Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 28 December 30 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PropertyGuys.com[edit]

PropertyGuys.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsure as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. Please explain. Thanks. Stoick (talk) 17:13, 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 Devil's Chair (Iowa)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Withdrawn and redirected to The Devil's Chair (urban legend) per Locklev. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Chair (Iowa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sufficiently notable place and not sufficiently notable as an urban legend. Possibly contested prod, erring on side of caution and sending to AFD.

If this gets deleted, delete the incoming redirect whose history contains a substantial copy of this article, The Devil's Chair (urban legend). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:05, 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. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changdev Maharaj[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:VER and WP:NPOV. Low number of ghits which all seem to be about a tourist attraction. Maybe this guy did exist... or maybe not. Maybe he was notable... or maybe not. Without evidence who can say? Anyway I really doubt that he lived for 1400 years. Utterly valueless as an encyclopedia article. andy (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: I think we should be judging this by the standards we apply to religion, myths and legends rather than to biographies. It has no hope as a biography but it would be OK as a mythical/legendary figure if the existence of the legend was referenced properly and if it was rewritten in those terms. I will change to a "keep" if that happens. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Changdev Maharaj has a godly status in states of Maharastra/Karnarataka and Andhra Pradesh in India amongst Varkari's, followers of Bhakti movement. The link provided as refernce in the article is from the gazetter records, a governmental organization if that helps add some credibility. Also the temple mentioned in article is very old and is protected by archielogical society of India, one can find pictures of it online if one cares. Sadly due to lack of internet penetration in this part of the world not many records are online or the relevant documentation published in formats that be provided as reference out here. Talking about events listed in the article, its a beliefs vs science argument which I dont think is our focus. If it sounds promotional tag is accordingly. Copyedits, rewrites take time, till then IMO we should add approprite stub tags rather than delete ones. Kedar (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not have to be perfect to avoid being deleted but it needs to be better than it is now. See what you can do with it. If it looks like it is heading in the right direction I will change my vote to "keep". --DanielRigal (talk) 20:05, 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 speedy delete. There's no real content, in any version, and the author's idea of translation is bad transliteration. We already have an article on the subject at hermaphrodite, and there is basically zero useful content for any purpose here. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Αρχιδομουνης[edit]

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

The title word does not exist in the Greek language. It has no google hits except this one. The latin transcription has no Google hits except for a non-notable blogger. The only substantial contributor User:Fragiskoss24 has been blocked undefinietly for vandalism.  Andreas  (T) 23:46, 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. — Aitias // discussion 03:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Reid[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:N and fails WP:ATHLETE notability standards as well. Article originally cited no secondary sources of significance; though there is now a list of references, none of them mention the subject in more than an extremely passing sense. Furthermore, the entire article was written by (a) user(s) on the University of Rochester network; I suspect that the author or one of his close friends wrote the whole article (especially since the images uploaded - though several seem of dubious legitimacy in an intellectual property sense - seem to be personal, as far as I can tell), thus violating WP:NOR. This impression is further strengthened by the personal tone and clear original research involved in writing some of the more effusive and reference-less parts of the page... 1of42 (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think this guy might achieve notability in future but has probably not yet done so. So far coverage have mostly been minor and local. There is also promotional tone in the article and some of it seems to be written from personal knowledge. This also raises suspicion of a COI and counts against it. Besides, if somebody is "born with a racquet in his hand" I want to see the medical reports! That really would be notable. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of US defensible targets[edit]

List of US defensible targets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no references, it appears to just be a list created of potential terrorist targets without any source to validate. You can in theory have a valid article based on the sayings of Homeland Security and terrorist websites and handbooks, but this isn't it. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some reliable sources can be found which show that this is a definitive list of possible targets. Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without references and objective inclusion criteria this is a list of landmarks based on speculation/original research. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The intro is the problem: "This list provides a possible identification of major US landmarks & facilities, considered to be potential terrorist targets." And anything's possible. Since it would be unwise to publicize an "official" list, the author has compiled his/her own guesses, starting with the Empire State Building, and somebody else has added gratuitous references to "premises frequented by gay people". The truth is that the less obvious a site would be, the more ripe it would be for a terrorist attack. Had this list been compiled 20 years ago, nobody would have included "Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma". Mandsford (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:OR. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Improve contet with more sources?

Diletodo (talk) 23:13, 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 merge to Adobe Flash. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Adobe Flash[edit]

Criticism of Adobe Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see what use this article is. There is a serious citation problem, either by use of out-dated or unreliable sources (e.g. blogs), if used at all. Going down the TOC:

  1. Usability: some of this is probably salvageable for use in Adobe Flash. The third paragraph isn't sourced at all.
  2. Accessibility: again, germane to Adobe Flash, but not a criticism.
  3. Content control: no sources
  4. LSOs: no criticism
  5. Freeness: no sources, and not really relevant.
  6. Security: come on, it's a piece of software. Of course it's going to have bugs. Not really a criticism or relevant, though.
  7. ...on various platforms: no sauces
  8. Indexability: don't see any criticism; outdated with Flash CS3.
  9. DRM: no sources.

I can see how this article may be useful in Adobe Flash, but on its own, I don't think it's sustainable.

Sceptre (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Adobe Flash article, but only keep the criticisms that have been made in reliable secondary sources. I've had a look at the main Flash article and it seems that this was split off from the main article when the criticisms section became too big. Most of the article, however, seems to be users' own criticisms, which is bloating the articles too much. As it stands, this is too much of a POV fork. Will reconsider if article is properly referenced. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not be bold and edit and then merge it? You'd have my blessing. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge: In so far as the criticism is backed by genuine reliable sources and is not overplayed to give a misleading impression, it should be merged back to the main article. I can't think of a good reason to fork the criticism of any subject into its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 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. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek kochhar[edit]

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

Non-notable, orphan, unreferenced negative biographical info JaGatalk 22:11, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key Records[edit]

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

Unsourced. Only one line. I'm not sure if this is a real company. Cssiitcic (talk) 22:11, 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 00:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 1 Schedule[edit]

Radio 1 Schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mission EDitor[edit]

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

Delete. Software is obviously non-notable-- lacks proper sourcing because subject has never received non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song of the Lord[edit]

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

Delete not notable and unencyclopaedic TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's more of a sermon than anything really Viet|Pham (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: no assertion of notability, no third party sourcing, most of the article appears to be WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 23:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as a practising Christian and general editor) - vague, not encyclopedic, not an established term anyway. There is nothing worth saving here. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Snow this until I've had a chance to try and source this. It may be as real as Glossolalia. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ought to be notable as the topic has a certain significance in charismatic circles - this was at one time called Prophetic Psalmistry - see eg line 3 of Terry MacAlmon and the links here [[4]] and especially this video [[5]]. I expected to find an article on Singing in the Spirit - but there isn't one. Part of the problem may be that this is spontaneous worship without a tradition of written reflection; hence there will be a lack of reliable sources. Best I can come up with is ...
  • ... Redirect to Spontaneous worship (from which this is a fork of a fork). Springnuts (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a legitimate subject, though I refer to it as "Singing in the Spirit". Currently it is a bad article, but should be rescued. Perhaps some one can suggest a better merge target. Perhaps it should be moved to Singing in the Spirit. I feel sure there must be some published dicussion of the subject that could be cited and used to make a better article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agreed that an article on Singing in the Spirit is needed - but this isn't ever going to be it, and is, I believe, best put out of its misery. Springnuts (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early bird dinner[edit]

Early bird dinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub class article, no references with dubious use, not noteworthy and very location specific Brideshead(leave a message) 21:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if this goes, then so should Doorbuster. These are well-known retail practices, with a variety of names, designed to bring in customers. If that sort of thing merits more than a dictionary definition (which wouldn't be appropriate here), then perhaps it does belong. But it's hard to see how it would fit without inventing some sort of overarching term to cover the specific permutations. Jlg4104 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure why this is 'location specific' (what location?); I live in Canada and I've heard of the practice. It's a commonly known practice through north america at least. I'm pretty sure I've seen either the same term, or a comprable practice with an alternate name in BBC episodes of Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. I also didn't know that something being well known in just one country made it invalid for wikpiedia. Numerous local landmarks have articles here. I don't see what the problem is there. I agree it could use sources, but unsourcedness should not be a deletion criteria unless there is doubt as to the existance of the topic. I don't think the nominator is is claiming that Early Bird Dinners don't exist. "early bird dinner" brings up over a hundred thousand hits on yahoo, to the issue of notability. This website which points out participating restaurants who offer such dinners notes restaurants in Boston Mass, Los Angeles California, Pittsburgh PA, Nashville Tennesee, and others. That doesn't sound very isolated to me. If there is a foreign (to North America) term that is used in other areas, I welcome acknowledgement of that in the article, and perhaps even consideration of moving the article if there is a more appropriate term. Deletion seems uncalled for, however. It's notable, and uncontravercial. TheHYPO (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a perfectly good WP:STUB. From personal experience, the use of a"early bird" specials or "buppers" occur throughout the eastern USA and Canada. Surely this can be resuced. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is clearly in need of rescue and references, but the practice is notable and has been common for many years in a number of locations across North America. To get it started, I added two cites: one from a restaurant website for an "early bird" special and one from a widely published guidebook. The article can use more work, but shouldn't be deleted. Geoff T C 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with Bearian. The "early bird" is a nationwide practice in the US, and the article seems like an accurate stub summarizing the practice. It definitely needs improving, but I vote to keep. Cbl62 (talk) 22:22, 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Absence of Goodness[edit]

