeninvestor (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just looking at the recent changes and I have to agree with Tori-swann, ignoring questions of OR etc, it is not written in an encyclopedic style -- Teeninvestor, please read [WP:MOS]] and related pages. This has nothing to do with the AfD but as it's been raised... dougweller (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article has been transwiki imported to wikiversity at v:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. --mikeu ^talk 15:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is an article on an interesting subject, but it feels more like what might be set for a student essay than as something for an encyclopaedia. At present the article uses two sources far too many times. Accordingly it must at mpresent be treated as a poor essay, though it is not beyond recovery. I suggest keep and renominate in a month if not improved. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article has doubled in size and added many references since it was nominated for deletion two days ago. Also, regarding those saying the article is out of place on Wikipedia and should be found on Wikiversity only: I am a big-time Wikipedia user and I stumbled across this article just now while looking up whether or not China had a larger population than the Roman Empire at its peak. I would never have found it if it were on Wikiversity. Regarding the formatting problems: they can be fixed if the article is kept; I don't think poor formatting should be a contributing reason to delete an article. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, unencyclopedic and OR. A scholarly monograph is coming out which is devoted to the comparison of the two empires, but even so I'm not convinced that this is ever going to be a good Wikipedia article--it will be doomed, I think, to a laundry list of things that are similar and things that are different between the two states, and the substantive comparisons between e.g. processes of state formation will be left by the wayside. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peterkingiron's suggestion is interesting, but I'm still worried about the article and that Akhilleus's prediction is correct. Almost everyone who has discussed the OR agrees that except for minor details the sources should only be those that compare the two empires, but that doesn't seem to have influenced the article or its creator very much. If Teeninvestor bit the bullet and removed everything not so sourced, thus showing good faith and letting us see what is left, that might sway my opinion, but if not, and it is kept, it is likely to be a battleground anyway. dougweller (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYNT Nowhere does it say putting two paragraphs of sourced facts next to each other is synthesis. Also, the article is in the process of revamp, if you have suggestions please place them in the talk page.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own comparative analysis research paper. --Voidvector (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from WP:SYNT: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

Synthesis only occurs when the editor puts together multiple sources. If the editor just puts two paragraphs of facts next to each other (mostly for additional facts) WITHOUT comparing them, that is not synthesis.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is posted as a comparison between the two empires, that makes it a comparison. Taemyr (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide an example of what you guys call "synthesis"

Say I have an article called "Comparing apples and oranges".(of course this is not notable, but bear with this example).

Then I have 2 sentences in the section "color" which are like this:

"Apples are red"(source: www.applecolor.com)

"Oranges are orange(source: www.orangecolor.com)

Does this constitute synthesis? Do I have to find a source that says Apples are red and oranges are orange? Regarding OR allegations, please see the sources. There are four credible sources that directly compare the two empires, and eight for details. Are you saying that I should not have ANY sources showing details????

We are saying that when you assert that

If you have a source saying apples are red, you can say that apples are red. If you have another source saying oranges are orange, you can say that oranges are orange. With the two sources, you can say that apples are red and oranges are orange. What you CAN'T do is use a third source saying that orange-colored things have more yellow pigment than red-colored things to say that oranges have more yellow pigment than apples. That's synthesis. Where you can easily get into trouble is that simply by juxtaposing two things in an article, you can imply or lead readers to assume a third thing. Even if you don't explicitly state that third thing, it can still be synthesis because you have implied it or lead the reader to assume it. This is conceptually similar to WP:UNDUE; even if something is reliably sourced it can still be problematic. Cmadler (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of the problem here is that there are numerous entangled issues. There are unsourced statements. There are statements that are not supported by the citation given (I have not checked, I am taking the word of others on this point), in some cases this may simply result from errors in summarizing. There are statements that are cited, but for which the source can't be considered reliable (again, I haven't checked them; I'm taking the word of others). There are statements that are explicit synthesis. There are sections of the sort of implied synthesis I mentioned above. Untangling all these issues is difficult. Given the amount of work needed here, you might be better off working this out in userspace. Cmadler (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cmadler, So far I have not directly compared the two empires without finding a source that does so. see the section about WP: SYNT below. I concur that this article was relatively poorly written before, but now such a massive overhaul has been done to it, i invite you to point out specific issues. I believe that will be a difficult task. As to the sources, the sources are completely reliable; i invite you to check the authors of these books' backgrounds. Anyways, my point is that the amount of work you mentioned that would be needed has already been done; I invite you to take a look at the article and come to your own conclusions, rather than check the word of others , which (from my point of view) is horribly outdated. So far i do not see claims that are unsourced, explicit synthesis and other problems. I believe the main problem with the article now is a general cleanup of spelling, grammar, prose, etc... As to accusations of "implicit" synthesis, I would ask you to ask those who claim so to come up with concrete proof; i think you will find, there is none. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the lead has been taken verbatim from the first paragraph of Worlds Together Worlds Apart ch 7.
"Because of this, they have often been compared.[2][3]" Neither note 2 nor note 3 supports this point.
I can't figure out the point of note 4.
The citation/bibliographic information for Goldsworthy (notes 7, 12, 14, 17) is never provided, so we have no way of knowing if this source supports the statements given or if it can be considered reliable.
The "Military" section contains lengthy discussions of the pre-imperial Roman military, which doesn't appear to be pertinent to this article. Also, again there are entire paragraphs that are taken verbatim from WTWA.
"The standing army totaled more than one million men. Roman field armies, in contrast, rarely exceeded 30,000 men." This appears to compare the size of the total Han military to the size of individual Roman field armies, and also provides no context (see next point).
The statement "Both armies had good logistics compared to their contemporaries" doesn't appear to relate to the following (cited) statements about troop numbers. The troop numbers contain no context (What were the opposing forces? How were they equipped? How trained? How experienced?) and no apparent relation to each other. Also, the battles cited for the Romans are both pre-imperial, and so outside the scope of this article.
Notes 21, 23, 25, 33, 35, 41, 44, 53, and 54 should probably be removed/replaced with citations of secondary sources (see WP:PSTS); this seems to be excessive reliance on a single tertiary source.
"For most of the past two millenia, China was the largest economy on Earth[19]." might be taken to imply that the Han economy was larger than the imperial Roman economy, but it offers no reference to either the Han or Roman empire. Further, 1/2 of the Han period is outside the scope of this statement.

I don't have time to go any further at the moment, but I hope this gives you some ideas for improving the article. Cmadler (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look on it. Also, this is a comparison of Rome and China in general. I plan to change the title if article survives AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this section:

"The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."

Therefore, as long as all your claims are sustained by your sources, it is not original Research. I would like to see one of the editors who voted delete to back up their arguments by finding a section that is not attributed to a source that directly support their position.

Also see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Obvious_deductions

This is from WP: NOTOR: "Simple logical deductions. For example, if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C. This is a simple syllogism. Included are all of the other simple deductions. More complex logical deductions should not be used unless cited to a reliable source. The concerns are similar to the issues with complex mathematics. " "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research. " Please read all wikipedia policy before preceding to argue. Selectively choosing to obey wikipedia policy and ignore others is a blatant disregard for wikipedia guidelines and violation of NPOV. I think here there is a fundamental misunderstanding of our original research policy.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Teeninvestor (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a simple logical deduction that the battle of Zama have anything to do with the battle of Mobei.Taemyr (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding that section; it simply tells the reader that both armies could deploy thousands of men to the battlefield. That is all.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per Taemyr and Patar knight. It's probably a suitable topic for an article, and suitable sources can probably be found. Cmadler (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These kind of comparisons are indeed "quite proper subject[s] of scholarly study." This is exactly why it should be deleted. It is an essay, not an article about an actual thing, concept or idea. You can mix as many sources as you want and compile as much information as you want, but only when you start off with a subject rather than inventing one. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Haired lawyer, see Category:Comparisons Teeninvestor (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor - Maybe it would be better to retitle the article, "Comparisons of the Roman and Han Empires", and refocus the article upon the comparisons that are being made, and upon the people who are making them? I.e., the article should focus on the debate, not the matter. SharkD (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SharkD makes a good suggestion, and that should at least be a part of this article. I think a large part of the problem with this article is that it doesn't actually present many comparisons between the two. That is, there is often a statement about the Roman Empire followed/preceded by a statement about the Han Empire. These statements are often sourced. What is lacking is an actual comparison, putting the statements in context, and keep in mind that such statements need to be sourced (see the apples/oranges discussion about synthesis above). However, despite all the problems with sourcing and content, I don't think deletion is needed. Cmadler (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with sharkD and Cmadler; However, some editors have been quite disruptive to my editing; neglecting others'opinion, and constantly making unsatiable demands. They even objected to my apple/orange above as they object to information being placed close to each other, saying that is synthesis. While I take their opinions into account and edit the article accordingly, they completely ignore my opinions. However, sharkD and cmadler, I will need yours and others assistance to set up a chart and subsections to wikipedia. I don't mean to be rude, but i have only been on wikipedia for seven days and I've been forced constantly to learn on the move.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as the subject passes WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil O'Donnell (Scottish footballer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neil O'Donnell (Scottish footballer)

Non-notable sports figure, delete or merge, "all round cool guy?" Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed the "all-around cool guy" incident. flaming lawye r^c 17:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Yeah, what was that all about. ;)Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw/Keep: I goofed. This player meets WP:BIO for athletes by having played at the highest level of professional activity for the sport. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands Guardian

Article is about a geographical feature discovered by a small group of online Google Earth fans who said it looks like a person. Based upon edit history, the person who takes credit for this has editing the article. It seems to be strictly a vanity work... a page to discuss something this tiny group finds interesting but which they have failed to give any reason for why the rest of the world should care. I have tried to add tags about notability and requiring reliable sources (third party experts, not just links to their own site and minor "isn't that funny" news coverage in local media outlets, but such tags and edits to remove clearly unencyclopedic content has been immediately fully reverted by an anon IP account with no edit comment or rationale given on more than one occasion. I am not disputing that this got some minor mentions in local news briefly, or that someone in an online group thinks it is interesting, but the topic simply lacks any notability for an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this not notable? It's got 9 unique, external references, plus a crystal clear Google Earth picture. And that "isn't that funny" news coverage you're talking about? That's a clear indication of notability. Notability is the noun form of notable, which is the ability to be noted. These news sources have noted them, so they're clearly notable (because they've been noted). flaming lawye r^c 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very notable remarks. Duly noted. Dr.K. (logos) 18:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is derived from being worthy of being noted, not by the fact that is can be noted :D (Sorry, I'm a perfectionist) LinguistAtLarge 20:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they both apply here. But yeh, yours is technically the "correct" definition. flaming lawye r^c 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability indicated via multiple non-trival media sources, including CBC, Sydney Morning Herald, and PCWorld. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Strong and Speedy Keep As per Flaming lawyer's and Jo7hs2's remarks and as per logic dictates. To elaborate: If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, PC World magazine, Sydney Morning Herald etc. can arbitrarily be dismissed as sources where does this end? We may have to delete 90% of Wikipedia's articles. Finally what experts are we looking for? Why do you have to be an expert to appreciate the uniqueness of this image? PCWorld magazine called it a geological marvel, the Sydney Morning Herald a net sensation. What more praise or notability do we need? If eminently reliable sources call something a marvel and a wonder, Wikpedia has to accept their verdict. Not doing so is WP:OR. Dr.K. (logos) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Identities of the original finders and editors are irrelevant. Their find has been publicized in media, and as long as wikipedia equals notability with media coverage, it has a place here. Comment Opponents may have a valid point discarding some of the sources as mere trivia sections reproduced in non-discrimating media (fill this page up, Jonesy boy...). But there is no acid test to tell which is which, so we should give the article the benefit of doubt. NVO (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole thing is kind of silly but no reason to delete an article because we think we are better, more serious people. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is sourced, establishing the notability of the subject. LinguistAtLarge 20:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. As described above, this article satisfies the Wikipedia notability requirements and has verifiable sources. Truthanado (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ADInstruments. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LabChart

Sending this article here after I reversed my own speedy. Another admin had previously declined the speedy but I overlooked that. The author is convinced that this doesn't read like an ad but to me it sounds like a page out of a product catalog. There is a single source but I cannot access it. I bring it here because the community can decide its outcome. The piece needs a considerable re-write and multiple reliable sources are expected. I suspect this is just one of many data recorders available in the medical setting. JodyB_talk 15:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: It does read like an advertisement. Also appears to fail WP:Product/WP:ORG notability requirement. If it is to exist, it should exist on the company page as per WP:Product. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established. Does seem like stright from a catalog. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hasn't been improved since I originally requested speedy deletion. Non-notable product. Primarily advertisement. —G716 <^T·_C> 19:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 19:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: As I was trying to mention earlier this was not suppose to be an advertorial but rather an informative tool for researchers outside looking for possible programs to use in their research. I think now that it is more suitable for it to be merged with its hardware PowerLab. I've tried to put some of the top journals using this software in its research. Tegu01 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the interim it was made even worse by Tegu01, who spammified it with a bunch of synth. (I've rv'd) As I noted at the AfD for MacLab/Powerlab, gimmicky, out-of-context misappropriation of so-called "citations" on a company's website does not qualify them as Wikipedia references, which is how they were (again!) forwarded here on WP. That the website calls these allusions "citations" is misguiding, and is no more meaningful than suggesting that a researcher who times an experiment is "citing" his watch. Adding such WP:SYNTH a second time is beyond Hanlon's razor. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To Fullstop: Well I might have made it worse but the way you rewrote that whole article before without all the references to me made it sounded more like an advertisement. and I saw the rather mean note you left at the powerlab wiki which I thought was uncalled for. 220.244.40.110 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptol

Not yet notable programming language. I was actually seriously considering making this article when I saw the post on Slashdot myself that linked to the one source currently in use--which is a blog post by the company that itself developed the language. All the other sources online currently are just reposts or links back to that same blog. It's not yet notable under WP:RS. rootology (C)(T) 14:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak delete I think this is will someday be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. It's newsworthy software from a cryptography standpoint, particularly given its provenance, and the article will surely be expanded as the public starts making use of it. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't even have a single RS yet for WP:RS or notability today. Its still just the blog post by the company that disclosed it; even the normally fast IT/tech news sources, who would be fine, haven't even touched it. rootology (C)(T) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right. However, the NSA has only recently started open sourcing some of its projects (e.g., http://www.nsa.gov/selinux), so this is certainly part of a historic precedent. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If htis is at all serious, someday it might belong on Wikipedia. Clearly right now it dosn't even come close. It's just a gleam in the corporate public relations team's eye. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that even though I changed my mind above, this is clearly very exciting news to a particular important research community. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I want to say keep on this one, but it doesn't seem to meet the basic notability guidelines (yet). I do have a question though. Can Slashdot be considered a reliable news source? (It's a news website with editorial control, and one of the most-respected in its genre.) If so, it doesn't matter that they used primary sources for information, the fact that Slashdot deemed it notable means something. LinguistAtLarge 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot links to all sorts of everything. Mere mention there does not establish notability. As far as I knew, they didn't have editorial oversight, just the public voting. DreamGuy (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the editors of Slashdot select a limited number of submitted stories to run on each individual day, so this is a modicum of editorial control. On the other hand, the hundreds of comments following each capsule story are obviously self-published, and votes or no, most are by anonymous nonexperts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Besides a flurry of commentary on some blogs, some of which may count as expert SPS, there are some academic papers that precede it becoming open source. i.e. "Cryptol: high assurance, retargetable crypto development and validation"[8] ( scroll down to see abstract ). Google Scholar shows a few more; search for Cryptol and Galois to filter out citations to "J. Cryptol", an academic journal about cryptography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The published academic papers that mention Cryptol other than in passing are written by people involved with the Cryptol project (e.g. for the paper referenced above, Jeff Lewis works at Galois Connections, and Brad Martin at the NSA). Maybe Cryptol will become notable, but it is impossible to tell now if and when that will be the case. Perhaps the future is for cryptological libraries in more general languages rather than such domain-specific languages; who can say? Currently the article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. Whether it is an exciting and important development for important people in an important field is irrelevant if that importance is not reflected in independent reliable sources. 88.235.63.32 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could this be merged to National Security Agency#Effect on non-governmental cryptography? While some more sources have started to appear on Google News from Russian and Italian news sites, and I'm sure eventually we'll have enough info to write an article on this special-purpose language on par with the article on SNOBOL, I don't know if we'll have enough for independent notability before the AFD is over. However, from Galois's press release and other primary-source material, the Slashdot and other news articles, and the academic paper, we should have enough for a paragraph in that section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What? It's in my programming book, in the index. We discuss it in class all of the time, just one of the many languages mentioned. There are so many weird AfDs I feel like maybe I misread this or something.... --KP Botany (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reallly? Got a cite for that? Does it meet the non-trivial coverage in reliable source criteria? Doubtful. If yuo think this AFD is weird perhaps you should bone up on Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I got a cite for that, I added it to the article. Possibly you should bone up on Wikipedia policies, like how useful the citations are in the articles, versus sitting back here discussing deleting an article. I'd discuss it more, but I write articles. You might want to bone up on something else: things are often on the web before they're in books. If I'm finding it in books already, the google news hits don't matter. --KP Botany (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Books, hmm. Google Books is showing a few hits.[9] One is the MILCOM 2003 conference cited above. But there are others. There is "Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on the ACL2 Theorem Prover", which mentions translating Cryptol to LISP, there is "ACM SIGPLAN Notices", where they talk about notation used in Cryptol, there is "Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning", which says "Cryptol provides a uniform stream-based view of all the data involv[ed] in encryption, and supports that view with an interesting type system reflecting how functions manipulate streams. C code can be generated from Cryptol programs, and there is also a path to FPGAs.", there is "Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages", which talks about Cryptol, etc. Google Scholar shows some similar material but it has several additional works on translating Cryptol to other languages or to FPGAs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not a new programming language, and it has a presence outside of google. It's pretty much discussed in all of my upper division programming courses and, yes, it's in the textbook (the conference papers) I'm reading right now. It's interesting because of how it does what it does, which people aren't too sure about, yet, but are trying to figure out. There's no reason to wait for the article. --KP Botany (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like we've confirmed this article is sourceable beyond a mention in a blog. While I'd like to find more sources that discuss the impact of this language, at minimum this could be merged to the aforementioned section of the NSA article, where it discusses DES, AES, and other algorithms, academic research, and patents the NSA has released. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Although I know it's an NSA language, I've never discussed it in any of my classes in that context, what's intriguing is that it supposedly shows the process stream through the entire time the program is being run so the cryptographer can interact with the program. It's in books already, by itself; it's been in books for a while. It's a rather specialized topic, so it's never going to be widespread, but it's not in books because it's from the NSA, and it's not being discussed for that aspect. It's the algorithm we're interested in. --KP Botany (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of Blade Runner