The Absence of Goodness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability guidelines for books. It has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience"; it has not "won a major literary award"; nor has it made major contributions to anything, been used as as textbook, nor is its author especially notable; moreover, not-yet published books are "strongly discouraged". In short, no basis for inclusion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:22, 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 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage Dreams[edit]

Garbage Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:CRYSTAL. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underground (Single)[edit]

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

Upcoming single, per one blog source, which doesn't even say that it will be a single, only that "It has to be a single". Fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL. Amalthea 20:46, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Dude[edit]

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

Article is a combination of dictionary definition (possibly a neologism) and original research. At first the only references were not reliable sources, but new references, which may be fake, have now been added. —Snigbrook 20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'delete per nom. `'Míkka>t 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - it doesn't even rise to the level of OR. It appears to be a front for a commercial and/or band site at sickdude.org, which includes an "apparel" link for t-shirts emblazoned with the phrase "sick dude," a "definition" link that comes back to this page, and a dead "sickipedia" link. Not remotely appropriate. Jlg4104 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - only merit is that it is mildly amusing. sinneed (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable neologism anyone? Tavix (talk) 06:41, 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 del: blatant cut'n'paste copyvio `'Míkka>t 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.E.D.[edit]

M.E.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yally (talk) 20:06, 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 00:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

André A. Jackson[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Suggest merging any notable information to JFPI Corporation. Depth of media coverage is not substantial or significant enought for a biographical article. Many links to this article throughout Wikipedia were mis-linked from American athletes (sprinter, football player), movies and related toys. While the original AFD was withdrawn, the article has not changed substantially since then, and has expanded only through the addition of unsourced content. Yankees76 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. Claims of notability are fairly strong. `'Míkka>t 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notable enough for his own bio? There's no doubt he's the head of JFPI Corporation and the chairman of the African Diamond Producers Association and he is listed in those articles, but having your name on a website next to a position in a company does not provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to create a biography. --Yankees76 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This individiual was the first person of African descent to start a major diamond company, not to mention his connection with former President Moubutu. I will try to clean up the article but he certainly seems important to have his own article.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Head of an important company is notable, and this is, based on its size & prominence in its field. The refs are adequate for the purpose. We tend to have a cultural bias with respect to the commercial world--and with respect to Africa. DGG (talk) 07:40, 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. Consensus is that he does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Punoo[edit]

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

Per comments at the DRV. Player has played international youth-level cricket, which has earned a smattering of minor mentions in RS, but has not established notability. Has yet to play cricket at first-class or List A level, or adult international level - which are our normal guidelines for notability. Dweller (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —GPPande 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know enough about the guidelines for inclusion in this area but WP:ATHLETE states that the highest level of amateur competitions is considered notable, including World Championships. Does the 2006 U/19 Cricket World Cup not class as such a competiton? Considering he was the captain of the team also suggests notability should the previous point apply. I'll leave it to other more knowledgable AfDers to discuss this one further. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would if that was the highest level of amateur competition - cricket is played on an amateur basis at higher levels than youth international. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I just wasn't sure whether all World Championships qualified under that criteria. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Captaining a national side at youth level is not really enough to warrant notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see age discrimination. What am I missing here? - Mgm|(talk) 23:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, a higher level of amateur play. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The USA are indeed a proper international team, indeed they were one of the first two international teams, but that's not why this person isn't notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A reading of the Cricket and International structure of cricket articles is most enlightening here, and since the U.S. is not a Test-playing country; similarly, the article's subject is known for playing in youth cricket competition in/for the U.S. So he did not participate in the highest level of cricket in the U.S., and even if he did, he did not participate on the Test level, the highest for cricket. B.Wind (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha-Sigma Omega Phi[edit]

Alpha-Sigma Omega Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

10 google hits on "Alpha-Sigma Omega Phi"[6], and none are from reliable sources. Also the article doesn't make sense: "The organization was regestered in SEC as a non-profit organization last September 26, 1952", last September would be...2008? Terrillja talk 19:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article fails to establish the notability of this organisation, and seems largely to consist of text copied directly from the external links, a clear copyright violation. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Macartney[edit]

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

Nominated for an A1 speedy but declined, also A7-worthy in its present form. Provided reference indicates notability can be established, but there's simply nothing here. --Finngall talk 18:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. they just enabled a really cool new feature. You can read all about it at WP:EDIT. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Thanks to Jerry for making it into an article, in spite of the excessive sarcasm. --Finngall talk 19:14, 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 keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ventura County Library[edit]

Ventura County Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article consists of a long list of external links. WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a web directory. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the links should all be made into references. The individual libraries should maybe be wikilinked if some of them are notable. But "the public library system of 15 libraries in Ventura County, California. Ventura County Library features over 1 million items available for circulation and over 45 databases, 5200 ebooks and 2200 downloadable audiobooks available online." seems like it would be notable. So I would say repair and keep is warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep County libraries in large counties are notable; town libraries and branches should notrmally be merged into these more comprehensive articles. DGG (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs editing and expansion, not deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Major library system in one of California's most populated counties. Needs improvement not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 22:26, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Kovacs[edit]

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

This person does not seem to meet our notability criteria, most importantly "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Having a few articles in student newspapers does not qualify as being the SUBJECT of independant secondary source material. There also seems to be a conflict of interest with the primary contributor to this article. Avi (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is just the primary criterion. Even if such sources are lacking in number, if the confirm something like the person receiving a notable award, or being widely read, than that determines notability. Don't get hung up about one criterion. Use them all. - Mgm|(talk) 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain that this person meets any of them (note, I said "most importantly"), which is why I am seeking community input :) -- Avi (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. Avi (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability as a author--one published book, not yet notable: Humble King Returning King, which should also be nominated for deletion. Both of them purely promotional--I think they are both very close to a G11 speedy. DGG (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author does not seem to be notable independtly of his single book, which itself may not be notable either. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't notice I was logged out. Above comment by me. JulesH (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity article by and about nn author andy (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per DGG's comments, and also adding that the book is self-published. This link shows that Pete Kovacs is RNK Publishing, which has released a total of one book.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete Not sure why all of the sudden this onslaught of delete notices. The SCU Advocate is not just a "student newspaper" it is widely distributed and read all throughout Silicon Valley where Santa Clara University School of Law is located. Our professors are some of the USAs top attorneys and alumni are in Silicon Valley law firms and corporations. You can delete this but I will count it as pure religious discrimination. As one law prof said, "what goes around comes around." Be sure to consider what Pete Kovacs and Humble King Returning King are all about...fighting injustice, oppression, suppression of free speech, anti-Semitism. Wikipedia is primarily a "free-speech" forum. Maybe you should actually read the article "The Patriot Act: Noble Ends, Questionable Means" before you act in the manner that is evidenced here. I figured the CIA/FBI/VP Cheney would've come to terms with their atrocities by now, but it seems they are influencing this generation to act like fascists. Hkp-avniel (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the merit of his views are not the issue: we discriminate neither for nor against any particular viewpoint, and we almost always delete articles about authors whose self-published books are their principal notability quite regardless of whether they're fiction,. politics, or religion. The point of this being an encyclopedia is that it cannot be used for promotion. DGG (talk) 21:34, 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.

Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes.[edit]

The result was Delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW. TalkIslander 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary content fork from List of Doctor Who serials without consensus or discussion. Contains bare plot summaries whereas each episode has its own fuller analysis in its own article. Thus adds no information except viewing figures, which may be more conveniently addressed without duplication of content. Rodhullandemu 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be pretty redundant, considering the irregular capitalisation and the full stop in this article's name. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed actually. I hadn't even seen the full stop... - Tphi (talk) 01:46, 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 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abundance (A Harvest of Life, Literature & Art)[edit]

Abundance (A Harvest of Life, Literature & Art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, reason was Article is not built from independent, reliable sources (WP:V), and does not explain how it meets the notability guidelines (WP:N) - level of activity is not an indication of notability. Listed here in order to get community consensus. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete defunct zine that only lasted 7 years, with no measurable impact or importance: "only exists in the fond memories of its survivors" as the article puts it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not evident, as per WP:N requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, per WP:N. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 03:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apostates[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 17:23, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 03:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Theta Sigma[edit]