This Article is wholly about a single piece of work - and does not merit having its own page. PlikPlok (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reasons given are not proper justification for deletion. The article is informative and encyclopedic, and folding it into the parent article would tend to overwhelm it. This article has existed for over a year, and has contributions from over 60 editors, so the community clearly approves of its existence. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 14:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like encyclopedic, relevant, sourced content to me. What sort of reason for deletion is "wholly about a single piece of work", anyway? This is a sub-article of Blade Runner, and it seems sensible to leave a summary there and the detail here.--Michig (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. No sound reasoning is offered for deletion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it makes sense to have a page on this topic and to have it separate from the main article. Rnb (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup — some unverifiable trivia/OR, but not really anything deletable in my view. MuZemike (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's sourced and this is a good example of correctly breaking detailed information out of the parent article and keeping the main article a summary of main points. LinguistAtLarge 20:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohiudeen

Unsourced article on a wood company, appears to fail WP:CORP due to a lack of any coverage in reliable sources. Written in a promotional tone and has been tagged as such for a year with no improvement. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does nothing but promote the subject of the article, therefore Speedy Delete. How did this avoid G11 the first time round? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, or regular old Snail delete if for some reason that doesn't take. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP, blatant advertising. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 02:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 02:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wikipedia

Non-notable encyclopedia with only less than 1,000 articles. ApprenticeFan (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to maintain consistency. Currently, all foreign language Wikipedia sites have one page each. Whilst there may be a case for merging all small wikis into one page, this really needs to be done on an all-or-nothing basis, otherwise it's going to be a mess. This !vote is without prejudice to a deletion/merge discussion on all small wikis. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for that kind of thing. See WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:WAX, and WP:ITSA. flaming lawye r^c 16:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a case where I am invoking WP:IGNOREALLRULES. I appreciate (and frequently oppose) the argument of "We've got an article on Y therefore we should keep my article X," because it's a short step from that to accepting ever-increasingly insignificant articles. However, when you are dealing with several articles that have identical claims to notability, and all the articles are linked from dozens of other pages by the same template, it's illogical to randomly keep or delete pages depending on what the participants of the deletion discussion at the time happened to decide. I'd much rather we had a single decision for all the small wikis.

Anyway, since the split in this discussion is split between keeping and merging, can I suggest we close this discussion and re-open it as a proposed merger? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the little ones together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wronglostboy (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All other non-English Wikipedia sites are listed, there seems no justification for excluding this one. NoVomit (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Wikipedias. A bunch of the smaller wiki articles are already redirected there, and a number of the others should probably get the same treatment whenever there's nothing to say beyond a few basic statistics (article count, article count milestones, rank in size, editor count, etc). Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we made an error in deciding that not all the different language wp versions should have articles here. The information is appropriate for our encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with DGG. Having articles on our sister language wikipedias is one of the things we should do. This is where readers will look. If it is against the policies and guidelines, this is a good case for WP:IAR. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR and WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Street

{{db-nocontext}} declined, but this does not appear to be a notable street. Sandstein 11:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:STREET. flaming lawye r^c 16:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: comes nowhere close to the 50,000/street rule suggested in WP:STREET, and fails a common-sense analysis on the notability of a street textually with phrase "little road" and generally vague nature. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:STREET should not be misrepresented as an established deletion criterion; it is a personal essay which is at variance with WP:BIG and is contrary to WP:BURO. Dl2000 (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure why the speedy was declined. I'm not seeing enough context to determine enough about the road. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speedy was properly declined because no context means only that one cannot tell from the article what it is about, and it is obvious what the article is about: a street in LA. No having checked sources yet, no comment on whether or not its notable. DGG (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no primary or secondary sources (WP:V), no content other than a brief definition (it currently stands as a WP:DICDEF) and no context material (e.g. WP:GEOG) which would establish notability for the article. Dl2000 (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultranomicon

Patently nonnotable band (WP:MUSIC), but the article asserts notability, so I'm declining a speedy and bringing it here. Sandstein 11:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no sourced assertion of notability. Óðinn (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is one guy having fun. I also agree that there is no assertion of notability. I don't think 'well-known' qualifies as an assertion. Fails BAND anyway. ^Law_shoot! 17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the article was hoax material, and the assertion of notability was unsourced OR (which may also have been hoax). After I deleted most of that, the article is even more terrible than it was before. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. In effect you're saying your edits made the article worse. :P ^Law_shoot! 17:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :-D —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND rules. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Byrne

Unsourced WP:BLP, the individual is well known only because of one controversial decision - that is not what Wikipedia biographies are for, of course. WP:BLP1E and past WP:COATRACK issues resulting in complaints. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ms Dorothy Byrne is famous not just for a controversial decision to appoint a foreign head of state to make a broadcast.
She is the head of News services at a British television channel. Channel Four might not be the biggest UK channel, but it does have a substantial share of the market and its news service is well respected. The person in control of a major UK enterprise is well worthy of note, and consequently her details will be of interest to those people who follow current affairs.
Ms Byrne is noted in Who’s Who, a text devoted to brief descriptions of famous people in the UK. There are two texts in the UK who collect details of eminent and famous personages, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, exclusively for the dead, and Who’s Who, mostly pertaining to the living. If your name is in one of these tomes, you are ex officio famous.
As Ms Byrne is both important and famous, her page must be allowed to remain on this forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leightonmowbray (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all well and good, but the article is utterly unsourced. This morning I removed an unsourced piece of speculation that she could lose her job over Iran's President giving the alternative Christmas address. If this article is to remain on Wikipedia then any details within it should be well sourced and accurately cited. Rumour, gossip, and idle speculation do not belong on Wikipedia. Leave them to The Sun and The Daily Mirror then, if you must regurgitate their drivel, make sure you say who said what. --Brian McNeil /^talk 13:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Poorly_written_article:

"In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."

travb (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:COATRACK is a controversial essay only, as the essay template states at the top of this essay: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." travb (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google and Google news searches throw up plenty of coverage. Definitely seems notable. Article needs sourcing, but I don't see this as the function of AfD.--Michig (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable individual in her field, clearly, although like all 'real people' articles content must be properly sourced and NPOV. As regards the Xmas day 'alternative message' the annual slot has always been 'controversial' to an extent (that is the point of it, after all) and this one appears no more worrying about possible after-effects then any previous one, so the allegation was over-emphasised (and arguably shouldn't have appeared at all, imho). --AlisonW (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't think we're going to succeed with the claim of "one event": a google news search that tries to capture stories other than the Ahmadinejad affair produces quite a bit, here. I assume that the OTRS complaint comes from the statement that she invited him. What I have seen is that she defended inviting him; I doubt the invitation can be put on any one person, it was most likely a collective decision of some sort. I suggest that sentence be removed, and then we insist that any effort to replace it be sourced in the usual way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out by Nomoskedasticity, the extensive independent news coverage about her does not support deletion based on WP:1E. Even though she is a news reporter, she seems also to be considerably notable in her own right.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is true that anyone working in the news business (or politics) will leave a paper trail, or I guess it would be data trail. However the article now gives only basic information about her career since the "controversy" has been taken off. No claim to notability or in depth coverage by reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Poorly_written_article quote above. Please spend some time creating content, not deleting it. travb (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article was poorly written. Just that Ms Byrne is not important enough that she has been discussed in any depth in secondary sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I have created a few articles, which were actually interesting to read and informative. If I say so myself. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep deletion argument is that there are no sources, which can easily be created (but not as easily as having something deleted). Notable individual, as per comments above. travb (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is badly in need of improvement in terms of balance, but, as pointed above, there does exist sufficient coverage of her unrelated to the Ahmadinejad episode to get past the BLP1E bar. Nsk92 (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [probably notable even without this latest. And it just might have been enough, as its not tabloid fodder. I find it very hard to specify in closer words than that the distinction between what kind of one events merit deletion vs keeping, but if it involves a controversial event involving a major head of state, I think that's enough to being notable. DGG (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article on the incident? If not there should be. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As head of news and current affairs of one of the major news sources in the UK the subject was obviously notable before this latest incident. Why do some people, when they see a problem, see deletion as the only solution? If there are issues with coatracking then fix them by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked. I strongly dislike articles which are obviously written with a hostile intent towards the subject. I also dislike articles which are written "upside down." That is the article is really about an incident, in this case the invitation of that ~~bad guy~~ controversial individual (I don't want to bother to look up his name) to speak on TV in the UK, but written as a biographical article about a person involved. Why not write it about the incident? That way you can put as much information and opinions as you like. You can also discuss any person's involvement as much as you like, if sourced of course. You do not have to look up trivial personal data about the person to make the article look balanced. And you would attract less attention from the BLP police. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article history. It clearly wasn't created in response to this incident, because it was created nine months earlier. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of news and current affairs at a major national television channel seems sufficiently notable, even aside from the recent news coverage. I note, for example, that The Guardian ran an in-depth interview with her on the state of British television back in 2007[10]. She also seems to have raised controversy with the C4 programme Baby Race which she commissioned eg see [11].Espresso Addict (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Wiki alf. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 11:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard IV from Spain

Copy and paste job from Richard III of England with no meaningful content change. There is no "Richard IV from Spain" in history. The only person I can think this means is the fictional Richard IV from Blackadder.... Delete because it's made up, a hoax or a non notable fictional character. Choose one. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 18:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstormnite

Neologism with no sources. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism. Óðinn (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. Deb (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP is not UrbanDictionary. This should have been speedied, not AfD'ed. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for that decline of the speedy which brought it here... --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 18:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined? Oh...I didn't see it in the history. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not Wiktionary nor is it Urban Dictionary. This is a neologism, not for an encyclopedia. 2 D ^C 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bizarre nonsense, sandboxing/hoax. DreamGuy (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Know zilla 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trash. JuJube (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it is snowing, take it indoors, thanks. --Numyht (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obamakkah

Neologism with no assertion of notability. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism. Óðinn (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is just being silly. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and close This is a snowball people. Why are we even discussing? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) as pure vandalism. MuZemike (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Void (card game)

No evidence this game exists, let alone meets notability and verifiability requirements. Seaches for "The Void" plus the names in the article bring up zero results. 2005 (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be expanded and sourced. The article is about a card game, but doesn't even include the rules! Both cited references are by the game's own inventors, it needs more objective sources. JIP | Talk 14:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- appears to be hoax, perhaps with a misguided advertisement slant for an unreleased game, but probably not. Article makes strong statements for notability of game which, if evn halfway accurate, would absolutely come up several different ways in Google searches. It doesn't. Based upon this the only conclusion is that it's an attempt to deceive, and I suspect it's just a prank. Edit history of article creator, User:Empowermint, has other strange edits. DreamGuy (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can't even seem to find that sources that are being quoted. Granted, they are not online sources but a Google search of their name's should bring up something if they actually existed. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 10:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed al-Asadi

Fails notability Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: as per [12] and [13], and [14], as well as the other 10 notable sources on the page. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is one of the Guantanamo articles being worked on by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Terrorism - and though the nominator may have found it in a "less than perfect state", that hardly means it will stay that way. A simple ten minutes meant that I added a fair bit of information to the intro. More is still forthcoming as our Wikiproject works out the best way to pull information from the ongoing legal trials of al-Asadi and similar cases. In addition, going through a series of texts by Andy Worthington, Erik Saar, Moazzam Begg and others which mention specific stories of detainees like al-Asadi, but lack helpful appendices that make "quick, immediate referencing" difficult. As the de facto leader of the Wikiproject focused on improving these articles (and Wikipedia's articles on detainees are actually used and occasionally cited by major news outlets), I have to say that the piecemeal nominations once a week suggesting one or two random Guantanamo detainees be deleted are in bad faith, after numerous discussions, votes and policies were decided in favour of keeping the articles. Simply suggesting a different genus of animal be proposed for deletion every week as an "unnotable distinction in the animal kingdom" would eventually manage to get random genuses deleted through poorly-managed straw polls...but would irreparably harm the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts to build a working database of information on notable subjects such as al-Asadi, and for what? The sake of politicking by a couple of specific Wikipedia users who hold a grudge or political motivation to want to see a random 5% of information deleted each week for their own ends? Wikiproject Terrorism users start working on cleaning up Abdullah's article, ProblemUser1 nominates Abdurahman for deletion instead, project members move to clean up Abdurahman, ProblemUser1 nominates Ahmed for deletion instead - it's a game of hot potato, except the only loser is Wikipedia. For the love of the project, above petty personal grievances, I would implore the "same small handful of "ProblemUser"s to stop this ridiculous farce. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 09:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably a bad faith nomination and a WP:SNOW keep. LinguistAtLarge 09:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - we've been here before. My feeling is that all of these Guantanamo Bay detainees are inherently notable. We ought to have a policy specifically for them and everyone should abide by it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Oh Noes! I can feel it now. This is going to be a long one. What are the bets that every time a new (or not so new) editor discovers these articles, we are going to get an AfD? I hope not, because these are notable, and as such are strong keep. Obligatory Godwin's law: If we have an article for Hitler, why not them? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per several comments above. An article about another of the G-Bay prisoners has also been nominated for deletion, if that should be kept, so should this article. --Knowzilla 19:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument is considered poor, see WP:WAX. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic, this article ought to be deleted, since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826) were both closed as "delete". But I think it would be more appropriate to judge each detainee's article based on whether it establishes notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly disagree with the idea that all the Guantanamo detainees are inherently notable. However, this article does have a few secondary sources indicating that the subject has received some news coverage in his home country. I guess this means that it is reasonable to expect that a notable detainee would be the subject of some news coverage, rather than just having his article sourced to primary sources. Thus, keeping this article should not indicate anything about whether other detainees' articles should be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and request closing admin to carefully consider which !votes relate to Wikipedia policy and which amount to "he's notable because I said so". Nothing whatsoever in this article comes near to meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. In so far as sources and coverage are cited, it is merely proof that the man exists and is detained at GTMO. I challenge all those supporting a keep on this article to show what Wikipedia notability guideline is met. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~(nominator) I nominated this article, but as my dissent has caused personal attacks, I wanted to make my position absolutely clear. Being a detainee at GITMO as a fact does not confer notability. The proposal given, that this confers notability automatically (naturally quieting dissent) is something I strongly disagree with as a matter of principle, and as a matter of policy. Notability is conferred as stated within WP:BIO, and put another way is conferred by accomplishments, deeds, acts and/or achievements that are noteworthy. In this case, the noteworthy accomplishment appears to be that the subject is a detainee at GITMO, and has used the legal process afforded to detainees. These acts do not confer notability in the slightest. The article itself instead lists his name, and his status, then uses blog pieces by writers such as Andy Worthington from blog opinion pieces in an attempt to confer "significant coverage" to the subject, whose name is used as one of many detainees, notwithstanding the fact that blogs are not considered "reliable" for purposes of sourcing articles. The article also uses the same formatic endlessly (in common with all of these detainee articles) to show the subject has brought a habeus corpus proceeding in US District Court. None of these facts confers notability to the individual, instead, it allows the author to provide a ready-made contextual piece that imparts his views on GITMO, a direct violation of WP:COATRACK as well as WP:POV. In other words, this is not an article about an individual, as much as it is an artuicle about a class of individuals to which the subject is a member. As Wikipedia makes clear, notability is not inherited, or associated, to an individual for simply being the member of a class of individuals. Nor is this encyclopedia a docket reference piece, where articles act to record the proceedings of an active case in US District Court. for these reasons, this article should be deleted, and I, like Stifle above, challenge anyone to find that Wikipedia notability guideline has been met.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That's not the WP:BIO I know & love. Franciscrot (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO reads: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] As The New York Times and other listed notable news coverage clearly shows, this fits very neatly in Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Are we all looking at the same articles and sources?? --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: nominator has argued based on a subjective criteria, rather than an objective criteria as we are required: notability is repeated mention in the media that goes beyond recentism (although notability can't be lost once you have it). The issue is not if the subject is notable for x or y event, but if reliable sources verify the notability and consider the subjects news worthy. Furthermore, nominator has build a strawman: no one has argued being a prisoner of Gitmo is notable. We have argued that the sources covering the prisioners at Gitmo made them notable, and that further actions, beyond being prisoners, have made them notable. This is studied on a case by case basis. For all we care, there could be other prisoners, but these are the ones that are notable because reliable sources report on them. With out going to the merits of the uncivil assertion of WP:COATRACK, as well as allegations of WP:POV, these are not really reasons for deletion, but reasons to work the content and edit to achieve neutrality. The only valid criteria for deletion are copy-vio, original research, vandalism, hoax, and non-notability.

This article is none of those.

I must point out at this point that nominator has a contradictory position: he nominated as lacking notability, which we all agree is WP:BIO material. The discussion has revealed, in my opinion, that there are no real WP:BIO issues. However, he then has gone of in a tangent about WP:COATRACK and WP:POV,

Lastly, no one has personally attacked the nom, only strongly disagreed, so I do not understand why does he raise that. If he feels he has been attacked, he should go to WP:DRAMA instead of poisoning the well by distracting from the true discussion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments. Accusing someone of a bad faith nomination on an RFD is a per se personal attack. As to your other points, you have still failed to provide how this article meets WP:BIO. Your analysis instead shifts the burden to the nominator, discounts it, and fails to provide a cogent reason for why WP:BIO has been met. Instead, we have a "subjective" argument that ascribes notability because the individual is being held as a detainee, that he is a member of a class, yet "why" he is notable, aside from those points, is ignored. How is he notable? I again ask that simple question. Yes, his name has been mentioned in passing, but what has he done that is "notable"? Ergo, the fact that he is one of a class of detainees is a fact, just as a list of prisoners at Levenworth Federal Prison is a fact, but that does not make his accomplishments so noteworthy that he deserves his own page. The better course would be to simply list him as a detainee in a list article and leave the lengthier articles for individual detainees whose "noteworthy" accomplishments/deeds can be listed and sourced from reliable publications.Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editing problems with the article are dealt with by editing, Disagreements about how to do it are dealt with on the article talk page or at the project. The man is notable, with sufficient coverage in RSs. I see there are now sources in the native countries of the prisoners from outside the US thus removing the cultural bias of the articles and demonstrating international notability. I'm prepared to predict that over the next year as the facility closes, and for many years after that, yet additional sources will appear, including abundant ones on each individual: they will all have as tory to tell. DGG (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what I think I said was notable now, and will be even more notable hereafter. DGG (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--This discussion has shown notability of the subject beyond nomination vague argument.--Jmundo (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman

Subject fails notability citeria Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Notability established by: [15] and [16], and [17]... as well as the other sources listed on the article page. There is no reason to assume this individual will become less notable, as this landmark Guantanamo Bay case goes forward. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject is plainly and uncontroversially notable as a named prisoner of Guantanamo who is contesting the charges against him. No idea why the nominator feels the subject is not notable: since there is sourced material from reliable sources, plus verification from primary sources, simply asserting non-notability doesn't cut it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this is one of the Guantanamo articles being worked on by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Terrorism - and though the nominator may have found it in a "less than perfect state", that hardly means it will stay that way. A simple ten minutes meant that I added a fair bit of information. More is still forthcoming as our Wikiproject works out the best way to pull information from the ongoing legal trials of Uthman and similar cases, specific to Uthman we're looking at OARDEC (2 September 2004). "Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal -- Uthman, Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. pp. pages 24-25. Retrieved 2008-05-15., OARDEC (20 October 2005). "Unclassified Summary of Evidence for Administrative Review Board in the case of Uthman, Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. pp. pages 19-21. Retrieved 2008-05-15., OARDEC (21 September 2006). "Unclassified Summary of Evidence for Administrative Review Board in the case of Al Rahim, Uthman H" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. pp. pages 30-33. Retrieved 2008-05-15.CSRT Allegations against Uthman, p. 24-25, CSRT transcript of Uthman, p. 112-114 Habeas petition of Uthman, p. 21-44, ARB Allegations against Uthman, p. 19-21 and Revised ARB allegations against Uthman, p. 30-33. In addition, going through a series of texts by Andy Worthington, Erik Saar, Moazzam Begg and others which mention specific stories of detainees like Uthman, but lack helpful appendices that make "quick, immediate referencing" difficult. As the de facto leader of the Wikiproject focused on improving these articles (and Wikipedia's articles on detainees are actually used and occasionally cited by major news outlets), I have to say that the piecemeal nominations once a week suggesting one or two random Guantanamo detainees be deleted are in bad faith, after numerous discussions, votes and policies were decided in favour of keeping the articles. Simply suggesting a different genus of animal be proposed for deletion every week as an "unnotable distinction in the animal kingdom" would eventually manage to get random genuses deleted through poorly-managed straw polls...but would irreparably harm the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts to build a working database of information on notable subjects such as Uthman, and for what? The sake of politicking by a couple of specific Wikipedia users who hold a grudge or political motivation to want to see a random 5% of information deleted each week for their own ends? Wikiproject Terrorism users start working on cleaning up Abdullah's article, ProblemUser1 nominates Abdurahman for deletion instead, project members move to clean up Abdurahman, ProblemUser1 nominates Ahmed for deletion instead - it's a game of hot potato, except the only loser is Wikipedia. For the love of the project, above petty personal grievances, I would implore the "same small handful of "ProblemUser"s to stop this ridiculous farce. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 09:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My jaw just dropped. This is like the BEST AfD response ever! EVER, I SAID!!! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those documents don't seem to prove more than that he exists and is accused of ... stuff. WP:BIO denotes the standard that biographical articles must pass to be included, and you may wish to brush up on WP:AGF as well :( Stifle (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably a bad faith nomination and a WP:SNOW keep. LinguistAtLarge 10:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I know we together and all that, but you know, we have this thing, erm, called, "assume good faith". You might have heard about it, dunno. But I can guaranteed you that 99.99% of the WP:DRAMA around here would go away if we all kept to ourselves what we think of each other, and concentrated on content. I know its hard, I do it all the time. But darn! Wouldn't it be pretty if we didn't? Besides, have mercy, why throw salt on the wound? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically we also have Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, which means it's fair to assume that both Linguist and I (who both mentioned this nomination borders on "bad faith") have considered and assumed the chance that Yachtsman is acting in good faith, but have found the "strong evidence" necessary to actually rationally and without malice, put forward the suggestion that together with two other specific users, are acting in bad faith with the mentality of "throw enough at the wall, and some of it is bound to be deleted". But mostly I just like pointing Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith :) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then would our cunning Linguist be so kind as to explain on which basis he doesn't assume good faith, if that is the case? Inquiring minds stand at the ready... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the earliest edit recorded in the contribution history of the Yachtsman1 wiki-id.

"Geoswan is a contributor on Wikepedia whose main emphasis is to endanger members of the United States military and their families by plastering their names and images on the web when they work in highly volatile situations in the War on Terror."

Yachtsman1 went on to leave notes like this one about other articles I started on other contributors talk pages.

I responded here.

Yachtsman1 has not left an explicit attack on my character anywhere in public in several months. But he has also never offered even a hint of an apology for his earlier comments.

I started the article on Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, and on Mohammed al-Asadi, another Guantanamo captive the Yachtsman1 wiki-id nominated for deletion today.

So, when am I entitled to relax, and quit straining my ability to assume good faith on his part? When does the point come when I am free to openly consider the possibility that the individual or individuals behind this wiki-id is targeting my contributions in particular, in a manner that does not comply with the wikipedia's civility policies and the provision in WP:NOT that says wikipedia is not a battlefield? Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did apologize on another AFD, and that was over three thousand edits and three months ago. As for your other comments, I ask you in all earnestness, who is making this a battlefield, and who is engaging in personal attacks at this point GeoSwan?Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you apologized? Possibly you are mistaken, and merely thought about apologizing? Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backpeddling is unbecoming, Geoswan. As for the thread, any defense of the article yet, or will this drama continue? Why is this subject notable, GeoSwan.Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - we've been here before. My feeling is that all of these Guantanamo Bay detainees are inherently notable. We ought to have a policy specifically for them and everyone should abide by it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that at least some of the prisoners didn't do anything wrong, I doubt all of them qualify as notable since most innocent people could only be described briefly without any real encyclopedic content. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any of these prisoners has not done anything wrong and is being imprisoned without trial for being a 'terrorist', in the year 2008 and by the world's only superpower, then that only adds to the notability so far as I'm concerned. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per several comments above. --Know zilla 19:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- No serious justification offered for deletion. No attempt made by nominator to voice his concerns on the article's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:BIO. Zero independent sources are provided within the article itself. The New York Times citation in the article is not to an article about the subject, just to a reprint on the NYT web site of primary sources relating to the administrative proceedings about his detention and combatant status review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but the opinion stated above requires using a different definition of primary source here than we use for every other kind of topic. For every other topic, when an author has summarized, interpreted, synthesized, and analyzed earlier documents we regard their work as a secondary source. I suggest we use that definition of secondary source here. And, using that definition, the summary of evidence memos that contain the allegations against Uthman, clearly fulfill the requirement for secondary sources. Geo Swan (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone tried to portray a judge's written opinion in a legal case as a secondary source to establish notability, on the grounds that the opinion was based on summarizing, interpreting, synthesizing, and analyzing the evidence (including documents) in the case, I don't think we would consider that a secondary source. More likely we would consider the judge's opinion a primary source, and look for secondary sources among newspapers, magazines, etc. Similarly, all the documents from the legal, administrative or review proceedings that the subject was involved in should be considered primary sources, at least for the purpose of establishing notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~, though I nominated this article, I thought I would make my vote crystal clear. Being a detainee at GITMO makes one no more notable than being a prisoner at any other prison. You need better grounds than that. The above-comments, I leave unchanged, though they violate WP:CIV. They serve as a steady reminder of the cost of dissent.Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck your "strong delete" as it may give the impression that there is more support than there is for deletion of this article. Nominating implies that you want it deleted. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am frankly mystified by Yachtsman1's comment above. Yachtsman1 asserts on his user page, and elsewhere, that he is a lawyer. Yet in his comment above he seems to fail to recognize a meaningful distinction between prisoners who were convicted of a crime, at a trial, where they had a fair chance to challenge the evidence against them, and Uthman, who is detained on secret evidence, who never had a trial, and never had a meaningful chance to challenge the evidence against him. Guantanamo is definitely not a prison like other prisons. It is official US policy that it is not a "prison". It is also official US policy that it is not a POW camp -- because it is official US policy that the captives are not POWs. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I leave it to you to make distinctions that mean nothing in terms of their application, Geoswan. I fail to see the significance on notability because one set of prisoners who are not detainees are tried under criminal process in a court of law, while others are tried administratively under military law. In either case, they are afforded due process based on their status, your attempt to differentiate notability on that basis alone notwithstanding. Your WP:POV commentary is also duly noted. I, on the other hand, remain mystified when I will actually see an argument on why the subject is "notable". Please let me know when that happens.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yachtsman1 are you trying to assert here that Uthman was "tried administratively under military law". If so I suggest you are very extremely mistaken. When captives asked for lawyers the officers presiding over their Tribunals routinely informed them that they were not entitled to lawyers because they were not being tried. They were informed that the Tribunals were "administrative proceedings", not legal proceedings. Further, please explain how you could describe them as being under "military law". Weren't these administrative proceedings merely carried out according to memos from senior officials of the Bush Presidency? Isn't it a mistake to call that "being tried administratively under military law"? As for "due process", what could you possibly mean by that? The DoD has published the decision memos drafted by 179 of the Tribunals. In every case but one the decision to classify the individual as an "enemy combatant" was based on secret allegations that were withheld from the captive. Wasn't the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush a repudiation of the CSR Tribunal system, precisely because it was not a fair process? So, could you please explain what you mean by "due process"? Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and request closing admin to carefully consider which !votes relate to Wikipedia policy and which amount to "he's notable because I said so". Nothing whatsoever in this article comes near to meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. In so far as sources and coverage are cited, it is merely proof that the man exists and is detained at GTMO. I challenge all those supporting a keep on this article to show what Wikipedia notability guideline is met. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the claim that this article does not measure up to the criteria in WP:BIO and WP:GNG requires reading into those documents clauses that are simply not present. These documents do not state that press reports are the only documents that should be considered reliable sources. There are lots of important topics which are not based on press reports.

.The wikidocuments referred to above require that the sources be "independent of the subject". Uthman didn't write them, so they are independent of the subject.

.These wikidocuments require that the sources be reliable. For every other topic government sources are considered reliable sources. This does not mean that we accept that every governments' official documents are always truthful, or accurate. It means that we accept that official government documents reflect official government positions.

.These wikidocuments require that the sources "address the subject directly in detail". I don't believe there is any question that this criteria is met.

.For every other topic sources, which are based on the summary, interpretation, synthesis and analysis of earlier documents are recognized as being "secondary sources". Yet I find that challengers to articles like this routinely assert that the memos that summarize the allegations against captives like Uthman are merely primary sources, even though the authors of those memos were required to summarize, interpret sythesize and analyze earlier reports from multiple civilian and military agencies.

Writer above specifically requests the closing admin to carefully consider how the votes here relate to policy. I thought closing admins were supposed to do that for every {{afd}}? Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, wouldn't every prisoner convicted of a crime and held in prison be notable based on the existence of government documents relating to his prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment, which would be considered secondary sources by this argument? (I am not claiming that Uthman was convicted of a crime or held in a traditional prison, as per Geo Swan's comment at 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC) above, just looking at where the argument of accepting government documents as secondary sources would take us.) I don't think that every prisoner convicted of a crime and held in prison is automatically notable, nor do I think that every detainee held at Guantanamo is automatically notable either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken the USA has something like one million prisoners. And, as Metropolitan90 has pointed out, they have all had documents generated as they went through the US Justice system. Those million prisoners have had unexceptional documents generated about them. The US Justice system is well understood and predictable. And when those documents merely show the US Justice system is performing as designed, they are completely unexceptional. When the system appears to hiccup, and an individual appears to have been wrongly convicted, like Hurricane Carter, and the usual documents generated as his or her case made their way through the Justice system, back that up, then those are exceptional documents, and merit being cited here. Our nominator's position is that the Guantanamo system is as unexceptional, well understood, mundane, ordinary, unremarkable as when the US Justice system functions smoothly, and as unworthy of coverage here. But the Guantanamo system is not mundane, unremarkable. And the allegations Uthman faced were not mundane, unremarkable. Consider the allegations Uthman faced in 2004. Consider the first allegation -- he is alleged to have seen an assault rifle. Consider the fifth allegation -- he is alleged to have been "associated" with two suspects in the USS Cole bombing. Some captives questioned how they could defend themselves against the allegation they associated with a terrorist suspect, if they couldn't be told that suspect's name? Further, merely knowing a suspect doesn't make one guilty too. When I was a kid, one day, one of my neighbors, an outwardly normal family man, became a drunken hit-and-run driver. He ran over a child at a cross-walk. And his crime didn't rub off on me. If someone tried to pass these kinds of allegations through the US Justice system they would or should trigger the kind of hiccup that does merit coverage here -- just as these documents do. Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editing problems with the article are dealt with my editing, Disagreements about how to do it are dealt with on the article talk page or at the project. The man is notable, as many of them are. . I see there are now sources in the native countries of the prisoners from outside the US thus removing the cultural bias of the articles and demonstrating international notability. I'm prepared to predict that over the next year as the facility closes, and for many years after that, yet additional sources will appear, including abundant ones on each individual: they will all have a story to tell. But AfD is not a referendum on Gitmo. DGG (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The issue is whether the subject passes WP:BIO, that he is notable now, not whether he may become notable in the future.Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as above, my meaning was notable now, yet more notable later. I don't think this is even borderline, but for those who do, the likelihood of further notability is a reasonable feature in borderline cases. DGG (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Charles Brown

OK, this guy does exist [18], but haven't seen any evidence as to notability re: awards. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per nom. (I actually thought this was a hoax.) RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 07:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. A local review of the opening of an art show, with no follow up press coverage will not meet WP:BIO. If other sources were available to supplement the article provided by Mr. Vernon, my vote would be flexible. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one can sport a sweater like the original. Oh, the article's just a local review of a local artist that does local artwork for locals. flaming lawye r^c 17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suiting Themselves

Book with no claim of notability. Sole cited review is unreadable without subscription. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 07:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral — It was AFD'd 40 minutes after its creation. Give the article a chance. However, I cannot find anything that can establish notability of this book. MuZemike (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established, and I'm worried that the editor who created it is making a habit of creating other articles of similar nature. It doesn't appear to strictly be a WP:COI, but it does seem to be a major interest area/agenda, and he needs to understand the rules on notability and documenting them. He has a bunch of articles linking to press releases, the books themselves, minor reviews that don't meet [[WP:BOOK[[, etc. Deleting this one article won't solve the problem of lots of these articles being generated. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many reviews of this book, and I have added references in the article to a few more. The article satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (books) in that "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself..." Johnfos (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself must make the case for notability. Not the reviews. You need to site them in making that case.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact of the reviews' existence makes the case for notability. Once that case has been made then anything further in the way of including information from the sources and citing them is a matter for editing, not for discussion about deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes the case for notability: a notable author and plenty of quality media coverage. Passes WP:RS and WP:BOOK. No problems here. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IYOUIT

detele nn services and copyvio from [19][20] Wteeets (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — even though if there was a copyvio, it would still be deletable, notable or not. However, there is a conflict of interest with the article's author, so a copyvio is unlikely. Otherwise, notability is established through the shown published papers. MuZemike (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Absolutely no independent, third party reliable sources for this... the so-called published papers are conference inclusions no different from paid press releases in estabishing real world notability. Maybe some day it'll have independent non-trivial media mentions and can be created, but no reason to keep it (especially with copyright violation and clear promotional verbiage) until then. DreamGuy (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep -- The subject of the article exists. The article is NPOV and utilizes the sources available to describe the subject (even though these are press releases). Press releases are evidence of the claims or the article; but the article does not come off like a commercial. If a copyvio exists, the article can be rewritten using available evidence. A good article could very well exist here in the future. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 10:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NPOV? Does not come off like a commercial? "Share personal experiences with others while on the go"; "share, life, blog and play"; "rich contextual tagging for use in everyday life"; "popular Web 2.0 services Flickr and Twitter"; "sharing can be instant"; "cutting edge"; "enhanced user experienced"(sic); "extra value". Are those phrases that you would expect to see in a neutral, non-commercial encyclopedia article? And I've only gone through about the first third of the article in picking out those phrases. I don't know whether this is notable or not, but NPOV it certainly isn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must have been really, REALLY tired when I read the article. It's definitely not NPOV. I apologize. I do think the article might still be rewritten. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 03:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraviolet Sound

Fails WP:MUSIC roux 07:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. New band with no assertions of notability yet. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know notability generally is not inherited but Sarah Hudson (singer) says that this here ultraviolet thingy is actually herself an a bunch of guys. I would offer that if she is notable enough for her own BLP, then her band is too, in particular if its a vehicle as it seems (in other words, she is ceasing to sing solo and will lead the band). If we delete this, then why keep her around? I am for keep if we keep her article, but for delete if we feel it deserves an AfD of its own. Please respond... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BAND notability requirements. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnarvon Road