Alpha Theta Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Repeatedly created page about a fraternity with a rather weak assertion of notability. Delete unless someone can attest to the subject's actual notability.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looked over the article and did a search on Google; couldn't really find any established notability. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to show why this is notable, and the creator identifies himself by name on his userpage, then names himself as one of the founders of the fraternity. WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. The fact this article has been speedy deleted and recreated six times in the last year[7] implies that consensus is that this group is not notable. --Terrillja talk 18:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local chapters of fraternaties are unlikely to be notable, but I beg to differ with your assessment specifically. COI and PROMOTION are not a valid reason for deletion if it can be edited and six speedy deletions merely means a couple of administrator's agree on the notability. That's not a concensus. - Mgm|(talk) 22:57, 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 Point Park University. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPPJ[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, fails to satisfy WP:ORG dougweller (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral You may want to post details of this nomination to WP:WPRS. I don't know whether the fact this is a unlicensed campus station allows for this article. Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge and redirect While stations licensed by the FCC (or were at one time licensed) enjoy a presumption of notability here, this station is not currently licensed and I'm not finding any references that indicate that it was in the past. Appears to be a carrier current station. Also having difficulty locating references to support its notability. 2 brief mentions in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette with single sentence calendar entries isn't very significant. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Upon further reflection, merging this article into the university's article is the wisest decision. This subject lacks sufficient notability for its own article but it is certainly worth coverage in Point Park University.--Rtphokie (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Merge/Redirect - All radio stations, regardless if they are licensed now or not (see WGMS (defunct)) are notable. As second resort, the page should be renamed WPPJ (defunct). Since I seem to be in the minority on this one, I change my vote to Merge/Redirect. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 3, 2009 @ 05:11
    • Comment That move would violate WP:NAME. JPG-GR (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - How so? If the station is defunct, it would go along the same lines as WGMS (defunct). - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 04:20
        • WGMS is at WGMS (defunct), presumably due to not being the primary use found on the dab page. JPG-GR (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: As I've pointed out on the talk page there, WGMS is not defunct; it has merely changed format. WGMS (defunct) should be deleted and the content merged into the appropriate articles for those stations under their current call letters. 121a0012 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Radio stations that were at one time licensed are considered notable. Radio stations that were never licensed aren't automatically notable simply by being radio stations. I'm not finding any evidence that this was ever more than just a carrier current station. A carrier current station like this could be notable if there is significant coverage out there on it, but I'm not finding any. --Rtphokie (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WERW, a carrier current station, survived a AfD on it's notability, so that isn't particularly true. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 12:51
        • Comment In WERW's case, there was at least some minimal coverage of the station itself from other sources. I'm having difficulty find that for WPPJ.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • [8], [9]...the second one is not an article, but the Pittsburgh Trib does mention the station in it's "Radio Guide". - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 13:57
            • [10]....any number of these articles. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 13:59
              • Comment [11] is about the artist, not the station, inclusion in a list like [12] establishes existence but not necessarily notability, the remaining articles from the campus newspaper. I'm still not convinced that a small student newspaper is the kind of significant coverage WP:N is looking for. WP:N requires "Significant coverage" which cover the subject "directly in detail". There is a natural bias towards things which involve students of that college which brings the independence of the student newspaper into question for purposes of establishing notability. It's not that student newspapers are bad sources. They make a great resource for citations but a poor one for establishing notability. Has this station been the subject of an article or received any coverage in any other media (books, TV interview with the station manager, etc.) anywhere off campus?--Rtphokie (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Aside from radio and television website PBRTV.com none that I can find. That doesn't mean the station isn't notable though, it just means it hasn't gotten coverage outside the campus newspaper....and with some college stations this is true....only the campus newspaper bothers to do write-ups about their station. Let's see what the people from WP:WPRS have to say on this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 2, 2009 @ 15:06
  • Delete While the stations certainly seems to exist, as campus-only unlicensed radio station it cannot be given the same benefit of the doubt that an FCC-licensed facility would get and I'm not finding the sort of coverage by even the local Pittburgh papers that I would expect of a notable college radio station. If this article had much better (read: any) sourcing that went to proving notability, I could be persuaded to change my mind but as it stands this article just doesn't cross the threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you want to add the many articles from the campus newspaper I have linked to above, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 3, 2009 @ 01:34
      • On further review, merge and redirect seems the more prudent course of action. - Dravecky (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: unlicensed carrier-current stations have no independent existence from their operators; absent significant unrelated-third-party coverage in reliable sources, this article should be merged into the page for institution which operates it. 121a0012 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Point Park University as it straddles the line for WP:N. If this were licensed, it would be worthy of a standalone article; if there were more coverage by independent reliable sources, it would also be similarly worthy... but lacking both, the material should be incorporated into the article about the university. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete - For the 7th time - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Pengwen[edit]

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

Contested prod. Obvious hoax, considering that it is about a cartoon which lists Miley Cyrus as a cast member and only manages to get 8 Google hits. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:12, 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 merge to Stephen Colbert. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert portrait[edit]

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

I originally prodded the page because there is nothing that says that these paintings of Stephen Colbert are in anyway notable for encyclopedic inclusion. The person who removed the prod tag stated that there were multiple independent sources (the four external links) and that there's a merge discussion going on. An IP address put a merge tag on the page after I put the prod there, and no discussion was started anywhere to concern merging the article. As far as I know, there is nothing to say that these paintings are notable and independent of the man they are of. If anything, this article should be deleted, as I do not see any use of merging it to Stephen Colbert.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge — This was a gag used in a couple episodes of the Colbert Report. It merits a couple of sentences in there at a maximum, but certainly not its own article. --Cyde Weys 15:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow the merge discussion to continue As I said when removing the prod, there's some notability to it, but probably not enough to support an actual article. Let the merge discussion happen. If nothing comes of it, then fine, bring this back here. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What merge discussion? There is no merge discussion currently ongoing, so it must be dealt with here. Remember that AFD is capable of closing with a result of Merge. Let's handle this right here, right now, not in some hypothetical merge discussion elsewhere. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not really notable or needing an article on its own. Will be better off in the context of the Colbert article. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Do I really need to defend this? It clearly should be merge with Stephen Colbert. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per WP:BEFORE. Reasonable search term for someone who's seen it in the national gallery, etc. Neier (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:BEFORE. Reasonable search term, per Neier. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; still feel its better merged, but article has been expanded with many more sources showing it is at least marginally notable. No need to continue the unnecessary inclusionist abuse. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh![edit]

Teletubbies Say Eh-Oh! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable song. At best a "one hit" wonder. This single was merged per consensus to the main Teletubbies article in November, but Colonel Warden decided to undo the merge without discussion, even violating WP:COPYRIGHT by adding a link to an illegal version of the video on YouTube.Apparently he has decided to help the DisneyVandal by now doing his edits for him. There is nothing else to say about this song beyond what is already here, which is already in the main Teletubbies article. Since the merge has been undone, now bringing here for full deletion with protected redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you provide a pointer to the merge discussion?—Kww(talk) 16:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was initially tagged in September[13]. No objections were raised and the merge took place November 10. Again, no objections were raised. CW only reverted the merge because he saw that I did it while reading my AIV report on another of Bambifan101's socks (by his own admission).[14]. This is silent consensus, as none of the main editors of either article raised any objections during the two months of tagging nor in the nearly two months since it was merged. There was also merge discussion started on at Talk:Teletubbies, but it was lost in the clean up of the sockpuppeters insanity there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was No 1 in the charts for two weeks, that's notability enough. Discussions Re:merges should happen elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting WP:SNOW. Artw (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also congratulations to Colonel Walden on his work improving the article. You are making wikipedia a better place - keep it up! Artw (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No.1 single, clearly passes WP:MUSIC#Songs. Black Kite 18:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #1 single in the UK = definite notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole thing is properly referenced and WP:MUSIC says charting hits (especially number #1's) are notable. Additionally, this one was shortlisted for another award. And it managed to re-enter the charts with its rereleases. - Mgm|(talk) 22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No brainer #1 hit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I can't endorse the edit-warring, because this article does meet minimum standards, and is clearly warrants at least a redirect. Still, it's one paragraph long, and I don't see any reason to believe it will or should grow larger. Permastubs should be redirected to parent articles.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My work on the article has been interrupted by your unhelpful personal attack which required a considered response. My plans for it include commentary on the single's reputation for being outstandingly bad - it seems to regularly show up in polls for this. One might go on to detail its success in differing countries, as the Teletubbies have a significant international audience - USA, China, etc. Then there's its contention for status as the No 1 Christmas single and the scandal of the BBC's reporting it as winning when it actually lost to the Spice Girls. And this is just what I got from perusing Google. I expect a better search of UK newspapers will generate lots more sources to write from. And then there's the music press which is not online - Smash Hits or whatever. There's no reason why this couldn't be a FA. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A considered and reasoned view that an editor using deceitful edit summaries is editing disruptively, brought forth in an appropriate forum such as ANI, cannot reasonably be considered a personal attack.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find your lack of faith disturbing. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I know this is not a helpful !vote, but even if this article can never be improved to GA level (hence my merge vote), this song is undenyably notable (hence my keep !vote) and if consensus is against a merger, even a well-meaning mergist or deletionist has to accept this. – sgeureka t•c 14:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is one paragraph, and despite CW's claims, its doubtful it will ever be more than the little stub it is now. Its one reason it was merged despite seeming minor notability. (and really, it is minor) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nominator seems to want to enforce a merge rather than deletion. This is not the correct place for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I specifically said delete then recreate the redirect since some people like helping vandals by doing their edits for them. Nor is SK an option here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your dispute with Colonel Warden appears to be over-personal. Perhaps you should defer from commenting on this AFD due to your involment there. Artw 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your remarks elsewhere, I'd saw the same thing to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I am not the one fighting a ridiculous wikilawyering rearguard action against a user that has taken perfectly reasonable steps to save an article that is clearly notable. Artw (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With no respect (cause I won't like and pretend such backhanded commentary is respectful), you are the one running around suddenly making personal attacks here and elsewhere for no apparent reason than some irrational and unexplained dislike of me.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have fleshed out the article as indicated above. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is now quite a good article, and the song having reached #1 is clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 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 as G3 Vandalism. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global financial Christmas of 2008[edit]