NN street. Do we need an article on every street everywhere? Merging back to parent page wouldn't work, I think. roux 06:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I got you one source that mentions it, but I can't see how this street is important at all. If you follow Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks), neither the reliable sources nor the coverage exist. NOCTURNENOIR ^talk 07:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. that's Carnarvon Road in London. The article is Carnarvon Road in Reading. // roux 07:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reason for it to be deleted! Now it has absolutely zero sources! (If nobody can tell, I'm extraordinarily tired). NOCTURNENOIR ^talk 07:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article merely establishes it exists. A prosified map does not an article make. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a Gazeteer. Nuttah (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Even in spite of the few delete votes, there are enough keeps and enough solid reason to close this on the side of keep under Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unification Church views of sexuality

Not really a notable topic. It has not been covered in any serious way by reliable sources. The basic information is already given in other articles on the Unification Church and its beliefs. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliably non-UC sources. Should further sources appear, any writeup on this subject can be accommodated in more general UC articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on the basis of significant coverage in newly-added sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly redirect to Unification Church#Celibacy and marriage; but I find it hard to believe that the borrowing, and inversion, from Plato's Symposium has gone completely unnoticed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Rev. Moon read Plato in school. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, there is a problem with using Rev. Moon's speeches as a source. There are thousands of pages of them recorded and many things he says are meant as jokes or said to challenge his listeners. There is nothing special about this quote which would compell anyone to comment on it. And of course it shouldn't be taken literally. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the quote certainly doesn't sound like it was meant to be a formal statement of doctrine -- and is thus perhaps inappropriate for inclusion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it from a speech? The citation gives the impression it's from a book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Make mine merge. That puts it beyond AfD's purview; but I think these added sources belong in Unification Church, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would have no objections to a merge, except for the {{Religion and homosexuality}} issue. Is it genuinely workable to link one section of an article into that template? Regardless, I also have no problem with putting the newly added sources into the main UC article per summary style, either. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. Put the template in that section, and make the link in the template [[Unification Church#Celibacy and marriage|Unification Church]]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for three separate reasons:
1. Its inclusion in the {{Religion and homosexuality}} series--its absence would not serve an encyclopedic purpose.
2. Primary sources are perfectly fine for religious beliefs, per WP:SPS.
3. Sources exist which seem to be candidates for inclusion, such as religoustolerance.org, weeklystandard.com, Washington Post (albeit tangential), as well as several other non-freely available articles listed in Google News. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On primary sources: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V) On "candidate sources": religoustolerance.org is not a WP:RS, the WP article makes no direct connection between homosexuality & the UC, the only direct connection the WS drwas is this quoted question: "Fisher: Do you believe, as the Unification Church teaches, that homosexuality, that homosexuals are dung-eating dogs?" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like an unnecessary fork to me. Social/political views of a religion should be dealt with in the primary article on that religion if they merit inclusion anywhere. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of sources on it "unification church" sexuality at gbooks. at gscholar. Perhaps a name change to UC and sexuality.John Z (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough substance to warrant what appears to be an unnecessary fork. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I nominated it for deletion I was aware that it was originally created as a part of the Homosexuality and religion series. Then it got merged with another article and the information about homosexuality was removed. I don't think an article should be kept just because it is part of a series.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Well, I've been adding the bits about UC disapproval of other-than-heterosexual-married-sex and AIDS back in, with sources, because it seemed like an appropriate part of a religion-and-sexuality article that was missing. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Unification Church views of homosexuality is certainly been documented so it would be easy enough to address those specifically; that it doesn't allow openly LGBT people to join, lesbians and gays explicitly, bisexual and transgender people by implication; that members who are found to be LGBT are shunned or subject to spiritual violence; that same-sex unions are not performed, etc. There has also been some related controversies dealing with people with AIDS along the same manner of theology that evolved from seeing AIDS as a gay disease - I believe later revised to as a simply a mark of sinful lifestyle. The lede should also be a bit more NPOV and expanded. -- Banjeboi 07:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that, as these kind of things usually are. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added that establish notability. Europe22 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely a notable topic. --Alynna (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Since the article has been improved by added cited info I would like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Thanks guys. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Corporate tai chi

The result was 'Speedy delete', advertorial Guy (Help!) 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research/opinion piece, no reliable sources for claims made. Blowdart | ^talk 05:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is any material that is referenced and worth keeping it belongs in Workplace stress or Workplace wellness (or, of course, Tai chi). I'm not going as far as saying merge as I wouldn't want to see either of those two articles become dominated by this topic. At most Workplace Tai-chi seems to be something mentioned in a paragraph that covers practical approaches to workplace stress and/or wellness. —Noah 06:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THere is no encyclopedic content in the article ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a newbie myself, rapid deletion seems to fly in the face of WP:Don't_bite_the_newbies ... the author seems well intentioned, as evidenced by his discussion on the article's own discussion page, and does provide some relevant tidbits of factual interest. It seems to me that if an experienced editor could take the time to coach/mentor that the community of able-bodied editors could grow faster. FrodoFrog (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tai chi. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tai chi There is something going on here of value, but not enough to warrant a full article. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CorporatetaichiCorporate Tai Chi is a highly used methodology. It has been in use for 10 years. It is somewhat of a neologism, not a protologism, that is familiar to people in the field of tai chi, which is 1,000,000 people. There are articles which review it and define it, videos that show it. I have written and videod several of these. According to Wikipedia guidelines, website proof and discussion by the author of the Wikipedia article is unacceptable.

Corporate Tai Chi has a separate track from tai chi, like wellness and corporate wellness. There are different goals and different techniques. Putting corporate tai chi into corporate wellness or corporate stress would be like putting yoga into corporate stress or like putting Rastafarianism (population 600,000) or Unitarian (population 800,000) into Other and not naming them.

As in any kung fu lesson, the more I make an attempt, the more I see the big picture of Wikipedia. Will try to put the request expert tag on the article. Would like a review from someone in the field to evaluate. Peace. Corporatetaichi (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – iridescent 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gottlieb Agnethler

A minor academic in the early 18th century is still a minor academic. There is nothing offered here to establish notability other than he was included in Allgemeine (along with 26,000 other people). Were he alive today, nothing listed here would warrant his being including in Wikipedia. I don't see how this tiny article comes close to satisfying Wikipedia:ACADEMIC. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, being included in a major biographical dictionary is sufficient for notability, and in any case this fellow is included in several, of several languages. There was already a Hungarian-Wikipedia article on him before I created this one, and he has an entry in a Hungarian-language biographical encyclopedia. I suspect that if he were a British academic, included in a comparable English-language encyclopedia, such as EB1911 or the Dictionary of National Biography, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. --Delirium (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the 1911 Britannica had 56 volumes covering 26,000 people, we very likely would be having this discussion under similar circumstances. Your response seems to assume some type of anti-German bias. Please assume WP:GOODFAITH.RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to nominations of foreign-related articles on AfD, there is a long-recognized systemic bias in which non-Anglosphere subjects are nominated for deletion much more frequently than equivalent Anglosphere subjects, by editors who are not familiar with the non-English literature in the area. --Delirium (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such "long-recognized systemic bias." I am nominating him as a non-notable minor academic based solely on the content of this article. If an article like this were written about my brother, I would nominate it for deletion as well.RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Why should I believe he is a minor academic when a lot of effort when to the digilitalization of his work? --Jmundo (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of his work has been digitized. That is simply a listing of publications. Where did you get the idea any effort went into that? We see he wrote a 60 page dissertation and several pamphlets. Try clicking on some of the links... RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 07:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books.google.com is pretty much irrelevant; they scan everything. Note, however, from my understanding of Google's book scanning process that they have in fact scanned all those books, and just haven't got around to putting them online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's apparently notable enough for there to be nonzero interest in his scientific work 200+ years after his death, gscholar search turns up "Das wissenschaftliche Werk des transsylvanischen Arztes und Altertumsforschers Michael Gottlieb Agnethler (1719-1752). " by Wolfram Kaiser in Comm. Hist. Art. Med, v 81, p 73--87, (1977}. (see also [21] ) and some mention in the same author's[22] and [23]. That gbooks list above contains some things about him, not just by him..John Z (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the Google Books entry? The mention of him in a third-party book indicates he attended a medical conference. It is an attendance list. None of his works, all of which appear to be in Latin, have been translated, and they certainly have not been scanned. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because they are currently not available doesn't mean they haven't been scanned.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's got the reliable sources about him. While we've got good reasons to be cautious about modern people for BLP reasons, for vanity reasons, etc, once someone is dead and gone, most of those reasons go away; given the the notability of entry in a major general biographical dictionary, I see no reason not to include them, and that goes for all 26,000 people in the Allgemeine and 50,000 people in the Dictionary of National Biography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"that goes for all 26,000 people in the Allgemeine and 50,000 people in the Dictionary of National Biography" -- opinions like this will turn Wikipedia into the equivalent of a telephone book. Harold Pinter would have found this amusing. Perhaps it's fitting to have this discussion in his memory. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have two million articles; how are 76,000 more going to fundamentally change anything?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to Worldcat, his most widely held book is in only 22 libraries worldwide, including several German libraries. Apparently his scholarly contributions were mostly commentaries on the work of Carl Linnaeus, a notable contemporary scholar. By comparison, Carl Linnaeus’s book holdings in libraries worldwide today are in the several hundreds.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
less notable than Carl Linaeus is not the same as not notable at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wronglostboy (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable at his own lifetime (If Wikipedia had existed then he would have been included as an author) Obviously notable 200 years after his death as already pointed out. Notability does not vanish with time. Agathoclea (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd appreciate if some modern academics would comment here. I must be missing something. All things being equal, I would have nominated him for deletion 250+ years ago too. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Biographical dictionaries already sort and select notable people to include. So inclusion in such a work or an encyclopedia makes a person notable. The idea that including all those entries would turn Wikipedia into a phonebook doesn't hold water. We already have far more biographies than that. Also, phonebooks only lists names. This entry actually contains biographical details (which sets it apart from phonebooks). Besides, Wikipedia is not paper and as long as something useful can be said about the people, we don't have any space issues to worry about that limit inclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is a red herring. It doesn't change the fact the he is a non-notable academic. I have a feeling people are enamored that he lived 250+ years ago, but that is irrelevant to me. He is remembered because he is listed in an archaic source that demonstrated little discretion in its editorial inclusion policy. Will people be claiming 100 years from now that everyone listed in Who's Who in America is worthy of encyclopedic mention?--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 21:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"archaic source that demonstrated little discretion in its editorial inclusion policy" How did you come to this conclusion? Any officially published dictionary and encyclopedia has rigorous inclusion guidelines, the same was the case 250 years ago. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply don't worship the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. It was all inclusive, written during a highly jingoist period in German history, cited almost entirely German scholars, and there is no reason to believe its standards for inclusion even remotely coincide with Wikipedia's or any other encyclopedia.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for inclusion for Wikipedia say that if someone is included in the ADB, they pass our standards for inclusion. Before posting again about who you think should deserve an article, please respond to what policy says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I was unaware of it. Anyway, I've withdrawn this AfD (see below), so an admin can feel free to close it. And you are right, this is a policy issue and this is not the right forum to debate it. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD nominator who is constantly haggling every keep comment is becoming tiring. In the end everything boils down to one question: Who benefits more by the inclusion - the subject or the public. This subject is long dead and the benefit any of his descendants might gain from a wp-article is less than negligible. The benefits for the public? Another piece of sourced information about a person who was a notable person of his time. Hey, not as notable as King Charlie the 500th but then not many person can rattle down their countries current university professors like they can do the far less smart politicians who pretend they are running the countries today. Agathoclea (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are rude and uncivil, e.g., "An AFD nominator who is constantly haggling every keep comment is becoming tiring." I feel some obligation as the nominator to participate in the discussion process and respond to comments. If you don't like my comments, feel free to ignore them. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 22:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Wikipedia's notability rules is not to subject articles to individual "I think he's important/I think he's unimportant" opinions; it's to make an objective WP:NPOV distinction possible. The general notability guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It passes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources obviously exist, clearly notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu:Michael Gottlieb Agnethler lists an extensive bibliography, at a time when getting published wasn't trivial. Couple that with the fact that he was considered notable by "one of the most important and most comprehensive biographical reference works in the German language" and I'd say that there's plenty of grounds to consider him notable. So Keep. Guettarda (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific publications at that time were largely in the form of non-peer reviewed, self-financed small pamphlets. Let's not make up facts such as "at a time when getting published wasn't trivial." If he had something published by the Royal Academy or the like (which he did not), that would certainly catch my attention. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, all 26,000 people in AFB are notable. It's the same standard we use elsewhere. I rely on its judgments more than my own, for the people it covers. DGG (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. Inclusion in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie ensures notability at his own lifetime, by definition. Inclusion there would at the very least reverse the burden of proof, that it should somehow be demonstrated that the individual was not notable. I cannot imagine that such an effort would be commensurate with the added benefit to Wikipedia and I believe other tasks are more urgent. The sheer thought of reviewing every entry from Allgemeine (and other old encyclopedias) checking for notability from a modern viewpoint (and reaching consensus, also with the other language projects, here the Hungarian) is breathtaking. Prosfilaes and Mgm said the rest. I suggest Snowball keep. - Power.corrupts (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lonely being a deletionist. :) I give up and hereby withdraw this AfD. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep "Ukrainophobia" as a redirect to "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment". Keep "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment". --MZMcBride (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainophobia

:Ukrainophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) The article is completely unsourced, thereby it fails WP:V. As it stands now, I am well within the rights of policy to blank the entire page as WP:BURDEN is not met, as I do dispute the article, in that being unreferenced, it can only be regarded as WP:OR/WP:SYN, and it reads like a WP:SOAPBOX (former oppressor? All of the Ukrainian political leaders....?) We have anti-whatever sentiment articles on WP, and they are warranted so long as core policies are met, which at this stage this article doesn't meet a single one, so wouldn't object to an article in future which complies with policy (i.e. delete without prejudice). Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless the article is significantly improved. As it stands now it does not comply with WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep as the article seems to improve Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - biased original research. Óðinn (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the article would only be acceptable if it were about the term "Ukrainophobia" and the phenomenon (assuming that such a neologism even exists and is widely reported); in its current state, it appears to be mostly just an OR-ish analysis of history and current events. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Obviously, there is such thing as anti-Ukrainian sentiment, just as anti-German sentiment, anti-Americanism, and so on. There is even anti-national slur like "Khokhol" in Russian. Yes, the article is poorly sourced. Let's source it better and perhaps rename.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the sentiment exists, but my concern is that the term "ukrainophobia" may be a neologism that's not widely acknowledged or reported; i mean, there's probably a such thing as "cats that don't like the color blue" but that doesn't mean it's a common term we should be writing an article about. I have changed my vote from "delete" to "weak delete," and I think that if the article is not deleted it should at least be changed to what you suggested (Anti-Ukrainian sentiment) and should discuss that sentiment, rather than the "Ukrainophobia" neologism. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to debate moves. If subject is notable and can be sourced, the article should be kept and then moved.Biophys (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just moved the article. Should it now be kept?Biophys (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because what remains is still a mish-mash of WP:OR/WP:SYN. The 2 sources which are used do not demonstrate Ukrainophobia and/or anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Also, I have removed unsourced information, please remember WP:BURDEN. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you removed the sources themselves, and you did it without proper debate.Biophys (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed WP:EL. Not WP:RS which are being used for WP:V. 2 biographies of 2 people being used as references in the article are not relevant WP:EL. The others, well, they are a mish-mash of unreliable sources and/or do not comply with WP:EL. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Alex B. said, the topic might be worth expanding; the anti-Ukrainian element is evident in current Kremlin media, either disappearing or reemerging based on their short-term goals. But it does not qualify as phobia. Historical discrimination against Ukrainian culture in the former Empire is a larger topic that should be covered in the mainstream articles of the History of Ukraine, History of Russia, Ukrainian culture etc. series and not POV-forks. NVO (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism might be worth mentioning in the appropriate article about Ukranian Russian relations, but insufficent notability (nto to mention the article issues) for stand-alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename A phobia is an irrational fear. Having anti-Ukrainian sentiments is a far cry from a phobia. Unless this can be properly renamed, it should go. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the original meaning of 'phobia' is irrational, excessive, fear. However, nuances of words change over time, and nowadays, it's common to classify irrational dislikes -- not just fear -- as phobias. Similarly, 'homo' was once Latin for 'human' -- and has now become the defining root of a number of words related to homosexuality, including homophobia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such a phenomenon is quite common in Russia. Jonathan321 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia. But first remove from Category:Discrimination and remove from template {{Discrimination sidebar}}. Move to a different name and delete redirect from neologism Ukrainophobia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - What we should have is some article covering the arguments for and against the existence of an Ukranian nation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you remember what happened when you last time attempted to reframe a discussion about ethnic prejudices like that? It's quite a dangerous ground. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In present (I feel there could be no serious improvements in the near future) condition nothing more than WP:OR and WP:SYN. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, this can be built into a reasonable article as there appears to be several scholarly papers and books that discusses the topic. Martintg (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The best case for deletion is in fact made by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism:

“

Of course there have been people at various times in history who have displayed or expressed dislike of Greeks. And of course other people criticising the former have employed terms like "anti-Greek" or "anti-Hellenic" to describe them. Ancient Judaeans disliking Hellenistic tyranny; Romans disliking Ancient Greek culture; Turks disliking Greeks in 1950s Istanbul; Western media critical of Greek expansion in the early 20th century; Romanians disliking their Greek Phanariot overlords in the early 19th century; Latins disliking Byzantines in the Middle Ages; 20th-century Americans giving preference to their Turkish allies over their Greek ones; proponents of "Afrocentrism" jealous of Greece's perceived monopoly of grand cultural heritage. Of course that's all sourceable. The point is: There is no scholarly literature (WP:RS) that discusses all these disparate historical situations as part of a single story, a single unified pattern or phenomenon. The article commits OR by constructing "a novel narrative" from these unrelated instances.

”

I cannot see any difference between that and this article. The scholarly papers and books that Martintg cites above are nothing more that random references in unrelated contexts. What would be needed are sources that state that this is a "single unified pattern or phenomenon". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is not applicable since "anti-Hellenic sentiment" described in that deleted article spanned from ancient to modern Greece, however it is not applicable in this case because anti-Ukrainian sentiment described is mostly confined to the 20th century, most obvious expression being in the form of the Soviet holocaust. The majority of these books cited are concerned with this period of Ukrainian history and references to "anti-Ukrainian sentiment" is in relation to this period. Martintg (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only concur with Petri Krohn, for what is still in the article is a mish-mash of views on different subjects put together to form Ukrainophobia, hence it is WP:SYN. What you are suggesting is that this article should stay as a WP:POVFORK, whereas if the sources (very little which can be used) are concerned with alleged Soviet holocaust (and I state alleged to inclusion of Holodomor in that list, and which is what I think you are referring to), then this could be more than covered succinctly within the relevant article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainophobia and Anti-Ukrainian sentiment are really two different things, the former is a neologism that may or may not deserve deletion, while the latter is a verifiable fact of life in many regions in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Martintg (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainophobia has a greater usage, than say, oh, I don't know, Putinjugend, yet several editors, yourself included, voted to keep that. Why would one be in favour of deletion of one neologism, but absolutely in favour for the retention of another? Also, I will point out that the reversal of my edit by yourself has not only re-include mispellings, such as Vladivostock, fixes of grammar ("a far smaller access" (yours) to "less access" (mine), but has also reincluded WP:PEACOCK terms in the article; in particular the usage of "some Ukrainians" (being a Ukrainian cultural group in Ufa) and then "several Ukrainian organisation (one of those being the same cultural group referenced for "some Ukrainians"); so WP:SELFPUB letters by the Ukrainian Cultural Centre in Ufa (from 2000 and 2006, mind you) are now being used as evidence of anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Russia? Also, your inclusion of Deputy Speaker of the State Duma in relation to Zhirinovsky may be fact, but is done to portray a POV that Zhirinovsky is speaking for the State Duma, when he is not, he is talking as the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (who hate just about everyone). The funniest thing though, is most of the sources found in Google scholar and books which mention anti-Ukrainian sentiment and/or Ukrainophobia (as opposed to delve into great detail on, thereby qualifying the subject for inclusion as per WP:V), don't relate to anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Russia, but rather in Poland. As it stands now, this is still a WP:POVFORK (of Ukrainians_in_Russia#Anti-Ukrainian_sentiment_in_Russia, from where this information was originally presented) and WP:SYN, as evidenced by the re-inclusion of information relating to the churches in Russia - this has nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian sentiment, but rather, well if you follow anything to do with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, you will know what it has everything to do with. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename to Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Even if the article could be considered substandard, deletion is not a valid way to deal with it. Data about ethnic prejudices, however, has a place in any reasonably thorough encyclopædia -- and renaming resolves any lingering WP:NEO concerns. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that with the proliferation on nation-phobia articles, the first reaction of many is to delete it. Just like any other anti-national sentiment, it is present in real life. This is not a neologism, there is a body of scholarly literature to support it. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regarding Poland, there was some historical Ukrainophobia until after WWII (accompanied by Polonophobia on the other end), and the article should probably mention that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article requires editing, not erasure. The depth and the scope of the subject is easily confirmed and notability appears to be in order. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. The article should cover both Russian and Polish (as well as Romanian etc) historical and current 'Ukrainophobia'. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. When I saw "Ukrainophobia", I thought of arachnophobia, so I thought there were people scared of Ukrainians and go hysterical when they see them, just like with a spider. I dislike the word "Ukrainophobia" since it is just some made up word, total neologism. I only got 8,460 hits in Google, and Google had on top of the page "Did you mean: Uranophobia". The material is about Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, so it is fine to redirect it to that article. Lehoiberri (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NVO and ChildOfMidNight. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World jump day music

Not notable band as per WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND. No WP:RS. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No notability asserted. Rnb (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily at administrator's discretion. This is not a notable band. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to meet WP:BAND notability requirements. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well-researched article on an important band with great underground influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.218.5 (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... with no independent sources asserting notability... --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After hearing Lydia Gammill's EP, I have been searching for this band for a while, and was pleased to see they had a wikipedia page. I am sure I am not the only one who felt so. This is certainly a notable band.Newengland1 (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting new users with no history of editing on Wikipedia, and who all clearly have not even read WP:BAND does not help the discussion. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet notability requirements WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shutout#Association_Football. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean sheet

Article gives nothing more than a definition of the term 'clean sheet.' No notability is asserted or established; page has been tagged 'unreferenced' for more than a year; two 'references' do nothing more than establish that the term exists (which was never in doubt) Drmies (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteJust a dictionary item. It could be mentioned in football strategy.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important term in football terminology. The article needs improving & sourcing, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Its not enough to have it on it's own. We use to have Football (soccer) terminology but that must of been deleted and redirected to Association football. There is very little of what you can add to a page which is just about a clean sheet. Govvy (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikionary has a much better and shorter decrisption of this. Plus, this article is basically a longer version of the linked dict term. --Numyht (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a football slang term of no real encyclopaedic notability. - fchd (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Shutout - no use having different articles on the same subject. The shutout article even accounts for the term already. matt91486 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Shutout, and then redirect to the same article in order to comply with the GFDL. – Pee Jay 22:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - To Shutout#Association_Football, doesn't warrant an article specifically for usage in soccer. Sunderland06 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Normington

fails to meet WP:BIO notability guidelines GrahamSmith (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of info but nothing that lifts him out of the ordinary and unnotable.Northwestgnome (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--and I've looked very closely at the references in the article, modifying the claims made. Our subject is chosen to run for office next time around, but so far has not distinguished himself at all. Some of the claims in the article are exaggerated, some were simply false (according to the sources given), others were silly or trivial. In all, I think subject is not notable enough, and the page smacks of vanity, to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Delete It wouldn't take much to bring this article up to snuff, but right now I think the claim of notoriety isn't well established. (and the part about "being present at a dinner..." is downright silly.Jmbranum (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not what it said, originally--it said that he spoke at a dinner before this famous personality or something like that, and the sources didn't bear that out, to put it mildly. I have the feeling that someone close to the subject wrote this, and might want to say that 'they didn't put everything in the article that really happened....' but that's not the point of WP policy. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider major party candidates for seats in a national legislature as notable, whether they win or lose. DGG (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Red (album). Black Kite 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Providence (song)

This song is not notable outside of the Red album per WP:Music Scapler (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per common practice for song information. If it's not notable enough for a separate article, it's still a good idea to mention the information in context. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album track. JamesBurns (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--I agree with MGM; there is some real information here that might find a place. Rephrase: there is some real information that's not in the article that might find a place; the song received some coverage in the Billboard Guide to Progressive Music. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Red (album). Black Kite 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red (song)

This song is not notable outside of the Red album. The article only gives general information about tempo and instrumentation which could be integrated into the album article. Scapler (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per common practice for song information. If it's not notable enough for a separate article, it's still a good idea to mention the information in context. (nominator even mentions merging it) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album track. JamesBurns (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MGM, and nom. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Larks' Tongues in Aspic (album). Black Kite 23:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exiles (King Crimson song)

This song does not have notability outside of the album it appears on. Any additional information that someone believes should be said about it (which should be about one sentence at the most) can be integrated into the Larks' Tongues in Aspic article. Scapler (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per common practice for song information. If it's not notable enough for a separate article, it's still a good idea to mention the information in context. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per above. Lovely song, but probably not worth a separate article. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album track. JamesBurns (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to main album page. Song doesn't need a separate article. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 08:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diazepunk

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Diazepunk (2nd nomination)

Non-notable band Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This band meet notability, as they have been magazine featured by New Music Express, a notable source regarding music, and have also been featured at the New Music Express TV Website - see here- these count as reliable 3rd party feature, and therefore, Diazepunk meet notability standards. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query (new): Do you have a link for the magazine article? Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've got me! You see, they appeared in a print version of NME, I know because I collect it and I have seen their piece in one of my copies (I have about 400 editions which I catalogued here.) - I will have to go back through them since I am positive they were featured this year or last. Please allow me a little time to look through them. If I find it, I will scan the article in and upload the image to Wikipedia. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not required if you don't feel like it. All I'd like to know is the issue, but I'll take your word for it that it was a non-trivial mention in NME. And really, the issue isn't that important. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdented) - OK! - It'll still mean me doing a quick search through them to find the issue number for the piece, but thank you for sparing me a full search of 100 or so magazines (some of mine are blown up to tabloid size due to my sight) :) Its a weekly publication so 52 per year... should be able to add this by tomorrow at the latest. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query:Are there other sources? WP:BAND requires multiple non-trivial sources, and I feel the New Music Express sources count as a single combined source in this case. If there are, and they were added or confirmed in some way in the article, and the article made clear the band's notability, I'd be happy to withdraw my deletion nomination. As it stands now, I just don't feel it meets WP:BAND, and it has been bearing a notability tag for several months. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources available, such as a popular culture and events site for people living in Peru, LivingInPeru.com, or a major concert website where they are listed as one of the 5 biggest national bands, here, or by the peruvian kids tv network, NAPA TV, here.

Their CD's are being sold nationally by perucd.com, here, and another of their cd's, Viernes, is in that sites list of bestsellers at number 9. I don't know how much more you need, but I'm happy to go get some more stuff if you need it :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete (by nominator): In light of the information Thor Malmjursson has provided in support of Diazepunk's notability, I think it is possible that this article *might* meet the requirements of WP:BAND. I don't speak Spanish, but the article Thor Malmjursson has linked translates in Google to "five big bands together" and Babelfish says "five great national bands", which sounds to me more like a value statement than a statement supportive of notability. I just don't feel the sources Thor Malmjursson provided defeat the non-trivial mention requirement of WP:BAND. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I mistakenly labelled this nomination as the 2nd nomination. It is actually the 3rd. The article was speedy declined (looks like by the same person) twice previously. I think this article deserves a thorough vetting by the WP community. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. None of the sources graciously provided by Thor M. provide in-depth coverage, even if they are not trivial (as far as I can tell), and this certainly applies to the NME link. I found nothing beside lyrics, and the discography also does not establish notability according to WP:Band, again, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So coverage by a national TV network doesn't promote notability? NAPA TV is a major kids TV network in Peru. Its like CBBC covering Take That. Granted, not on the same scale, but coverage by a national TV network must count for something. The websites are independent, and people wouldn't be buying an album from a band they'd never heard of, would they? I refer you to article one of WP:BAND:

(1_)It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[footnotes 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries.

Coverage by NME, an independent music magazine, both in print and as a featured video on NME TV, imho fulfills this requirement. NAPA TV's coverage of the band, imho fulfills this requirement.

Still, the call is yours :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I read WP:BAND as require a) multiple AND b) non-trivial. I wouldn't argue that NME is non-trivial, it isn't, but I think the other sources might be (or at least there is insufficient proof that they are non-trivial), and therefore it would fail the test. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is sufficient media coverage of this band to establish notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbranum (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--The band is notable in Peru's punk-rock scene.--Jmundo (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I haven't heard of it" is thankfully not a reason for deletion. Of all the fancruft, vanity, hoax, and spam "bands" we get, youse goyse had to go an pick one that fits the WP:MUSIC Bill of Health to the hilt! This is an easy keep, because the band is super-notable. Of course, if you think that English wikipedia should not only be in English (which we all agree upon), but also only be about things in English, then go ahead an vote delete. There will go all pretense of neutrality and lack of geo-bias, but its okay. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was in good faith, so please assume as such. WP:Assume good faith The article fails to indicate notability, and the sources that have now been provided are still questionable, at least in my mind, under WP:BAND. It may very well be a notable band, but notability should be provable, not just based on the fact that some people on WP know who they are. This isn't geo-bias, I frankly don't care where this band is from, based on what I've seen, I'd vote exactly the same way. I've already made it clear that I'd change my mind if I saw something that I felt pushed it over WP:BAND, and Thor Malmjursson has gotten it pretty close with NME. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, assume the assumption of good faith. You can be geographically biased in good faith, one thing has very little to do with the other. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After an exhaustive search, I managed to find another source, an article announcing the release of this band's first live album, on RockPERU.com. http://www.rockperu.com/noticias200606.html My reading of that article suggests that it might or might not cause the band to meet WP:BAND. My issue is that WP:BAND does not include "release information or track listings" in the definition of notability-proving works. The article appears to be mostly "release information or track listings", and therefore I still don't think it meets notability requirements in WP:BAND, however I can see how people might. Again, the band my very well be notable, and I hate to be a stickler but I have so far only heard of one source that clearly puts it past WP:BAND, the NME source, which I haven't actually seen, but have asked Thor Malmjursson to post a link if possible. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says that "the band has made a name and is now one of the most representative of the scene." --Jmundo (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that as well. However, I'm not convinced that it raises that article above the level required in WP:BAND. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to c-c-c-combo break the skeptic, under-the-microscope dance, but please don't hate me if I feel kinda that if RockPeru.com where in English and MTV.com, you guys wouldn't be all skeptical and ~~shit~~ crap. I know that its all in good faith, and that you are all open-minded editors, but it is a little frustrating to see all kinds of crappy two bit marketing creations that barely meet WP:BAND be left alone, while we put this clearly notable band under the microscope because we can't be bothered to trust the Spanish-speaking editors to tell you, yeah, this shit is notable, ese. In ~~fucking~~ freaking Español Wikipedia, the article ( Diazepunk ) is nowhere near the quality as the one here, yet no one dares to raise notability, cause we know its notable, we are just too lazy (or dislike popish pseudo-skapunk as is my case) to fix it. But notability? Hells Yes. This is what I mean with geo-bias... and pointing out geo-bias is not more a loss of AGF than pointing out any other problem with a line of reasoning, so quit being defensive and start talking about the content. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's talk about the content only. We can discuss geo-bias & linguo-bias another time if you wish. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't explain myself... it is precisely geo-bias what is keeping people from seeing notability: Everyone in Peru of a certain age, and pretty much anyone who follows popish skatepunk in Latin America knows about this band its the "one that used to have the chick in the keyboards" (not rs) or gets mentioned in the the major newspapers in Peru as notable enough to be included in a tribute for Soda Stereo (who are roughly the equivalent of Radiohead in the LatAm scene - except they are mostly from the 1980s and broke up in the 1990s) here and as a vital part of the "neo punk" scene here. La Republica is like saying, well, the Washington Post. If a band gets covered by the Washington Post, do you consider it notable? Hell, wikipedia is full of bands deemed to have met WP:BAND without a single mention in the straight, mainstream, non-music press, and with much fewer reliable source sthan what has been presented now. These guys have NME and a major press organ + dominant online sources. And of course, no AfD is complete with out a google count, which is over ~~9000~~ 65000 Get it? Not my cup of tea, and I have very little in common with Peru, but meets WP:BAND, but more important, meets WP:NOTE, which is the real policy. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mere name coverage (most of what I've seen of this band) in the Washington Post would probably not satisfy WP:BAND Especially if that coverage, like what was on RockPERU, was limited to a track listing and release notice, or just simple a name-drop or name list. Also, just because other articles have gone below the radar does not mean that this article shouldn't be properly checked when it has been nominated for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do we have as of now that are either direct claims of notability or verification, 4? 5? Let me add another one, this time a full interview from Zona Joven #36 - a major teen magazine in Peru (website 500 on me but we can reference without weblink). Had this been a Usonian or British band, would the same standard of skepticism would have applied? I understand the need for verification, but geo-bias is clouding the judgment in this case. For example ILiKETRAiNS (two sources) Pivot_(Australian_band) (three sources) etc etc etc. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one article that I would describe as a claim of notability, the others are just mentions of their name or other items below what I read as the requirements in WP:BANDS. As for whether this had been an American or British band... It wouldn't make a difference for me. I just haven't had an opportunity to look at many (really any) other band articles to see how deficient they are. I'll be making it a priority. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I hoped somebody would address some of these... Are songs by this band played regularly on the radio? If so, it would appear to pass WP:BAND #11, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Have they "won or placed in a major music competition," as per WP:BAND #9? Is the label they are signed with a major national or indie label, as per WP:BAND #5? I want to make sure we are covering all the bases, because I can see this band is popular, and the article has some strong defenders, and I'd love to be able to keep it. Proof of any of these, or any other WP:BAND criteria would be greatly appreciated.

Note: I maintain the band fails WP:BAND #1. I also think it fails WP:BAND #7, as the band may have been described in one article as a prominent representative of their style, but not the prominent representative as stated in #7.

WP:BAND:A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. Diazepunk meets Criteria #7, "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" as shown by the verifiable sources above. --Jmundo (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I disagree. WP:BAND says the most and the article in question says "one of the most representative of the scene." Semantics, maybe, but I don't see that article as proving WP:BAND #7. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not the only source available, see all the references above.--Jmundo (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND is clear and unambiguous, you just have to meet any of the criteria (be advised it is a guideline). So to answer the direct question, and I realize this should have been done before (except I dislike WP:BAND because it contradicts WP:NOTE).

This band meets WP:BAND:

1 (at least four sources),

4 (NME and local, including V via 23punk.com, THE portal for Peruvian punk),

5 ( 4 lps - Union Discos dominates the indie punk/hc/pop punk/skate scene in Peru, - even Leusemia, the oldest and most famous punk band in Peru has released through them)

7 (Local news and youth media, including the TV show Jammin', a major youth oriented pop/rock music show in Peru),

10 (inclusion in a compilation album with other notable bands in tribute to a super-notable band Soda Stereo, inclusion verified by two sources, besides primary source of publisher - in addition to FOUR other compilations on punk, including a live concert album, besides an album of their full concert, and participation on the major Rock en el Parque festival, THE rock festival in Peru, and appearance in Jammin')

11 (plays on local radio rock programing, and on TV - their videos are Borat quality, but hey!)