Global financial Christmas of 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially an exact copy of Global financial crisis of 2008 with a very few minor wording change. (i.e. changing the word "crisis" to "Christmas") Scapler (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and block author: The author is doing a lot of page move vandalism. This is very disruptive. We don't need this sort of crap. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:42, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Womanizer Promo Tour[edit]

Womanizer Promo Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm nominating this article for deletion because it appears that no reliable third party source is calling it a "Womanizer Promo Tour". While Spears certainly did perform the single "Womanizer (song)" on several television shows, there was no "promotional tour" as such. Adding up a few live performances and labeling it a promo tour, without sourcing, is not allowed. Furthermore, all this information can be found at "Womanizer (song)", "Circus (song)" and Circus (Britney Spears album). It's somewhat redundant and I smell cruft. WP:SYNTH anyone? — Realist2 15:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article aren't necessary, you can delete it. I don't care at all. And by the way, there is sources and the bloggers at BritneySpears.com called it a "Womanizer promo tour". But just delete it if you want to. – ραncακemisτακe (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable third party source such as the record label is calling it an official promo tour then there can be an article. But the "bloggers" at BS.com cannot write a false history. If you find any good sources please let us know. — Realist2 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A series of promotional appearances at which an artist sings a song or two to tout a new record is not a concert tour in either a commercial or an artistic sense. Such appearances can be described in the article for the record. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just the delete the page if that's what you want. Now we all know that the article aren't necessary and should be deleted. - ραncακemisτακe (talk) 12:03, 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 speedy close. The previous nomination was closed 3 days ago. A new nomination should not follow so soon. If you believe the earlier discussion to be faulty, the correct course of action would be to ask for a deletion review, not opening yet another discussion. Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrokeNCYDE[edit]

AfDs for this article:
BrokeNCYDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - all references were from myspace, youtube, and blogs. A few loyal fans have prevented its proper deletion in previous AfDs even though it blatantly fails at proving Notability or passing WP:Music. Hooper (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The appearance on MTV's TRL needs to be sourced, but this would establish notability. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 15:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG as there are no reliable, third party sources to establish notability. Article was deleted after first AfD, page recreation resulted in misguided users prevented deletion from second AfD. Page at Brokencyde speedied under A7 seven times. sparkl!sm hey! 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The last AfD was closed a few days ago, AfD is not a case of shoot until you hit. — Realist2 18:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The last AfD resulted in no-consensus by fault. The only informed user who voted keep, OliverTwisted, provided links that were later proven to fail GNG. The couple of users who voted keep based on what he said with no real knowledge never returned or saw that. Hooper (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case the proper course of action is asking for a deletion review. Realist is quite right in his assessment. No matter how faulty the original outcome, renominating an article days after an earlier close is an abuse of process. - Mgm|(talk) 22:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not only are they crap, they aren't notable. No sources to confirm notability. Cookie-cutter YouTube celebrities who haven't reached the notability of Tay Zonday or Chris Crocker yet; I doubt a TRL appearance would be a confirmer of permanent notability rather than an indicator of Warholian fame. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:45, 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 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of blog activists[edit]

List of blog activists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The "list" consists of only one entry, and therefore isn't even a list, and seems somewhat promotional in nature. A previous PROD tag by Unpopular Opinion was removed with no explanation given. Unscented (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If we were to have an article of this title it would be a simple list of notable blog activists who have passed the notability requirements and already have articles about them. I would not support such a list article, as a category would be a simper and better solution, but this is nothing of the sort anyway. It is an article about a specific blogger who made the news for a short time following the Mumbai bombings. Encyclopaedic notability is not clear. If people think he is notable then maybe the article could be renamed to be about him. My gut feeling says no. The subject seems to have been editing the article himself (although he is not the main author), and that is not encouraging. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the need of some serious wikifying, a list with one entry is not a list, and the only entry on the list is definitely a victim of recentism. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basic blog vanity article, with the slight added twist of having a misleading title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Daniel Rigal and due to general lack of entries. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lists with one entry aren't proper lists. - Mgm|(talk) 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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 redirect to Ultraman Mebius. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Astra[edit]

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

Fictional character from a '70's Japanese anime show with a weak assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Ultraman Mebius, per standard op for non-notable characters (and there's a few others characters from that show that could stand merging). —Quasirandom (talk) 02:01, 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 delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capture ready[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Prodded but prod removed. Article in its present state does not seem too encyclopedic. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ttonyb1 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is this article even describing? Carbon capture and storage? Capture ready isn't a commonly used term - or at least I haven't heard of it, and I used to be huge on these things. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 16:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--really, this is nonsense, since it confuses metaphor and reality, and is incoherent to boot. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 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 TAT. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Sex & Tea[edit]

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

iTunes only release? Not notable, delete. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to the band's article - per guidelines. Does not meet any of the following - "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups..." --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:56, 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 16:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tajdić[edit]

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

No source indicate he played in fully-professional league Matthew_hk tc 13:25, 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 Deleted as CSD A7. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lewis (composer/musician/politian)[edit]

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

Not noticable The Illusional Ministry (talk) 12:56, 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 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Nedovic[edit]

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

a unattached youth player Matthew_hk tc 12:58, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalibor Krezović[edit]

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

Unattached footballer and not yet played in fullyprofessional league Matthew_hk tc 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dalibor is a midfielder, wearing jersey #8 for FK Radnički Kragujevac in the West section of the Serbian Third League. I was unable to find references in english to teach myself whether or not this is fully-professional play, but to refer to this player as unattached seems untrue. The team he is playing for has corporate sponsors, and their home field is the 4th largest stadium in Serbia, it was in the Yugoslavian first league prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia. I suspect that although this article requires wikifying, referencing, and encyclopedic details, that the subject is notable per the usual practice at WP:FOOTY. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is not listed in official site now. The club is notable does not mean the player is notable. Notability per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, Fully professional leagues also per WP:Footy. Matthew_hk tc 16:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not expire. If he met the requirements at the time reference that the article is written from, then we don't wait like hawks circling around it to delete in the event he is dropped from the team. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:26, 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. — Aitias // discussion 16:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Ostojić[edit]

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

NN footballer, he is not yet played in fully professional level Matthew_hk tc 12:46, 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. — Aitias // discussion 16:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Maričić[edit]

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

An unattached non-notable footballer, no souce to prove him played in fully professional league Matthew_hk tc 12:36, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 03:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Marković[edit]

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

Unsourced NN football player, not yet played in fully professional league Matthew_hk tc 12:31, 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 16:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nebojša Lukić[edit]

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

A NN regional league player Matthew_hk tc 12:28, 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 (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Lankster[edit]