12 (played live in Jammin, the entire show dedicated to their live playing, videos are youtubed)

Before these are inevitably attempted to be shot down, plese remember we just need one of them under WP:BAND. On top of that, some of these have *multiple* hits. Taken as a whole, this one of the most solid WP:BAND I have seen in a long time... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all contributors: As it appears at the moment that we are not gonna get anywhere close to a resolution on this, I am going to ask for a mediator to step in and help us reach an understanding on this. This conversation is getting awfully complex and I personally think we need some help. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is getting a little complicated. I'll concur that we probably need some help. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of doubt, the guidance of WP:DGFA is clear: When in doubt, don't delete.--Jmundo (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its simple, really, the band overwhelmingly meets WP:BAND criteria, with the sources and evidence presented. Nothing too complicated. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, Mediation Not Required: I got what I wanted from Cerejota, proof of one of the WP:BAND criteria that I could agree with. #5 is satisfied as per assertion that Union Discos is dominant record house for this type of music in Peru. Excellent. I withdraw my nomination after an exhaustive discussion, because I finally see something that is clear-cut. The band meets WP:BAND. Will somebody please add a note about #5 in the discussion page for the article. Will the seconded Delete nomination from Drmies preclude a simple close due to withdrawal?Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Still disagree on #1. ;)Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... don't start! ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12, confirmed copyright violation Mgm|^(talk) 18:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redteam

This group may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article is also written by a representative of the group, and written in the first-person narrative style (note the use of the word 'we'). Richard Cavell (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until it is noticed by the mainstream, which might not happen since the team seems to be a bit secretive. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--a personal project page with no notability asserted or established. Google gave me nothing. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Red Team as an alternate spelling. 76.66.195.190 (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD G11 - blatant advertising. The article is also marked as copyright on the website from which it is a verbatim copy, and there is no evidence of permission. Due to the copyright problem, I've marked it as a copyright violation. The revision prior to mine is located here. – Toon ^(talk) 15:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Goose (song)

There is little reason for this song to have an article, as it is notable only within the context of the album. It is not referenced and does not assert notability beyond other Jethro Tull songs Scapler (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable song. JamesBurns (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--per nom, no notability outside of album. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Gavin (Unification Church)

Not notable. The only source is something he wrote himself 26 years ago. Also no useful information. He almost certainly not holding the same job now. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--he seems to have played a minor role in a John Kerry-related scandal, but that's all there is to it. Not a good article, as the nominator noted, and notability isn't even asserted. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Not notable at all.Czolgolz (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Where's the beef? Erm, the notability? Damn, at least CLAIM IT. This should be done away. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Bedford

After two speedy deletions and subsequent recreations by the same editor, it's probably time for an AfD. There is no evidence of notability per WP:BIO and no sources beyond a couple of mentions online freshacconci talktalk 01:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 01:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Half the article is about her education, the other just tells us where her paintings can be seen and purchased.Northwestgnome (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article isn't much more than a vanity piece. I found no significant coverage or her whatsoever, just this interview on a blog. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a legitimate entry about an internationally renown artist. Acclaimed ArtReview magazine would agree: http://www.artreview.com/group/futuregreats/forum/topic/show?id=1474022%3ATopic%3A34667 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.43.193 (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "100 Future Greats"? We don't have crystal balls (mine are solid adamantium!). So, we wait until Whitney is a real, notable, Great (with capital "G" and all) before we have her bio, because (repeat after me) Potential Notability Is Not Notability (as all those deleted football prospects have shown). In the meantime, tell Whitney to not lose all that talent and potential, we will all be biting our nails awaiting that her career takes off to the point that she can earn that most elusive of all intertubes prizes, a wikipedia BLP! Not now, though. Sorry. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that that was the 2005 future greats list, with a ton of names. The fact that this person isn't otherwise listed as great anywhere only proves that that particular crystal ball failed.DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability established. Basically free advertising as it stands now. DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom OttoTheFish (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The_Kingdom_(film)#Production. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Papac

The article is about a non-notable assistant propmaster who died in an accident on a movie set. Only source provided is a gossip blog and, even then, it is only to speculate about the circumstances of his death because of the involvement on a notable individual. Delete per notability and WP:1E Rockpocket 01:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Kingdom_(film)#Production where the guy's covered. Not enough notability for a separate article, but since it was a severe incident during the filming of a notable production it does deserve to be mentioned. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The motto over at WP:BLP1E is "Cover the event, not the person" and the event's covered at The_Kingdom_(film)#Production. —97198 (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Mgm. --Bobak (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. But for the tragic accident, I doubt that Nick Papac would have attracted any attention as an assistant propmaster. Mandsford (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Why do we have to delete when we can redirect if appropiate? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as requested below to complete the merge. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Festival (Canada's Wonderland)

AfDs for this article:

Merger has not been made within three weeks. Therefore, I renominated the article for deletion. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The nominator could have merged the material into the main article rather than starting a new AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know where in the article would be appropriate for merger. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close and Merge. Due to proximity (less than a month!) we should speedy close this thing. That said, it would have taken the nominator less time to merge it himself than to do the AfD! The previous AfD was clear, and we do not have deadlines, . If the nominator feels we are too slow, then he should be WP:BOLD... sure was bold in nominating. In fact, I am merging in accordance to the previous AfD, so this definitely should be speedy close. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is done, I put a redirect, but it won't really work until this AfD is closed. Could someone uninvolved speedy close this? This is as snowball as it gets. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy (Heartsdales song)

unnotable, uncharting single. Tavix (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be redirected to group I suppose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Crash Bandicoot games

No inline references, all external links are at crashmania.net, which doesn't satisfy WP:RS, a lot of Google searching both on news and web search turns up nothing, opinions all over the place like "this would have probably been a good game", no references I have found do more than actually just say that the games may have existed at one time or another (they don't reference anything else in the article), and of the ones I have found, none have been reliable. Overuse of copyrighted images, too, in comparison with the textual content of the aforementioned article. — neuro^(talk) 01:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft; just a CrashMania rehash. JJL (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no indication of notability in any of these games or as a whole. Wikipedia is also not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film with no name

Believe it or not, this one was denied a speedy delete tag. I don't know who Ben and Chris are supposed to be -- but I hope they get this message soon. Completely unencyclopedic at every imaginable level. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The CSD was only declined because it was a G1, it wasn't declined altogether. — neuro^(talk) 01:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally tagged as A1, then changed to G1, then declined a speedy delete in favour of a prod tag. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#POSTALSERVICE. Sam ^Blab 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auf Achse (song)

This song was not a single, and is otherwise not notable apart from the album it appears on. Also, the lyrics which comprise half the article are blatantly illegal copyright infringement Scapler (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Lyrics have been removed, thank you! Scapler (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--since this didn't chart and isn't otherwise remarkable, it has no notability outside of the album. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If Bartel's book is notable, then one can write an article on the book, rather than writing a coat rack to hang a vague article on. Black Kite 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of marketing thought

The title of the article corresponds exactly to a cursory glance at the Ghits. This is probably unsurprising. However, as a career marketing person, since 1979, I can say with clarity that at no time has any thought been given by my colleagues to histories of marketing thought.

This leads me to the conclusion, a conclusion which I admit freely is original research, that the article is placed to promote Bartels and his book, or as spam.

This I have brought the article here for community consideration. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete: I made the redirect and I think it is harmless enough, although maybe unlikely to searched on. The article it replaced was another matter. I have no idea what "marketing thought" means apart from "marketing" or "marketing theory". It seems a strange coinage and it doesn't deserve an article if it is not in general usage. I am not very happy with the History of marketing article either. It also seems to promote the term "marketing thought" and it seems odd that it is a separate article rather than a section within the Marketing article. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has been replaced with the original content. This is probably helpful from the point of this deletion discussion but it does mean that I am changing my recommendation to delete unless there is solid proof that marketing thought is a mainstream term and that it has a meaning and history distinct from that of marketing itself. The fact that it lacks any article of its own makes me very suspicious. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was replaced as blanking the page is not according to the deletion procedures. Also, please check this two articles upon which I am basing my edits: [24] and Hollander, Stanley C.; Rassuli, Kathleen M.;, Jones, D. G. Brian; Dix, Laura Farlow (2005). "Periodization in Marketing History". Journal of Macromarketing Volume 25 (Issue 1): Pages: 32-41. Editor br (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to make it very clear that I did not blank the article while deletion was under discussion. If you look at the history you will see that I made the redirect shortly before the AfD was started, independently, by somebody else. I have done nothing contrary to the deletion process. I could not have done, even if I had wanted to, as we were not in the deletion process at the time. I don't think that anybody else has done anything wrong either. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check the outline proposed in History of marketing. Editor br (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Marketing thought" is used 3,390 times in Google Scholar. Editor br (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, I am trying to revamp the marketing related articles, and I am starting to edit and create articles on the field. The basis of my research are cited in both "History of Marketing" and "History of Marketing Thought". No original research was conducted. I ask you to check the references I cited. Some of them can be checked for free in Google Books. I am a career marketing person as well, and I am trying to deepen the articles related to marketing using scholarly sources. If you don't agree with my approach, you're welcome to question it in the discussion page of the "History of Marketing" discussion page, where I laid out the plan: first, build the content about the history of marketing in a separate page and summarize in the main article. If you all disagree with this approach, I am happy to edit them in my user page and submit them once I finished writing all of them, as it may take a while. Warm regards, Editor br (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some facts: Google Scholar [25] points out to 382 articles with the term "history of marketing thought", versus [26] 9 times to the term "history of marketing theory". Furthermore, Google Scholar points out [27] 1,010 to "history of marketing", and [28] 1,590 to "marketing history". Though "history of marketing thought" is used much less frequently, I dispute the fact that this is an unknown term. Thoughts? Editor br (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final note: as I notice that this topic is controversial, I am happy to edit the "History of Marketing", that was abandoned since March 08', and later, if there is a need, expand it to a new article if necessary. If the community believe this article deserves to be deleted, I am happy with it. Please note that I am very concerned with the quality of the Marketing articles in Wikipedia, and I began with "History of Marketing". As both of you (Fiddle Faddle and DanielRigal) seem knowledgeable in Marketing, I am happy with help in editing these articles. Warm regards, Editor br (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems analogous to History of economic thought. There are probably plenty of sources available on the subject. I can't see a reason to delete the article. Keep. Protonk (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is not valid to use an argument that other articles exist in a deletion discussion. Nor is an agrument "I can't see a reason to delete the article" one that holds any great validity. Instead one must look at the article as an article and the topic for notability and for assertion of that notability within the article. I view one of the references as spam for an author and book, the concept as non notable, and the article as invalid here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm aware of WP:WAX. I wasn't suggesting that because HoET exists that History of marketing thought (or any other discipline) must exist. I was suggesting that the topic area seems like a reasonable one (as in, not inherently essay-like or prone to OR) and that this is a scope at which research is conducted and published (so that the summary of that research to write this article would be straightforward). As for your claim that my "I can't see a reason to delete this article" is unpersuasive, I'll be more clear. You failed to provide a convincing case as to which guidelines for inclusion this article does not meet, why editing of this article could not bring it within those guidelines and what evidence you have to support those claims. Near as I could tell, your nomination was based on your declaration that "history of marketing thought" wasn't discussed by marketeers and that you felt the article served as publicity for the first reference. The first claim is utterly underwhelming. The quoted term, "History of marketing thought" receives ~400 hits on google scholar, Bartels's book is cited 169 times in scholarly publications, the same quoted term receives ~250 hits in google books and over 4,000 on google web. The second claim, that the article serves as promotion for Bartels, is likewise inaccurate. The book itself may meet the notability guideline for books, it is certainly not marginal or unknown. Further, how is the article itself acting as promotion for the book? It is simply a cited reference. The article is an unassuming stub, linked from and explained at History of marketing (where the context provided shows the specific nature of the term). So as I said: there are plenty of sources available on the subject, the term seems valid, and there are no compelling reasons offered for deletion. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Please do not appear so upset at my rather unclear nomination rationale. I was clear that I have brought it here for the community to consider. The person closing this discussion will also see my woolly rationale and make a closing judgement about it. We do not always have to be crystal clear about something to have a feeling that it is "not really appropriate" and to ask the community to decide. That is what the community is for, isn't it, "the wisdom of crowds"? I am not always wise. But we, together tend to be. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not upset at your nomination. I would have preferred that it be complete, precise and clear, but that is a personal preference which does cause emotion or distress. I made a keep "vote". You responded telling me that my arguments were insufficient. I made sure that they were sufficient in response. That's all. Protonk (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We want more than 'harmless enough' we want notable. I see no evidence for the general use as a specific term, not just a variation on titles. If we did want an article on this sub-subject, it would be History of marketing theory, as the ordinary english construction for such things, and it would mention a wider range of sources. DGG (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fascinating and very broad topic which marketers can face up to with definitional and boundary-delimiting work. Best kept distinct from History of marketing to ease confusions. Give a stub a few months to develop and prove itself content-wise. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Marketing thought? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witty retort WP:What about article X? :P Protonk (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It Private

There is no valid source for this article at all. The existence of the song in question is not established Serpent-A (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the references on the article is a reported attack site, the last.fm link doesn't mention it, and the other 4 are blog posts by a 14-year old. Although the artist is uber-hot, I'm gonna have to say delete because the existence of the song is endlessly questionable. flaming lawye r^c 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delay nomination. According to the article, this will be released when the deletion discussion has already been going on for 3 days. Since there's a good chance this will be reviewed and verifiable by that time, I suggest we wait until a proper assessment can be made. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the article says that the song was released to radio December 19th, which obviously didn't happen. Neither of the two purported release dates in the article (Dec. 19th and Dec. 30th) have any source other than some blog. The existence of the song has no source other than some blog. I've searched all over the internet and not found a single statement from JoJo, her label, or any other legitimate party confirming that this song even exists let alone that it will be the first single from her upcoming album. This article is either a deliberate hoax or wishful thinking/rumour spreading by a fan. Serpent-A (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability of unreleased song not established. JamesBurns (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UDP Torrent Protocol

Breaks the policy of WP:CRYSTAL. It features the product of an upcoming product. Gopal81^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:42, 23 Decemb not {{er 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to μTorrent; if I understand rightly, this describes the way that μTorrent (clearly a notable product) works, so it seems that UDP T P is somewhat reasonable as a target. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is not about a product; its about a technology (protocol) that already exists. Mentioning that uTorrent is planning to incorporate it in their product is not a violation of Crystal, as long as its verifiable.--Unpopular Opinion (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn technical minutia or Merge to BitTorrent (protocol), where it could live happily next to all the other details about the various ways BitTorrent works. gnfnrf (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's about a technology, not a product. The technology is notable, and the article simply mentions how it will be used in uTorrent in the next version. 2 D ^C 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Redirect and Merge into BitTorrent (protocol) - I am joining the chorus, but it needs to happen: this is not WP:CRYSTAL as the protocol exists. Also, not about product. Please pay more attention before jumping the gun. However, this might not be enough info for a single article, so a redirect and merge might be a solution. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This technology soon to be in use, and will grow to be much more so in the near future. Certainly notable and certainly not WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 07:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge with User Datagram Protocol or BitTorrent (protocol). LinguistAtLarge 10:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe merge with BitTorrent (protocol). It's a cool new technology, I don't really care about the BitTorrent company angle, I want to know about, how does it work etc. Sbwoodside (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trader Workstation

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY,while Interactive Brokers may be notable, there is Insufficient notability for a standalone article. Notability is not inherited. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't need it's own article, as fails WP:NOTABILITY, and the only source is own website. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was going to say merge but the article for Interactive Brokers already has all the info. This is clearly an attempt to use wikipedia as an advertising platform. FAIL! Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown International Relations Club

Contested speedy. A non notable student society that fails WP:GROUP. No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources offered in the article and none available on searching. Nuttah (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye per nom. The Rolling Camel (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. The speedy deletion request was not "contested," but rather was declined (by me). WP:NOT is explicitly not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, although it is a valid rationale for deletion after an Articles for Deletion discussion. Wikipedia is simply not in the game of mass-deleting any article that possibly doesn't conform to our idea of what Wikipedia is without due discussion—hence the requirement for WP:NOT deletions to be made after an AfD discussion (rather than further to a speedy deletion request). Comment stricken; the WP:NOT part is not pertinent, per Nuttah, to this discussion. AGK 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. This is the second such correction I've had to make. Curiously, the other correction was on a nomination by The Rolling Camel, who has commented above—it's a small world, eh? AGK 18:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NOT was not the reason given for speedy deletion, so I fail to see the relevance of your remark, especially as it contradicts the reason you gave for declining/contesting the speedy. It was nominated as A7:a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, which is a valid rationale for speedy deletion - hence the A7. Nuttah (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 does not cover issues of WP:NOT, but rather issues of WP:N. That's the relevance of my remark. AGK 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud. I nominated as A7:a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Which part of that relates to WP:NOT? It is lifted directly from the critera. Nuttah (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. … Sorry, that was my fault; I became mixed up between this AfD and the other one I linked above.
On the subject of why I declined the speedy deletion request: There seems to be some common misconceptions over CSD at play here. A7 is used for articles that do not indicate notability; this article has offered a reason why it might be notable. In that case, we discuss the subject at AfD, to ascertain whether it is notable. Indications of notability and evaluations of notability are two completely different things; cf. Wikipedia:SPEEDY#A7.
Make sense? (And thanks for being patient with me whilst I finally catch up. :-)) AGK 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mix up, I just disagree that this article has offered a reason why it might be notable. Nuttah (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless nontrivial independent reliable sources such as articles in major newspapers about the history of the club can be found to establish the club's notability. Google News Search finds some candidates but most seem either to be about unrelated organizations or to mention the club only trivially (as the host for some event or as an organization that the subject of an article belongs to). As it is, I agree, this looks like a very plausible candidate for A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Can't find notability either for this club. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 18:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Centre Savonlinna

No evidence of notability The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:NOTE. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Looks like it would be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything mentioned about the ski area in the references for Savonlinna. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ErikTheBikeMan. I tried googling but I couldn't even find one with this name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wronglostboy (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G12 by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDA ^duel 03:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Eagle: Futuristic Infantry Warfare

Non-notable game, and probably advertising motivated copy-vio. I came upon this while looking for freeware games in wikipedia (yeah, so what?) and downloaded this game thinking it was freeware. It isn't. It requires a paid GameSpy account in order to play - and this is not stated on the article. This is misleading, and since this game is not covered WP:N, has been tagged since October 2008 with {{notability}}, I am raising an AfD. Most of the article is copy-vio from the publisher's website, and the one source is a republication of a press release. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G12 - copyright violation of http://www.invasioninteractive.com/games.html 2 D ^C 00:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I though so, but it has some minimal content than isn't... so could we SD anyways? Admins you here? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fjortis

Not properly referenced and not notable Damicatz (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a somewhat hard time figuring out why this Scandinavian word should be covered in an English encyclopedia. Punkmorten (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is, in fact, quite a widespread expression in Sweden. That doesn't motivate it being on the English wiki though. Foreign Language dicdef Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is the internets, there is a high chance English speakers will come across this term in their travels... as a learner of Scandinavian languages this is of interest to me, in particular the non-standard use as slang. Besides, the term might be in Swedish, but the article isn't. Please remember that we must counter geographical bias if we are to be successful as an encyclopedia. I personally find this article useful, encyclopedic, and apparently notable. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider this geographical bias, I would consider it linguistic bias in so far as the term is slang in a foreign language. Fjortis is simply a slang form of the swedish word for fourteen, "fjorton" and could best be translated as a "fourteenie" - a term I just made up. Certainly linguistic bias is inherent in this english language encyclopaedia. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep Much sociolinguistic research (in English) is cross-cultural. This term reminds me of another that is just now crossing the Atlantic: chav. Yes, it's used by English speakers primarily, but the point is that it's a potent, interesting term with sociological importance. I enjoyed learning the term "fjortis," and would just like to see the entry expanded, perhaps to include other Scandinavian slang (which perhaps could be an entry?).Jlg4104 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what's more, a quick google search reveals that the term has a pretty good-sized entry at urbandictionary.com. It's also a genre of porn, apparently... Jlg4104 (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to "weak keep" per discussion with h8er below. Jlg4104 (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in English. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{globalize}} dude. It doesn't matter in what language it is notable. What matter is that teh article be in English and geared towards English speakers. The majority of the English speakers in the world are not native to the english speaking world, BTW. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It matters if it's a foreign word. If a foreign word is to be included it has to be notable bro. Comprende? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in the context it is used, as part of a study of slang and youth culture - it turned out a small but significant amount of results in Google Scholar, most of them in English, and all of them related to the social sciences. Just because you don't know it in your native environs doesn't mean the rest of us don't find it notable. By the way, you are using the word "foreign" incorrectly, as languages are seldom associated with one specific country, in particular in the case of English - foreign to what? If the USA, then Britain pops immediately as a foreign country, ditto vice-versa - and I am ignoring other countries whose official languages include English, such as India. I find your lack of curiosity disturbing, because the one thing that encyclopedia editors need to be is curious and bold. If you like to delete cruft, I got plenty of that to show you, but leave legitimate, useful, and entirely encyclopedic content be, specially if it conforms to all of our policies regarding content. Lastly, you used "comprende" wrong; it is a third-person form of the word. I think you wanted to say "comprendes?". If you are going to try and use a language, at least have the common courtesy of using it correctly. Understood? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of substantial coverage. There are lots of foreign words I don't know. Some of them may be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources and arguments presented here should be enough to establish notability - which is objective. Further investigation revels its use both in scholarly and news sources on the googletubes, both as a simple usage of the term and speaking about the term - all of them in Swedish or Bokmat/Norwegian (fortunately for us, google has a decent translator). I actually didn't know the term until I read this AfD, and I feel enriched in my knowledge, and thankful for the editor who recognized the notability of the term and boldly created the article. That is why I think we should keep. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: on notability. I've already suggested a "keep" above, but I wanted to add a comment. This a good test case for the question of notability. Probably according to Wikipedia guidelines, the term "fjortis" is only weakly notable in English. It has received way, way less coverage than "chav," per Google News, and has been the subject of much less scholarly discussion, per Google Scholar. However, since the term has begun to be discussed in the context of the social sciences within the U.S., it is perhaps where "chav" was ten years ago. I know WP is not a crystal ball, so I can't argue that someday "fjortis" will be as covered as "chav" is now. But I'm pretty stuck on the point that the word strikes me-- as someone who is not a sociolinguist but occasionally plays one in the classroom-- as interesting to have learned about and is quite likely to be interesting to anyone in a similar boat who encounters it here. So consider this a kind of gut feeling that the word belongs here in the English WP.Jlg4104 (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with the term chav is somewhat misleading. Chav is a term which implies a number of political, social and economic factors. It indictes a style of clothes, certain behaviours, cars and certain music. Even in Sweden, fjortis is a far less established term. Etymologically it is simply a personalization and dimunization of "fjorton" (fourteen) and in most contexts merely provides an implication that a person is like, or exhibits behaviour like, a fourteen year old. The article being discussed tries to attach certain behaviours to the term and make it a behaviour - but this is questionable at best. The second paragraph looks more like an amateur description of teenage psychology during Adolesence than a significant deviation from norms. In fact, any sociobehavioural connection to this term is almost certainly original research. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I might change my preference to "weak keep," but in part also on the basis of the notability problem. You do sound like you know what you're talking about, although some of what you're saying doesn't really, in my mind, discount the possibility of this being improved into a worthwhile article. You say, for example, it is "simply" a personalization and dimunization, etc. Those are just linguistic practices that could happen to apply to terms of greater or lesser notability, and the "simply" is a value judgment. Also, I'm not sure what you mean that "any sociobehavioral research" regarding this term is "original research" in the WP context. The issue was (I thought) that there is a trickle of academic research starting to grow which takes this term into account, and that trickle represents at least the beginnings of notability. The article itself may have OR problems, but that's not what I thought was the issue.Jlg4104 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think notability is the problem. I think the jist of my opinion is that this is best translated as "teenie" or "kiddie" as a derogatory term. The problem is that that's all. The mere presence of the word in SAOL (the Swedish Academies list of words) indicates this as a foreign language dicdef. My final comment in my previous statement was a little unclear. What I was suggesting is that there is no research (which I am aware of, of course) connecting this word with social, behavioural or economic trends and that any such connections made on the page would be likely to be either original research or simply made up on the spot. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. I'm accordingly changing my pref (above) to "weak keep." I still think it has *some* potential, but from all I can gather, fjortis is not nearly as significant in English as chav.

Comment: Maybe there is an equivalent concept in English, that this can become a section in, then redirected to. I don't know what it would be though. --Closeapple (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the problem with finding an equivalent english article is that an article such as Teenie or Kiddie as a dicdef containing "mean word to describe someone as childish" would be deleted or transwiki'd to wiktionary. Child, Pre-teen, Teenager, Adolescence or even Adolescent psychology are potential redirects but all miss the point that this is a derogatory way of addressing someone as being young or behaving like a youth. Even childish is simply a one sentence dicdef on a disambig page - and thats the most similar word I can think of. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Anthony De Marco

Appears to be a non-notable author but the tag I placed has been removed by the article's creator. Seems like self-promotion or a conflict of interest but I'm prepared to be convinced that it's not just a self-published author looking for publicity Deb (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a horror fan, and I was going to add in some of the newer horror writers like De Marco and JG Faherty, who has stories up for Stoker nominations. De Marco is a member of the Horror Writers Association, which means he has met their professional standards. I made sure to add in many references, including links to where he still has some of his stories in pro-pay markets. He's also a member of ASCAP, plus he's done work for the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. He has membership in the top US Horror professional organization, the top US Music professional organization, and has worked with the top US SciFi organization. I thought your original tag was for not enough references, so I added in more (just check the history). Compare my post to Laird Barron, which is a short writeup with no references. I was also going to add in more information (and references) to Lisa Morton, and to add in information to newer horror writers like Faherty. I would appreciate a reply. AAraxin User talk:AAraxin —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment This deserves further investigation. While there are several references in there that are not independent, writer's organizations like SFWA and Horror Writers Association have admission guidelines that could well go in tandem with our own notability guidelines. I think the SFWA required you to have published two books with a reliable publisher (but don't pin me on that). I think this is possibly salvagable. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but I do not see that he has published 2 books--the first anthology listed is a place where one story of his appeared,& I can find no information even in amazon about the other. DGG (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a further investigation: Apparently, the HWA isn't as strict as some other writer groups. See [29] They would pretty much allow anyone with a minimal publication credit to join. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SFWA Requirements: One Paid Sale of prose fiction to a Qualifying Professional Market, paid at the rate of 5c/word or higher.

HWA Requirements: Same as the SFWA, except they accept any pro-rate market, not just the specific markets on a list.

DeMarco has at least four qualified professional sales, just going by the current list (2x Necrotic Tissue, 2x Sepentarius (1 listed), Regional Ghost Stories). I know his book is out of print, it was a limited signed edition of 2000 copies, and his blog said he doesn't count that as a pro sale. I'm spending more time defending an artical than it took to write it. AAraxin User talk:AAraxin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.54.5 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as per Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content AAraxin is a new editor, who seems to truly want to contribute meaningful information to wikipedia. Lets give him a chance, as the guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers admonishes, travb (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might have helped if you hadn't sent this new user that scary message saying "Your hard work is about to be deleted from Wikipedia". You didn't even give him a welcome first. As it happens, you seem to have scared him off as he hasn't made any contributions since. Deb (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it will be very rare for any author to obtain notability through 4 published short stories, unless it is possible to show significant critical attention. This isn't like the more rigourous activities of American Football, where any professional appearance counts. DGG (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please delete my entry. I understand the rules say I shouldn't blank the page, so will one of you please delete both my page and my account. Thank you. AAraxin (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, so it can be established and rewritten for notability. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Since you seem to be unaware of this fact; we do not keep article of non-notable people just in case they somehow happen to become notable at a later date. Trusilver 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:BIO.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richter7

Previously deleted as an A7, but discussion on DRV determined that the awards are at least an 'assertion of notability. Still encyclopedic notability remains a concern. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Very interesting case. Some of the linked sources don't agree or disagree with the facts they are supposedly supporting. The the article in The New York Times shows that they have significant clients such as Medtronic and the Chamber of Commerce of Park City, Utah; however the article itself was in the fashion section (and often includes non-notable companies with quirky things... ahem, yes --I read it). This coverage appears to fall afoul of WP:COMP, whereas "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." This coverage appears to be trivial an incidental to their actual work, for that reason I am going with the weak delete. --Bobak (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed several of the references to more accurately match the facts cited. I am also attempting to assemble a more complete list of notable awards with independent references. Montypics (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP... if we still follow that, I mean - I have seen un-notable corporations that clearly fail WP:CORP being kept. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Been around for 30-something years, several hundred mentions in Lexis-Nexis news archive, etc. --Delirium (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old not equal notable. Lexis-Nexis keeps press releases from paid PR wires. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or Delete - After changing around the intro sentence for WP:MoS and reading through the article, I find that it is still weak on assertion of notability. Also, a list of awards don't make a subject more or less encyclopedic if there is no significance. I always get awards for entering a contest, but so does everybody else at the show. -- Emana (Talk) 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan King

AfDs for this article:

Article fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Seemed to be a misunderstanding last time this article was nominated, as the only keep argument came in the form of King having played U-18 which is NOT the highest level of amateur hockey. That would be the Olympics or the World Championships. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 08:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my initial reasoning at the original AfD. It has been pointed out to me that I was incorrect in withdrawing it. Therefore any "It has already been kept" arguments are moot. --Smashville^talk 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails to meet WP:ATHLETE. Probably shouldn't have been withdrawn last time as mentioned by the previous nominator.-Djsasso (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. The highest amateur criteria (which THE U18 tourney IS NOT) comes into affect in the absence of any professional competition in the sport. There's no absence of professional hockey. He's not on any radar as a top prospect either [30] ccwaters (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article can be recreated when subject fulfill notability guidelines. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Some Devil. Redirects are cheap. Black Kite 15:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Damn Lucky

There is no reason for this song to have its own article. Apart from the album it is on, it has no further notability. Scapler (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to original album as plausible search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect--since I assume that MGM is a better judge of what might be a search term than I am; I would have said delete. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album track. JamesBurns (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is nothing in this article now that can be merged back into Terminal_velocity, and the title Terminal_velocity (derivation) is quite useless as redirect. Ruslik (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal velocity (derivations)

Content fork of Terminal velocity. The derivation is already included in the TV article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unneccesary duplication of information. I don't see anyone hitting this before the main article, and once there they would not need to hit the fork. Arakunem^Talk 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see WP:SUMMARY. This is clearly a sub-article meant to save space. I would advice the editors to move as much derivation information into this article, and leave the main one for the words. Would make everything better for everyone: a non-math inclined reader would get a nice explanation, and math inclined readers can go to the derived (ha-ha!) page. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back. Another derivation in terminal velocity uses show/hide functionality to hide complicated derivations and there's no immediate space issues to counter with a split. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The derivation in the article already covers whatever is contained in this one. It's a content fork, and merging is pointless.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~Delete (now that the relevant content has been copied to the main article). Contra Headbomb's comment, the derivation in this article is worth keeping (the derivation in the main article is more general, for arbitary t, consequently much more complicated - this one captures the essential physics of the terminal velocity situation, and doesn't require such a high level of mathematics). Djr32 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've "merged" the two things (which came down rephrasing stuff), but the redirect is pointless as the only thing linking to this is the Terminal velocity article itself.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about the redirect, I've changed my vote above. (I think the changes you made in the article were more than rephrasing stuff - the main article is much better now than it previously was.) Djr32 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did other things other than simply rephrasing, but as far as the merge is concered, that's all I did.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ralph Abernathy. — Aitias // discussion 03:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph David Abernathy, III

Few ghits - a mention of a grant on the City of Atlanta's web site, and some resumes/references. I haven't found any press coverage, or other secondary sources. Would not seem to meet WP:ORG. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ralph Abernathy.--Jmundo (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph David Abernathy, III has notable civil rights experiences in his own right and should not be merged with his father. 11alive News Atlanta did an article in Nov 2008 which is referenced. He is building his web presence.--Batisrayl (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the article doesn't talk about him is about the foundation. If you have sources to establish notability for this individual, rewrite the article focusing on him and his civil rights experiences. --Jmundo (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ralph Abernathy. Individual notability not proven, please see WP:NOTE#Failing_basic_criteria_but_meeting_additional_criteria. Moar RS with NOTE or no dice. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted. I cleaned up some of the language from 1st person. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario's fourth album

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:NM and WP:HAMMER; lack of substantial reliable sources. The source of the album title was an internet broadcast, thus can not be deemed reliable DiverseMentality 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , STOP.......Hammer time...........again (FFS). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Mario + WP:HAMMER = Donkey Kong? MuZemike (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The so-called reference on number 2 does not confirm the title. No confirmed release date: "is to be released sometime in 2009." No confirmed tracks: "The album has many possible tracks but many of these tracks did not make the final cut for the album." Basic speculation. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double-sized IPA vowel chart

Because I must sign in to finish the deletion process, I'll just state the reasons here: This should be a graphic. Thus, this belongs on Wikicommons. This page does nothing to describe the vowel chart. Already covered by IPA. If our customers (readers) are interested in knowing about vowels, they should go to the relevant articles. This article does not do anything in terms of listing information, data, or statistics about vowels, Thus, this article is unencyclopedic. --User:96.53.149.117 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am completing this AfD started by an IP user. (The above are comments by the IP user on the article's talk page.) No recommendation on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Template:Large CSS IPA vowel chart or to Commons. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There already exists a template {{CSS IPA vowel chart}} with the same content. This article is linked to by the enlarge function of that template, but doesn't actually use larger fonts for anything, it just spaces the symbols farther apart. As such it seems pointless and redundant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant information. If someone really needs it large, they can simply reformat their computer. Tavix (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Connections

This article is about a theme for the 'Lego League' lego-building competition. I believe that the theme may not be notable enough for inclusion separately to the Logo League article. Also, there may be more notable concepts that belong at this article name. Richard Cavell (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough coverage or content to warrant this being separate from the Lego League article. However this is with the caveat that there being more notable concepts which share a name with a given topic is not a reason to delete it but rather a reason to create a disambiguation page or to disambiguate the title of the less notable topic and link to it via a hatnote in the main article. ~ TheIntersect 05:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP. Deb (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the generally accepted requirement of notability, substantial coverage in sources, which are not provided here. Sandstein 08:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Road East

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St John's Road East

Non-notable road that does not specify where the other half is - the west? Where did it go? Does anyone know? Thank You. Balloholic (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ::My common sense tells me that

the importance (or notability) of streets is likely to be much higher in cities of commercial, political, or literary importance, and that therefore a numerical rule for all makes little sense.
The historic downtown districts of long-established cities are likely to have a very high proportion of streets that will be notableDGG (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note:

This laneway is located in Sandymount, a coastal suburb nowhere near any city centre. It is possibly nearer the Isle of Man than Dublin. Therefore the above user has contradicted themselves already.
I suspect this user is going on previous hunches and is dismissing the credibility of the nominator. This user assumes that all streets nominated are in the city centre. If this user's talk page were examined it would be discovered that they are collaborating with other users, namely one who is suspected of having a COI. A lot of keep votes with very little reasoning other than they must be kept. Supremely biased. --Balloholic (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not downtown, I was wrong about that (incidentally, there are cities with downtown beaches, like Chicago) but in any case it remains notable on the basis of the information presented. I am a little puzzled by how one could have a COI about Dublin streets. DGG (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any number of reasons including the most obvious one - living there. Your point about downtown beaches is invalid as Ireland has no such monstrosities. --Balloholic (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ordinary suburban beach street that doesn't indicate notability. Not near a city centre. None could be located. --Balloholic (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above vote is by the nominator who is NOT supposed to vote again. The nomination being counted as a vote. Snappy (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. However Snappy likes to vote in deletion discussions and has been criticised for doing it before. --Balloholic (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticised by who? It's only user:Balloholic and that's doesn't count since s/he's not an admin only an editor who takes it personally when someone votes to keep an article s/he's nominated for deletion. Snappy (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN suburban road Snappy (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I want to reach the historic St. Johns Church from my gentrified apartment that used to be allotment gardens, I would use this road. Not world-shattering notable, but I don't think that notability is shades. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because it is VERIFIABLE doesn't mean it is NOTABLE. Trusilver 01:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Parade Avenue