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

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. This is a cornerback/special teams guy who is not a star on a team that is not high-profile. Not notable, as evidenced by its orphan article status; we cannot keep articles on every college athlete as they are not all notable. Timneu22 (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - He's not an underclassman and he has established himself as a solid defensive back in addition to special teams. 2nd team Big East. I added a couples articles I quickly found through Google. Though not the most well known College Football player around, I believe he meets notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If we list every player who was first- or second- team something, WP will get out of hand quickly. There are lots of athletes who fall into this category. Timneu22 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I agree with your basic point, though it is the third-party coverage that convinced me that this one should stay. Also you may consider editing/updating the "underclassman special teams" guy in your initial nomination. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He fails WP:ATHLETE as the NCAA isn't a professional league, and he hasn't played in the Olympics or anything of that caliber. However, there still is the general notability criteria, and according to the sources I found, they do mention him, but not in the significant coverage field that would make him pass WP:N. Tavix (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the WP:ATHLETE tip. There are a number of articles I nominated for deletion today; they all fail the WP:ATHLETE notability argument, but I was not aware of it. Timneu22 (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment- Timneu22, you probably want to view this Discussion. Not that I'm saying it directly relates to this afd, or that it should be discussed any further here. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a red link. :( Timneu22 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: It was indeed red - for the one minute after I posted it. Literally (look at the times of our comments) --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to have a good amount of coverage; this is the most on-topic article some quick searching turns up that's exclusively about him. Not sure the professional/amateur distinction makes much sense in this case; in the U.S., NCAA football is considerably more notable (in the sense of actually being noted) than many professional sports leagues are. --Delirium (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I cannot find anything that this athlete has done that is notable. Second-team All-Big East is his biggest recognition; it is hardly notable. Timneu22 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... for now. At present, the only indication of his meeting WP:ATHLETE is the brief USA Today article, but he has not done enough to clear the notability bar (participation in the Senior Bowl would not make him clear the notability bar, but winning an NCAA award or making the roster of an NFL team would). It should also be noted that WVU coverage by West Virginia-based newspapers (with the possible exception of The Herald-Dispatch of Huntington) is not as "independent" as, say that by newspapers in another state. WVU connections run deep and wide in the Mountaineer State. B.Wind (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I know about wp:crystal ball, but just by going by the basics (Senior Bowl participation, 2nd team Big East), this guy has a pretty decent shot of making a NFL Team next Fall. So we can delete this article that it's in pretty good shape, and then if he makes the team someone will create a stub and it'll sit there. Or, we could wait. If he doesn't make a NFL team then certainly it should be deleted. Not that I'm saying there's anything particularly wrong with deleting it now (if it's determined he doesn't meet notability), but just something to consider. By the way I had nothing to do with the creation of this article and am not a WVU fan. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, seems to fail WP:ATHLETE/WP:BIO in general. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--WP:crystal, individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Evidence for meeting this criteria: "Senior Bowl President and CEO Steve Hale: “It’s great to see local players go off to major colleges and have outstanding careers and establish themselves as solid NFL prospects...We believe Ellis is one of the better cover and kick return prospects in this year’s draft.” 1Lankster's ratings by the NFL Draft Scout: 18 out of 228 CB's and 149 out of 2608. 2. No need to delete, the subject notability is growing, Wikipedia:There is no deadline--Jmundo (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Subst on article page and delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mongrain/medias[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons. The article itself says that "This page has been created in order to increase the Public Domain Video and sample performances on Erik Mongrain article. Please do not remove", and this is clearly the role of Commons. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this page is transcluded onto the main Erik Mongrain article. All the media is already stored on Commons. I would suggest we simply subst this page onto the main article as there's no particular reason it needs to be a subpage, and then delete this. The issue of excessive media use on the article can be discussed on the talk page. ~ mazca t|c 13:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no need to upload Ogg files or MP3s to Commons when the musician is hosting the same files (at least the MP3s) on his own web site. In addition to each article about a musician (say 50 Kbytes) we will now expect to have several megabytes of audio files on our servers, when the same material is generally available for free on external sites? Whatever the ultimate decision on keeping the music files, this particular sub-page 'medias.' should not exist, per mazca. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not suitable for the encyclopedia. But can be included as an external link to the artist's page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Mayalld (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Namespace subpages are supposed to be disabled on English Wikipedia - see WP:Subpages - delete as Housekeeping. So tagged. ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subpages are supposed to be disabled and even if they were available, they're not supposed to be used for blatant duplication of commons material. (I personally think keeping the sound files is a good idea, assuming the copyright checks out. Websites change and I have had several instances of info disappearing on me. Keeping them locally would stop the material from disappearing if the official site ever decided to do a cleanup) - Mgm|(talk) 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a commons where they can be kept? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think they are already on Commons, which makes this page even more redundant. – ukexpat (talk) 01:49, 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. This discussion reflects WP:POVFORK, which states that "there is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork." That opinion, also voiced here, is distinctly in the minority, while the majority of contributors maintain that a "criticism of..." article, if written from a neutral point of view, may on occasion be required per WP:SS to keep the main article balanced and at a manageable size.  Sandstein  10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum per request on my talk page: My closure should not be construed as an opinion about the merits of the article in its present state, especially about whether or not is is written from a neutral point of view or whether rebuttals exist in reliable sources and should be added; if any such defects exist, they can be remedied through editing and do not require deletion.  Sandstein  19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Vladimir Putin[edit]

Criticism of Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a WP:POVFORK of Vladimir Putin in which information which is already present in the main article is cherry picked and placed in this article. As it is criticism it is never going to be possible to achieve WP:NPOV. Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this. Russavia Dialogue 12:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC

  • Keep. No, we do not have most of this information in his BLP article. His BLP article is already too big and therefore should be divided to smaller pages (see WP:MOS). Please see Category:Criticisms. Are we going to delete all these hundreds articles? Biophys (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, the section Civil liberties and internal dissent is present at Vladimir_Putin#Criticism. Allegations of political assassinations and muzzling of reporters is present at Vladimir_Putin#Second_term_.282004_.E2.80.93_2008.29. Relations with "oligarchs" is present at Vladimir_Putin#Second_term_.282004_.E2.80.93_2008.29. Environmental concerns is present at Vladimir_Putin#Environmental_record. Bubble is not criticism (and hence I will remove it). Relations with former Soviet Republics is present at Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy. Personal wealth is present at Vladimir_Putin#Personal_wealth. And they are available word-for-word. Check it for yourself, Criticism of VVP article as of now; VVP article as of now. I have already started a clean-up of the VVP article, and will likely work on it more in the coming days, and it will be much reduced in size. That still does not address the fact that Criticism of Vladimir Putin is a WP:POVFORK, with identical content to the main article, which has been cherry picked by some editor, and which is not WP:NPOV, nor will it be POV...that is a major policy here on WP. --Russavia Dialogue 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to point out from Talk:Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin, User:Ender78 states "I just copy-pasted the contents of the original article in creating this one, so that there'd be a place for fuller exploration of the contra- viewpoint."....as I said, it's been cherry-picked from the original article in order to create a WP:POVFORK. --Russavia Dialogue 16:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is nothing more than an essay, and has no authority whatsoever, see below. travb (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. As per WP:POVFORK: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Has there been "extreme cases of disruptive editing" in this case? If not the POV Fork argument has no merit
    Further, criticism articles are common, and are not considered POVforks, such as Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Tony Blair around 100 more:
I could go on, google lists 152[15] wikipedia lists 262 criticism pages, but I think the point has been adequately made. travb (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... — neuro(talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that is so fucking cool! Thank you so much neuro, you deserve and will get a barnstar from me. I always wondered if a person could do that. travb (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the long list of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And have you taken a look at them? How many of them have their neutrality disputed? (and rightly so). How many contain vast amounts of WP:OR. Or are absolute merge candidates? How many are full of any titbit taken from some newspaper on some non-notable topic? Should I go on? Because the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is not valid. Every article has to be judged on its own merits, and that is why I have nominated this, instead of simply re-directing, for the reasons provided to Biophys above. --Russavia Dialogue 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I would also draw your attention to WP:POVFORK where it also states: "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. - I can see no agreement amongst any editors to create this POVFORK. --Russavia Dialogue 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we can both acknowledge that there were no "extreme cases of disruptive editing" leading to this deletion, so the premise of your deletion is without merit.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a mere essay, as the template above this essay states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." it has no authority whatsoever, so please quit quoting it as if it is policy, when it is nothing more than a few editors opinions about wikipedia.
You stated above: "Criticism should be covered in the main article, presented in an NPOV way, not in a POVFORK such as this." but yet you quote WP:POVFORK here, stating that criticism articles are acceptable, which is it? travb (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Russavia wrote: "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors.
Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_4#Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin_article,
Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_3#Bias
Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_2#Billionaire?
Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_2#Sources_about_wealth this debate about whether the page should be split off, has been going on since 13 December 2007. travb (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are partaking in is WP:GAME, in particular, Selectively 'cherry picking' wording from a policy (or cherry picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy. -- although yes, this is an essay, yet, an oft referred to essay, and yes, the essay does say that calling forks POV is POV, but this has been brought here to AfD in order to weigh up community consensus on this article, and this article only. I have stated my reasons for AfD above, and others will surely weigh in with their opinions in order to gather consensus. But one thing you haven't touched on is the policy which is relevant; that being WP:NPOV. How exactly does a criticism of... article achieve NPOV, when the content of the article is set-up by its very title? It would be no different to me starting Praise of Vladimir Putin, it would be an inherrently POV article. And thanks also for providing that list, I will start merging many of them back into their parent articles in the coming days. --Russavia Dialogue 21:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"How exactly does a criticism of... article achieve NPOV" I don't know, ask all of the editors of the hundreds of criticism articles above. There is a Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Tony Blair, why is Criticism of Vladimir Putin any different? WP:POVFORK which you yourself quote, states that criticism articles are permissible.
It seems when acronym soup arguements fail, WP:GAME and WP:wikilawyering accusations soon follow. I methodically showed that there is no basis for your arguments, using the same policy which you were using to get this page deleted. How is my arguments any different from yours? I find it odd that you quote acronyms liberally, to establish wikipedia norms which govern 1 million articles, but when I refute those arguments, this debate is suddenly not about wikipedia norms, but about 1 single article only. Editors can't have it both ways. travb (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then unless you can demonstrate how non-point of view can be gotten on this article then you can go on and on to yourself. Each article has to rise or fall on its own merits, and the existence or non-existence of other articles can not be used in reaching consensus on this one article. That's my last word on that. --Russavia Dialogue 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a "criticism of" article that includes positive opinion of people, even though you can positively criticise someone (Merriam-Webster says it's usually negative). Ideally, criticism articles should be moved to "Public opinion of" or neutrally-titled articles and have both positive and negative opinions about the article's subject. Just putting the negative opinions in fails NPOV, no matter if it's spun out or not: when spinning out opinions, you must include the positive too. Sceptre (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This concern is something that you can take up at WP:Village Pump, or write an essay then propose it be a guideline. But right now, the predominant guideline that the nominator used for deletion WP:POVFORK, allows for criticism articles on wikipedia, such as Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Tony Blair. travb (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POVFORK does not say that Criticism articles are allowed, it says there is no consensus whether they all are POV forks or not. Completely different areas. Sceptre (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All Criticism of * articles are POV forks that should be deleted since all are deliberate attempts to circumvent NPOV, and frequently use biased sources. Wikipedia's purpose is not to characterize content positively or negatively, it's to present notable information in a neutral voice. If people want to read biased interpretations of people, places, events, theories, etc. then they can read biased media. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion, unfortunately, WP:POVFORK a wikipedia guideline, acknowledges that criticism articles are allowable. travb (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you unsubstantiated comment, since WP:POVFORK is a guideline and WP:NPOV is a policy so it takes precedent. Since the title "Criticism of ..." is itself a non-neutral point of view, the content is inherently also non-neutral. Also, you should read the POVFORK policy more carefully since it specifically says there's no consensus on criticism articles, but like I said it's mostly irrelevant since policy trumps guideline. In addition, opposing views are supposed to be given equal weight, which can't be accomplished in an article with "criticism" in the title. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you think every article with "Criticism of" is a POV? From my experience, any one who used this excuse was trying to repress any sort of information that puts their issue or idol in a negative light. Isn't calling criticisms POV a POV in itself? Also please cite the source on wikipedia where policy trumps guidelines.--Waxsin (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please mark all "criticism" articles for deletion and debate them all together. There is no logic to selectively delete only this article.Biophys (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BUNDLE, Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. There is some logic in discussing only one article first. --Russavia Dialogue 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, but some people can't help but bring up that other stuff exists. Before doing bundles, it suggested to try out one article first and then try a bundled delete. I'd suggest breaking it down further by topic, group criticism articles for religion, political figures, other LPs, theories, etc. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this being brought up? What relevance does this have to the discussion? What other articles do you plan on deleting besides this article?--Waxsin (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putin's article is already too long. Why aren't you giving the same weight to merging such articles as Vladimir Putin legislation and program, Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, or Vladimir Putin's Second Cabinet into the main article?--Waxsin (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no edit diffs in this ANI, please provide them. travb (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My posting was limited, neutral, nonpartisan and open. Hence this is not canvassing.Biophys (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most "criticism of..." articles are POV forks and I see no reason why this one is different. Per WP:NPOV, a core policy, criticism should be discussed in the main articles in a balanced and encyclopedic fashion. "Criticism of..." is too often an excuse to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. *** Crotalus *** 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything" being anything that may be damaging to a person's credibility or positive public image, correct? Without criticism, where do you draw the line between knowledge and propaganda?--Waxsin (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep per travb and per WP:POVFORK itself, which does not prohibit criticism articles, but rather says, "At least the 'Criticism of ... ' article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the 'Criticism of ... ' article." Vladimir_Putin#Criticism is a reasonably-sized section of a long article, so a divergent article is appropriate. And, most importantly from my perspective, any attempt to stifle (sourced) criticism, on the basis that it is indeed criticism, is a form of censorship, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination appears to be predicated on the idea that criticism is inherently non-neutral and representing criticism on Wikipedia violates the WP:NPOV policy. That is untrue. As for the article itself, it's clearly a notable topic; there is no need to delete it. Moreover, since the nomination is erroneous, there is not even a potentially valid basis for deletion offered -- so a speedy keep would not be out of order. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the Personal wealth section is Criticism. It's mish mash of things the article creator threw together, i.e. WP:SYN. Representing criticism is not NPOV, however, when done in an article entitled Criticism of... just how does it reach NPOV? Additionally, the main article is not that long, and ALL of the info present in this AfD article is already present in the main article. --Russavia Dialogue 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the suitability of individual sections to that article on the article's talk page, not here. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the info is already there? Oh yes, especially after such edits. Biophys (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue nor explain edits on VVP here (that's what the article talk page is for), but I will this once. The diff that you have shown there in 95% unsourced (remember WP:BURDEN), and the rest is information on who owns a TV station or two. It is not criticism per se. However, I am mindful that there is criticism of media freedoms in Russia being (perceived to be) curtailed, and ideally no article would have a "support" and "criticism" section, it would all be rewritten into coherent prose which explains all sides of the equation together, instead of being split into separate sections. That is in essence WP:NPOV. And yes, as this article has always been a priority for me, but never gotten around to, it will be gutted, rewritten and improved, and such things will be included. --Russavia Dialogue 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the edit diff Biophys provides pretty much confirms your own POV. I got a really good idea, if you disagree with someone's POV, instead of "gutting" their contributions, why not find verifiable sources which support your own POV? travb (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more criticisms of Putin deleted by Russavia:
[16] deleting Council on Foreign Relations, Saint Petersburg Times and the official Kremlin website, president.kremlin.ru
[17] deleting Asia Times, Radio Free Europe, inosmi.ru, International Herald Tribune
[18] deleting Associated Press
[19] Deleting UK Times Online, the San Diego Union Tribune, Radio Free Europe, The Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the New Statesman, RIA Novosti.
[20] deleting UK Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, the book First Person, the book Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and the End of Revolution
[21] Moscow Times, LA Times, BBC News
travb (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to support my POV, I am here to include what reliable sources say, in order for the article to be verifiable and presented neutrally. It is the burden of editors who wish to include information to include those sources, otherwise information can be removed. There isn't a single inclusion of information into any article by myself which is not properly referenced as required by those policies, and I expect the same from others. Is too much to ask? Read up on these policies and one can see in black and white what is there. As it stood, the only info which was sourced was "Now there is only one national independent channel, Ren-TV.[219] There are also radio stations such as Echo of Moscow[220] and a large selection[221] of independent newspapers such as Novaya Gazeta, Moscow Times and Nezavisimaya Gazeta.[222] InoSMI project delivers selected Russian translations of articles dedicated to Russia from foreign and Western media online on a daily basis and has a daily audience of 70,000–90,000 visitors, most of them Russians." - the first is to a broken link, the rest has nothing to do with criticism. But you'll be glad to know I am already working up on information on the media, all fully referenced, and all presented in an NPOV way. As to your other examples, Clinton's view on whether she thinks Putin has a soul or not has nothing to do with Foreign policy of Putin. And Medvedev changing the constitution also has nothing to do Putin...or is now that we criticise Person A for the actions of Person B? The criticism of Nashi is criticism of Nashi, not of Putin. But it is funny, even within the Support section of the article we have Criticism. And need I mention the other Criticism article which is at Putinism, and the one which was deleted at Putinisms. Just how many Criticism of Vladimir Putin articles do we need? Anyway, back to the Afd, if you want to moan about anything else I have or haven't done, please use my talk page. I've had my say at this AfD, that's all from me, and will let others have their say also on what we are here for, the discussion of a single article. --Russavia Dialogue 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per User:Cosmic Latte. "Criticisms" articles are a valid way of presenting alternative notable viewpoints published in reliable, verifiable sources. Martintg (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:POVFORK.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:POVFORK allows criticism articles and in fact they're quite commonplace around here. Putin is a well-known public figure and there's no reason he can't have a criticism article. Oren0 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--I understand nomination concern with WP:NPOV, but this should be addressed in the discussion page of the article and thru editing. --Jmundo (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Serious question here. Given that many people believe Criticism of Vladimir Putin is entirely appropriate, are those same people who want to keep this article, going to hold the same opinion when I start Support of Vladimir Putin/Praise of Vladimir Putin? It won't be a WP:POINT article in the slightest, because one need only read Vladimir_Putin#Support to learn that he once held approval ratings of 81%, the highest amongst any world leader, and hasn't fallen below 65% since November 1999. With 9 years of sky high approval ratings, there is going to be a lot of information in media, books, scholarly journals (scholarly journals is something which isn't present in any of the Putin series of articles, what does that indicate?), etc with which to build a well-written, entirely referenced Praise article. People are getting caught up on WP:POVFORK, whereas WP:NPOV is the relevant policy in play here. But let us for a moment concentrate on WP:POVFORK only. Editors have stated that there is nothing in WP:POVFORK which forbids such a criticism article, well I challenge that there is nothing in WP:POVFORK that forbids a praise article. If ""Criticisms" articles are a valid way of presenting alternative notable viewpoints published in reliable, verifiable sources.", why could this not also apply to Praise articles, particularly with this particular person, because it could be argued that the alternative view is the praise. WP:POVFORK doesn't forbid it. One could also argue, any attempt to stifle (sourced) praise, on the basis that it is indeed praise, is a form of censorship, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.. I don't expect anyone to answer this question, but have raised it to hopefully make people think. But, if you look at WP:NPOV, and in particular Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming, doesn't an article entitled Criticism of PersonA smack of POV right at the get go? Think about it, how does one achieve NPOV when the stage is set from its very title? What exactly is the point of WP:NPOV when we have 150+ articles which have, and are allowed to have, such POV titles? --Russavia Dialogue 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I read the policy correctly, a split of praise/unpraise would violate WP:POVFORK. You're supposed to add any due notable positive criticism -- shall we say, critical acclaim -- into the criticism article. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate article--a normal Wikipedia way of handling such topics for major political figures, and other controversial topics, in order to keep the main article relatively straightforward. It's one of the proper uses for forking, not a POV fork. DGG (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Putin is a public political figure, hence an article detailing published criticisms of his political agenda is entirely justified. Martintg (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make sure its reliable and respects WP:BLP.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consider salt. Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. This article is a WP:POVFORK. What likely happened is that the people who don't like Putin weren't able to put all the criticism they wanted in the article about Putin so they created a separate article. If this article were to remain there should also be an article called Appreciation for Vladimir Putin. The fact that there are other articles called "Criticism of X" is irrelevant. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Remarks such as, "If this article were to remain there should also be an article called Appreciation for Vladimir Putin" imply a narrow understanding of the word "criticism." Criticism in intelligent discussion (see, for example, critical theory) does not usually mean simply "to censure or find fault with," as in, "waaaaah, don't criticize me," but rather "to judge or discuss the merits and faults of", as in, "the movie critic gave the film 3 1/2 stars." Criticism involves both merits and faults; it therefore does have at least an a priori neutrality to it. What it lacks is apathy. And WP:BLP is of limited relevance when information is properly sourced. Public figures and criticism are inherently intertwined; to point this out is not libelous, but to hide it is censorship. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: We shouldn't get into a debate of the semantics of the article title. You can make the same argument for the word appreciation such that appreciation doesn't necessarily mean "Zomg Putin is the bestest President evar!" but appreciation could also be defined as a just valuation of a persons merit and this could be positive or negative as well. The point remains that the article is unbalanced and non-neutral and uses what you call the narrow definition of the word criticism. Also, BLP policy is clear on this issue and should not be dismissed as limited relevance. Please refer to Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciation? The stub-sorters will chuckle each time they see that title. — CharlotteWebb 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article (Vladimir Putin), along with anything that would go in an article praising him. If you were in an encyclopedia would you expect there to be such articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs)
    • If it were possible to publish Wikipedia in book form (indeed if there were any reason to) I would expect such articles to be adjacent or without a discernible beginning or end, possibly filling an entire volume in the case of a major political figure such Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush. However we can't be passing multiple megabytes back and forth with every page-load and every edit; it needs to be broken down somehow. Unless you see some advantage to Putin (chapter 12), etc. it would be better to use titles which describe the content. — CharlotteWebb 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am against merger as that would make the parent article too long.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

  • This is what I believe is the major failure of this article and it can't be fixed so it should be deleted. Any relevant information can be added to Vladimir Putin as long as it doesn't overwhelm that article either and must remain neutral. Note that Putin is very popular in Russia and this needs to be reflected in Wikipedia otherwise undue weight is being given to the minority view. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is exactly that it would overwhelm that article and thus give, probably, an even more negative impression. It's critical to keep the main article balanced, even when that is difficult because of the nature of the material. DGG (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the article seems lopsided, that would be a reason for expansion (assuming there is material to expand it with), not deletion and certainly not salting. Hence WP:POVFORK: "There is currently no consensus whether a 'Criticism of .... ' article is always a POV fork. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article should include both positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the spunout article." Pointing to BLP does not establish consensus against this type of article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was created not so long ago due to the fact that the parent one had become too long. Such articles exist elsewhere, Criticism of George W. Bush being one of the most prominent and popular.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there are those who would delete that also, for the same incorrect reasons. DGG (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As people are now saying that Criticism of... articles should have both positive and negative points mentioned, isn't this still just a POVFORK? Think about it, take, Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy. This does not belong in a criticism article but in Vladimir_Putin#Foreign_policy, which has its own article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Domestic_policy should be in a section of Vladimir Putin called Domestic policy, and perhaps have its own article Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin. (something that I am currently working on ideas for). ALL of these issues should be covered in their separate sections which do or don't currently exist, not in a POVFORK; by ensuring that the information is included in the relevant sections of the main article (which I will attest to, all information in this article is present in Vladimir Putin), this is the only way that coherence can be achieved and further WP:NPOV. This goes not only for this article, but it is my opinion on ALL criticism of articles. --Russavia Dialogue 00:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section break[edit]
  • Keep Another attempt at whitewashing I see, not surprised.--Waxsin (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF is still observed at Wikipedia. Violations of such are much frowned-upon here. B.Wind (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miljan Petrović[edit]

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

Footballer not yet played fully-professionally Matthew_hk tc 12:13, 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 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freight Tycoon Inc.[edit]

Freight Tycoon Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article contains very little information about an unnotable game. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 12:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is part of a series since only Transport and RollerCoaster Tycoon have the same developer and looking at the other article is appears that Zoo and Mall Tycoon are seperate series and both have different developers. Also since Fright Tycoon has a different developer than either of the series listed it strongly implies that it is not part of either series. The only real connection I see is that they all end in tycoon. --70.24.176.152 (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no sources out there except press releases and unreliable blogs and such. Without reliable and independent secondary sources, it fails WP:V and WP:N. It looks like it's taken on the Tycoon name as a clone, rather than being part of an official series. Randomran (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I could also not find any significant coverage through reliable sources to establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnotable, per WP:N. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 03:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Ivezić[edit]

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

No source to support he exist, or made any debut on fully-professional level. Matthew_hk tc 12:02, 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 Procedural keep. If you disagree with the result of an immediately prior AfD, seek Deletion review. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Rouse[edit]

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

Second nomination, first appeared to be a bit of a mess. Reason for nomination - there is nothing here, or in the 'sources' found in the first nomination which haven't been added, that amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Due to that the subject fails WP:BIO Nuttah (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. First, this is a very poorly-written article. If I can get past that, I still am not able to tell why this person is notable. Timneu22 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AFD was closed 2 weeks ago. There should be signficiant time between nominations. -= Mgm|(talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as Keep Previous AFD is muvch too recent. The article needs a lot of work, but that implies tagging it not deleting it. The subject appeared to be a significant leader in his denomination in Canada, but the problem is that the author has gone away and left it unfinished. Possibly because of some one putting in a premature AFD nomination. This is very off-putting to new well-meaning editors. I am not sure if that is the case here. I added this article to my watchlist so that I could observe how it developed and act as a critical commentator. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Reed (musician)[edit]

Jake Reed (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

musician with no notability outside of a single band; fails WP:MUSICBIO, no reliable third party sources either Tassedethe (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that there is a substantial amount of musicians on Wikipedia that have no notability outside of a single band, yet their pages have never been challenged. This page has now been edited to include reliable third party references and to also show this musician is notable for more than just one band. For support of this, you only have to look at TAT, an entry on this very site. I think the deletion of this article would be completely unecessary. Helloyou32 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Myspace is not considered a reliable source and I can't see download.com being one. Do their staff write their descriptions? Do they copy them from other places (like Wikipedia)? Without knowing neither of these are reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 16:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep, although thanks for pointing out some pages for me to get rid of. Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of 'other stuff exists' (which yes, I also believe is not a good enough reason) Helloyou32 has supplied valid sources and has edited the page to show that this musician performs in multiple areas. With these edits, he/she is keeping within the guidelines set by Wikipedia and is doing no one any harm. Do Not Delete Ballandchain77 (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, a brand new user with contributions only to tat-related articles. My my, not dodgy at all. If you can provide a reference linking Jake Reed and Bruno Jenkins I'll be happy to vote keep, but all you've shown so far is that Jenkins exists. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, there we go. See reference [4] on the article. And yes, I am a TAT fan and so far have only used Wikipedia for TAT related entries. I'm not sure I understand what is wrong with that. I have used Wikipedia before but not for a while, and not under this username. Ballandchain77 (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other stuff exists is generally not a good reason to keep something, but it's not set in stone. If others haven't been challenged it's presumably because those were good articles. It's also not a good reason to not consider a merge before a deletion either. - Mgm|(talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral until references for solo project have been improved. If they don't improve, merge- Mgm|(talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails individual notability outside of the band, per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, looks like I've been beaten. Is there any way this article can be deleted now? I would like to recreate it from scratch without all the deletion talk and messy history. I will recreate it with a simple redirect to the main TAT article until I can reconstruct the content with better references that show the musicians notability outside of one musical act. Helloyou32|(talk) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of IT Companies in Tamil Nadu[edit]