Non-notable avenue Balloholic (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Another NN Dublin street. Nothing here but a map in prose. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it a strange decision to relist an article with only one comment. But then it is a delete comment for a place in Dublin so I can hardly be surprised. These are rare species so we cannot let them become extinct. --Balloholic (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Non-notable avenue that isn't available on google of which there are too many and Dublin seems to be overflowing with them. --Balloholic (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the nominator voting again. Snappy (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote or not, the nominator is not supposed to comment with a Delete comment again. Snappy (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Another NN Dublin street. Nothing here but a map in prose. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already commented before relisting... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Above user already "voted".--Oakshade (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - NN Dublin street Snappy (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Mgm. Snappy (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Dublin street, important as a way to reach the Sydney Parade railway station which has gained popularity in the youth culture in recent years. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Streets that give their name to other buildings (like railway and underground/subway stations) are notable. -Mgm|^(talk) 20:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable , per MacGyver's argument, which i think also applies for other streets. DGG (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory (period. full stop.) I'm really getting tired of this rash of Dublin-related articles about streets that are slightly less noteworthy than the gas station down the street from my house. Just because something exists and someone, somewhere publishes some minor blurb that mentions said thing in passing, doesn't make it notable. Trusilver 09:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it's significant enough to give its name to a rail station an other buildings, then its notable.--Oakshade (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and that means...what exactly? The fact that buildings are named after the street doesn't confer notability to the street itself. As far as I can tell, the only thing it means is that the person who named the buildings is unimaginative. Trusilver 08:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Road, Dublin

Non-notable road, trivia sections are discouraged. Thank You Balloholic (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable local road. Royal broil 02:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NB: this road has no claim to this title;

Herbert Rd, Whitesville, KY 42378
Herbert Rd, Carlisle, Union, SC 29031
Herbert Rd, Canfield, Mahoning, OH 44406
Herbert Rd, Trenton, Monmouth, NJ 08691
Herbert Rd, Barry, MI 49046
Herbert Rd, Kingston, Boone, IL 60145
Herbert Rd, Hillsboro, Highland, OH 45133
Herbert Rd, Orangeburg, SC 29107
Hebert Rd, Salinas, Monterey, CA
Herbert Rd, Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70506
and that's just what maps.google.com fessed up in the US. Jack Merridew 15:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these roads do. They were obviously created by some Dubliner or a tourist getting ahead of themselves and thinking Dublin is the centre of the world. It's probably not even the only Herbert Road in Ireland or even Dublin itself, never mind the world. Well I'm weeding out the pretenders. And I'm taking no prisoners and have no toleration for any "oh this road is reasonably interesting" crap. --Balloholic (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moved to more specific name; Herbert Road, Dublin. Sheesh. Jack Merridew 11:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. Even from what is there, it seems quite clearly a significant street in a major city. It is reasonable to expect that cites of commercial, historical, political, and literary importance will have many notable streets. Some more information-- and sources-- should be added.DGG (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant road with coverage in sources; for example [31]. TerriersFan (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect I think this source was used before on another road, illustrating the corrupt nature of these discussions. I would argue that such roads were frequently selling houses at this time and that many will have broken that record again and again in the intervening 5 year period. I would still say delete. --Balloholic (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal... except the one we didn't invite you to. Oops! Did I say that out loud? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TerriersFan - Snappy (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As before not a vote. You seem to be able to give reasons in some cases but this sounds like a personal issue with the nominator that since you can't come up with a genuine reason you just say keep. You have been warned repeatedly about this. --Balloholic (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please don't strike other editors recommendations. It is up to the closing admin to decide whether to ignore, or not. TerriersFan (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I forgot to add a reason previously, now corrected. User Balloholic a) please stop being so abusive b) stop acting like an admin because you are not one. It is not up to you to warn me now or ever about anything, only admins have that power/duty. Also people in galsshouses etc, as you repeatedly vote twice in articles that you nominate for deletion. Snappy (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs expansion, not delete. Also, trivia is discouraged, but neither banned nor a reason for deletion - its just a call to be sensible and include trivia only in proportion to the actual article content. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable buildings on a road, don't transfer notability to the road. Also, every road has a most expensive house, the one on this road isn't particularly special, which means deleting this entry would not lose significant information (the text describing the location of the road is map information in prose which is better told with images) - Mgm|^(talk) 20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a road isn't a strip of tarmac with a pavement on either side. The buildings are an inherent part of a road and the notability of the buildings are inextricably linked to the notability of the road. TerriersFan (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: "A road is an identifiable route, way or path between places." Even according to ourselves. Further reading will tell you that the above dog obsessive does not know their definitions properly. I can list off roads that have decent articles not hinging on the buildings that are on them. Here we go: Via Aemilia, Appian Way, Via Aurelia, Via Cassia, Via Flaminia, Via Salaria and so on. Do you want me to go on? These are popular roads I know about, like to read about and are actual good roads in their own right. A street named after a vegetable does not have the same effect. --Balloholic (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)*'[reply]

Delete - VERIFIABILITY is not the same thing as NOTABILITY. Just because this street exists and there are sources to back that fact up, does not mean it is worth an article. Trusilver 09:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Al-Qamar. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qamar

WP:NOT. This was in Wikipedia as a word or common name, with no real-world referent. Now it's a redirect to Name, which is somewhat silly. "prod" was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. John Nagle (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- this belongs at Redirects for deletion, not here. Other than that, I agree with you. Reyk _YO! 02:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was changed to a redirect only after a "prod" was placed on the article. There might be a justification for keeping the old form of the article.[32] There's not much of a case for it being a redirect to Name. So it probably should be dealt with as an AfD. --John Nagle (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I restored the content (such as it is) so that we can have a proper deletion discussion. My suggestion is to merge with Al-Qamar, much less pointless than redirecting to name. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Al-Qamar per above. That makes sense. I didn't know that article existed. --John Nagle (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per David's suggestion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Al-Qamar. This looks more like a Wiktionary entry by itself. NoVomit (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlborough Street (Dublin)

Non-notable street, named after an English boy. Thanks Balloholic (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nationality of the name of a topic has nothing to do with inclusion standards in Wikipedia. Many books in a book g-search show extensive history on this street [33] (it appears to have been a center in the Irish War of Independence) and is the location of many notable places including St Mary's Pro-Cathedral. Nominating a Dublin city centre street article within 6 days of its creation is of no useful service to this project. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Six days is sufficient time for an article to state itself why it has a right to exist. If you think this is the case then sort it out. I didn't swoop down from the heavens on this article as you very well know, Oakshade. This is a systematic clearing out of substandard articles that don't assert their notability. You're perfectly welcome to fight me but the best way to do this would be to add relevant and notable info to the article. If you don't have time for this now gather the info in your userspace and create an article over time then release it to the general public when it's ready. --Balloholic (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from here. TerriersFan (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion as a respected administrator is valid and I believe you represent the true neutrality of this discussion. --Balloholic (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote it to remove the copyvio, and added some information: it is the location of the Dublin Pro-Cathedral, which serves as the Cathedral for the Established Church of Ireland. It's clearly a major street. However, it would certainly be wise to check some of these other articles and see if they come from the same source; as they can all be readily rewritten, this will be preferred to deleting the copyvio. I will check some of them tomorrow. DGG (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having a cathedral does not make it a major street. It is not as if it is the only cathedral in ireland! Even so less people are bothering with religion in Ireland nowadays so its not as massive as its stereotyped to be. If you haven't been there it could otherwise be a complete tip. There is no clarity at all on it being a notable street. To say it is definitely major is POV. --Balloholic (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite prepared to defend the street on which a cathedral is built in any city as being a notable street. If it wasn't one before the cathedral was located there, it has become one in consequence of that. I fail to see how the state of religion in Ireland is relevant, any more so than the nationality of the Duke. Marlborough was indeed once a boy before he won his first major victories 1n 1702 and became a Duke in consequence of them, but I don't see what that has to do with the importance or lack of importance of a street named after him--as the most famous of English generals, there were many such streets, some important, some not. Giving this as a deletion reason does seem rather POINTy.

However, the copyvio was a serious concern. Fortunately for these articles, the ed. who introduced this particular article does not seem to have previously worked on this general subject, but almost entirely on Irish athletes. I have warned him about copyvio & will follow up with him about that. DGG (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is now enough to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notoriety is established Jmbranum (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per DGG Snappy (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:POINTY nom, excellent defense by DGG. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vehicles with Solid Front Axles

This list seems to me to be hugely wide ranging, including carts, trailers, cars, trucks, buses, etc.

The list is potentially so wide ranging as to be unmaintainable. This is not a "list vs category" thing. It just seems to me that this will be a piece of indiscriminate information, of little use. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am sure that it is perfectly well intentioned but I can't see this as a useful or encyclopaedic list. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be better to have an article on Solid front axle, then a list would not be needed. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete It should be clarified though. Solid front (drive) axles as opposed to Independent Front Suspension (IFS). Buses, cars, light trucks, and trailers do not usually have Solid front drive axles, they have dead axles or IFS instead. 4x4 enthusiasts appreciate front axles, wiki should have a list. I can't find a list anywhere on the Internet. It should be here. There should also be an article on Solid Front Axles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonjeffers (talk • contribs)
- Comment That you cannot find a list anywhere else does not make it valid. I cannot find a list anywhere of red haired left handed dwarves living in Clapham, but that does not mean one should be created in Wikipedia, however interesting the topic may be. In addition, you created this article. If you think, now, that it ought to be more specific, now is a great time to make it so. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

Keep I think it is useful Jmbranum (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please read WP:USEFUL Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm looking to buy a used truck, and a solid front axle is a requirement. It is useful. If I needed a vehicle driven by a portal axle wiki has a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonjeffers (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Well, no. WP does not have a list. It has an informative article which contains a very short list of relevant manufacturers amongst the other information in the article. Even so, the existence of another article is not relevant during a discussion on deletion or retention. WP does not accept precedents. However the example is clear. This article as a list is not viable here. But an article defining the solid axle may well have a true value. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pointless and unneeded list, about as useful as List of cars with engines --Numyht (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't Delete~~ It is much more useful than a list of "cars with engines", that would be ridiculous. Almost all cars have engines, very few vehicles have solid front axles. Argument invalid. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonjeffers (talk • contribs)
- Please don't vote twice, MasonJeffers, thank you. Also read WP:USEFUL per your second to last comment. Thank you. --Numyht (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Anne Street

Non-notable street that's most famous industy is an Eddie Rocket's outlet Balloholic (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swift delete: Notability is not defined by having an eddie rockets outlet. --Balloholic (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the nominator voting again. You'd think after nominating so many articles for deletion, s/he'd know the rules by now. Snappy (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You would think the above user would know the rules before they are waved in my face. They have been snapped at for only voting keep elsewhere. I think you all know me by now so your comment is irrelevant. Nobody else was voting delete or keep after six days. Thank you. --Balloholic (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be uncivil and tell lies about me. I do not only vote keep, but delete or merge as I see fit, as a quick search of my contributions will attest. Again, please stop lecturing me and stop spreading lies about me. Snappy (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Also after six days nobody thinks its notable to save. Everyone is ganging up to save other streets I've nominated but this one it seems is not worthy. --Balloholic (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable Dublin street. Snappy (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable Dublin street. Also, Balloholic read WP:IDONTLIKEIT again. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complete lack of reasoning here, perhaps you may need a read of WP:ILIKEIT, yourself. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I said I liked the article? I actually don't. It is simply notable, as per our own policies, and has its own encyclopedic logic. If we start picking and choosing, its a slippery slope. Next we would be deleting Faeroe Islands as non-notable. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--unless someone would care to offer some evidence that this is a 'notable Dublin street'? Other than the Eddie Rocket's, of course. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, get ready: This notable as a Dublin city centre street and one that links two universally known streets, Grafton Street, and Dawson Street and also a commercial center, including a number of restaurants, among them an Eddie Rocket's, which makes it a hub for the drinking culture in Dublin, a solid an important part of Irish culture in general. A reader exploring the geographical space occupied by the specific Irish sociology, would be well served by an encyclopedic article pointing out the notability of this street, hence the encyclopedic value. We would be doing a disservice to our readers and ourselves. if we deleted. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those streets are obviously not universally known. If they were I'd know about them. Besides, if we call every street linking two notable streets notable itself, there'd be no end to the streets we'd include. If we are going to call something with commercial businesses notable we're going way into mall territory (also contentious). While an article would possibly serve readers, this stub doesn't because there's too little to tell about the place. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just about every street in the city centre of a city as historic and significant as Dublin is notable and likely to be the subject of multiple government and historic documents. Even a brief g-book search brings up secondary sources [34]--Oakshade (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7). This entry does not show how the road is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Dublin city centre street and one that links two universally known streets is an assertion of notability and not a candidate for A7.--Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are countless city centre streets and linking so-called "two universally known streets" (Dublin I imagine is not even a universally known city!) is not a reason for keeping either. While the user may have used hasty phrasing it is still a good argument for at the very least a strong delete. --[[User:Ballohol--Cerejota (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)ic|Balloholic]] (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were speedied, I would have A7'd it without a second thought. It is yet another totally non-notable street with the usual suspects (which I will refer to hereafter as the "Irrelevant Dublin Street Cabal"), none of which appear to have ever read WP:N, trying to keep it. Once again for everyone: Just because it is VERIFIABLE doesn't mean it is NOTABLE. Trusilver 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you has deleted it via speedy, you would have been wrong, for it is not among the classes of articles that can be speedied via A7-- and WP:CSD is unambiguously clear about that.

Delete I do not see that this one is notable. Not every downtown street in the city is, and unless more can be said, it does not seem appropriate for an article. A great many are, of course, but we do not help the cause of including proper articles on them by trying to defend articles on streets like this. Conversely, we will find it easier to delete streets like this if people refrain from trying to delete the more notable. DGG (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to rob our readers of the ability to locate such a central feature to contemporary Irish pub culture? I am taken aghast, dear sir, aghast, I say, Good day! --Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[35] looks like the beginning of a substantial discussion but I can't see the rest of it. Regarding drinking culture, Kehoe's Pub might be worth a mention for its "genuine exterior". [36] Also this was a fashionable shopping centre back in 1836 and the scene of a horse fair, which appears to have caused a bit of a fuss. [37] Juzhong (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is great material, notability doesn't expire, so the cite from 1836 is very important. Those for deletion should be advised to read it. Are we really going to delete a notable street because we don't know it to be notable? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - We Know it is not notable. Stop trying to disrupt this discussion and infuriate other editors. Behave Cerejota. --Balloholic (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you "know" it is not notable, this should not be regarded as a discussion but as a vote. Juzhong (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Not only that, but the pot calling the kettle black is lulz. Now, as sources proving notability have been provided, I think this should be closed as keep, unless, of course, editors care to provide evidence that counter that presented. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NoVomit's opinion does not address the lack of sources about the subject herself. Sandstein 08:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Galicia

This article deals with a minor actor, who has appeared in a few insignificant bit parts on television. There's also an assertion of musical notability, but no evidence is provided. (In other words, fails both WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSICBIO.) Additionally many details of her life are trivial and unreferenced. There's probably a promotional motive at work as well: the article lists a talent agency, and alleged career plans. To top it off, the article provides a list of her "good friends" (and their dubiously-notable Wikipedia articles). The primary editor of this article (66.215.178.213) has removed tags for improvement on a couple of occasions, without improving the article—this implies unwillingness to improve through normal editing. Therefore, delete. TheFeds 01:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO/WP:ENTERTAINER. Minor acting roles with little to no coverage by reliable sources. One of the "references" interestingly points back to the Wikipedia page for more information. Notability not even asserted. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The shows she was in are notable, so some margin exists for claims of notability. NoVomit (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the print reference mentioned in the article (first on the list) and I'd like to see which company/theatre she did Les Miserables with. Both of these are crucial in properly determining notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kings of Appletown

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Kings of Appletown

There is no information that it will be released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar22 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Was listed incorrectly, fixed now. — neuro^(talk) 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is in post-production. G-hits and cast seem to satisfy WP:NFF. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no information.Oscar 22 11:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.171.141 (talk) [reply]

(Assuming that is actually Oscar) Your nomination demonstrates your POV, so you don't need to post a vote. flaming lawye r^c 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's in production. There'll be more info on it after it comes out. But for now, it's already on the IMDB and others. flaming lawye r^c 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in production, per WP:NFF. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 03:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~. After vacilating back and forth. This is very marginal. It has not been released and has generated very little coverage, but I finally found some media coverage of the production which might qualifiy it under WP:NFF.[38] [39] But looking again everything seems to be trivial and/or non-independent. If/when its released an article will be needed, but until then it may be premature. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my vote. Schmidt, has found some better sources but they are still awfully thin. Despite meeting the NFF guideline in terms of the production cycle, topics like this still need independent, reliable sources. And in this case, given that it is s current, commercial U.S. project, I don't think that we should assume they exist but are hard to find; just about everything will be listed on Google and I can't find much. But it's not nothing either, so consider me neutral on the article's fate. It'll be brought back upon release anyway, so any deletion is likely to be a strikly temporary affair. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's in production. Jmbranum (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crystal does not apply as filming has begun and it seems to be getting enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability for future films. Article should be nurtured, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have done a bit of cleanup and sourcing. Though back in post production, and to be released in 2009, the film had a sneak-peek preview (limited) release on December 12, 2008 per The-Numbers.com. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonably sourced for a future film. -- Banjeboi 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing found. I disagree with the WP:CRYSTAL argument for deletion since there is verifiable coverage about this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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