List of IT Companies in Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List Cruft; no indication of notability for any company listed. Blowdart | talk 10:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too specific a list; no bias against recreation if notable list members can be found. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Earlier versions should be evaluated too. Someone has been severely cutting the original content. - Mgm|(talk) 16:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC items 1-5. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 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 Georgetown, Kentucky#Education. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Elementary School (Georgetown, Kentucky)[edit]

Eastern Elementary School (Georgetown, Kentucky) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Same spiel. Non notable elementary school. No sources. No citations. Delete or merge with a better article. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockbox[edit]

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

Delete. Hey, this sounds really neat. WP:ILIKEIT even!! Sadly the entire article relies on primary sources (itself) and has yet to receive anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources (read: NOT BLOGS). JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blogs aren't defacto unreliable. Blogs maintained by notable experts or organizations are perfectly acceptable and reliable. -

Mgm|(talk) 16:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Ray Beckerman, aka NewYorkCountryLawyer @ slashdot, has been a profound source of information regarding the RIAA's ongoing litigation campaign, for example. Shentino (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why any of this is a problem. The article essentially summarizes the information already freely available by reading Rockbox's SVN logs. Why is it desirable to have a third party summarize readily available information rather then simply doing it here directly?
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A google new search shows that it has been featured in PC World, PC Magazine, and Wired several times & has been mentioned in NY Times reviews and in both Popular Science and Nuts & Volts. --Karnesky (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're finding non-trivial coverage from the sources you've mentioned, please share with the rest of the class so others can make an educated choice. JBsupreme (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but REWRITE! The topic is easily googled and found, but the article itself needs better references and needs to be less "listy." If these things are cleaned up it might be worth keeping. Timneu22 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP
I happen to have an mp3 player with said RockBox firmware on it. I was told that it also came preinstalled, which implies OEM support. Shentino (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP

The article needs work but the subject is notable to the extent that deletion is not appropriate.--KJRehberg (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. per the Google News results mentioned above, which you can see here. Right from the top you can see non-trivial coverage of the subject, including several articles devoted entirely to it, in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Jussinniemi[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: the previous deletion of this article via WP:AFD; (link) was contested at WP:DELREV; (link). It was determined that this pornographic actor (actress) has received been nominated for an award that may qualify for notability per WP:PORNBIO, and therefore the pre-deletion version of the article has been restored and this AFD submitted. I have no opinion on this matter. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 07:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for that correction, Spartaz. I will correct the nomination statement accordingly. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:N per the multiple reliable sources. The Web Starlet Of The Year nomination is enough to pass WP:PORNBIO, despite the category being last in alphabetical order. Epbr123 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless its AVN you are referring to I'm not sure I'm seeing multiple independant reliable sources to meet N. Is AVN really considered a RS? Spartaz Humbug! 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, AVN is a trade journal with sufficient editorial oversight. Epbr123 (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The award nomination seems to satisfy notability, and moreover the references in this article have recently been substantially improved. TotientDragooned (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as said by others, the article meets the notability criteria. Article should be renamed to her artistic name "Puma Swede" though. -- fdewaele, 30 December 2008, 12:38 (CET).
  • Delete. No reasonable claim of notability is in the article. She has been nominated for an "award." But the link goes to a list of "nominees" that is 55 pages long and lists more than 300 different female performers for a single year. (My count leaves out multiple nominations for the same performer.) We do not treat such indiscriminate "honors" as conferring notability in any other field. There is no reason to do so here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies WP:PORNBIO criteria. Sharveet (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes both general and the Pornbio additional criteria. Hullaballoo's bizarre assertions to the contrary, the AVN award has been held to meet the criteria for a substantial length of time.Horrorshowj (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Massachusetts Wing Civil Air Patrol[edit]

The result was keep per withdrawal. (WP:NAC). Oroso (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Wing Civil Air Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My primary basis for deletion is WP:ORG. I don't think the article asserts why this particular wing is notable and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to say it is. Oroso (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)WITHDRAWN: I wasn't 100% about deletion and wanted to get a sense of the consensus. Jerry establishes enough notability for me. As far as an article on a state wing that's written well, Pennsylvania Wing Civil Air Patrol and Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol are written significantly better. Oroso (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While I tend to thing Wings are inherently notable, articles like this must still provide evidence of such. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know enough about this topic, and clearly this article does not contain much useful information right now. That being said, someone went to the trouble to create the Civil Air Patrol template for all the states. Is there anything noteworthy here to keep? Is it possible that there should just be a single article (not dividing by states)? Timneu22 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The creation of the template indicates that there will be ongoing effort to build and maintain these articles, so deletion of them at this time is premature. Just a smpling of the ongoing coverage in reliable sources that this entity receives (google news alone has over 19,000 articles):

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case, I would say keep, but I suggest that one of the first tasks should be to write one of the articles very well, and then use it as an example for all the other states' articles. Right now, there's not much worth keeping so I understand the request to delete it. Timneu22 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Civil Air Patrol top-level articles by state. I agree that it would be useful to write a good article on one of them. Still, this article has a few facts, and if deleted, would raise the level of effort needed to create a new article, so it's worth keeping. Fg2 (talk) 00:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookazine[edit]

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

unsourced and non-notable neologism Ohconfucius (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under what criterion?- Mgm|(talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: Bookazine is a magazine that re-publishes full length novels from the Netherlands (with permission).[23] - Mgm|(talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify Mgm,there could probably be an article about that publication, but the present article does not seem to be on that subject; I think it is perhaps a more general term. DGG (talk) 07:43, 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 03:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SONIC CRUISE[edit]

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

Non-notable song; there is no need for an article on every one of the artist's "100 songs for 1000 days". None of his songs far have charted and all articles are unreferenced. Somno (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles:

GATE I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Star cascade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CHIMERA DRAFT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KISS FOR SALOME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soushutsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Transmuters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leaf fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fall fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repli Eye-Program"d" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ya・Ti・Ma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dream Ape Metaverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COSMIC RUNAWAY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SO•U•SHU•TSU - mould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SIREN‘S MELODY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
X-NIGHT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete - None of the individual singles appears notable enough to justify separate articles. --DAJF (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, wait, some of these (the older ones) were on albums -- so make that merge to artist or album as appropriate. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. And most of them are sold only on web as download song. He released only 5 single CDs. See these Oricon pages. [24] and [25]. Oda Mari (talk) 15:47, 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 16:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions Remixed[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited promo release only Paul75 (talk) 07:16, 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. The "keep" comments do not address the issue of notability, a well-established guideline, by providing sources covering this road. WP:CSB is not an established exception to WP:N; if anything, it is an argument to delete those thousands of nonnotable US road articles.  Sandstein  11:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L3121 road[edit]

L3121 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable local road of which there are thousands in Ireland. No reason why this one should get an article. Snappy (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are you talking about, you maniac? That's my favorite road in all of Tipperary! No, wait, I mean delete as one of jillions of roads that cannot and should not have their own articles. Graymornings(talk) 07:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is wikipedia running out of space? Seighean (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very poor argument, scraping the barrel a bit there. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on everything and that includes 4th tier Irish country roads. Try providing reliable secondary sources instead for this road for a start. Snappy (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what constitutes a "reliable secondary source" for a road, other than an actual photograph of it and directional signage? Seighean (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please familarise yourself with WP:RS. Is the L3121 famous or notable for something? (having a sign doesn't count, that means its verifiable not notable) Any mentions in local or national media? Did a famous historic event take place there? Any buildings of note on the road? Any notable people born or grew up there? Is anything at all that makes this road notable, all we have so far is that it is a) somewhere near where you live b) has a sign c) connects point A to point B. We need more than that for a wikipedia article, Tx, Snappy (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if this is deleted, don't get me wrong, but the decision seems arbitary. a) If we can have "Regional Road" articles, why not L road articles?; b)The road is named on official directional signage; most L roads are not. If it's officially named, then, I believe, it should have an article as a legitimate piece of road infrastructure no different from any other. That's my position. I don't see how wikipedia stands to gain from its removal. By the way, Graymornings, writing in a sarcastic tone is in no one's interests.Seighean (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I was being sarcastic - more like a lame attempt at a joke. That road has never been my favorite in Tipperary. Too bumpy. ;-) I wasn't aware that there were many articles like this on North American roads (or roads in any country, for that matter). I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't usually a valid argument, but in this case, Stifle's got a point - we can and should improve geographical coverage on non-US articles. So, after thinking about over a cup of coffee, keep. Definitely needs either more sources or the removal of the unsourced material, though - the nicknames for the road and its condition aren't in the source provided. Graymornings(talk) 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll remove the uncitable information if the article survives the deletion motion. *Keep, by the way.Seighean (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No one has explained why Local road is notable, it is one of many thousands of normal, unremarkable, quite boring and somewhat dull roads all over Ireland. Other than that the creator of the article apparently lives in the vicinity, I don't think it is notable in any way. It has a sign on it but just because it is VERIFIABLE doesn't mean it is NOTABLE. This L3121 appears only to connect point A to point B and nothing else. There is no mention of historic interest, or buildings or anything else. This also sets a bad precedent, it could mean a spate of local roads articles, about narrow boreens with grass in the middle going "from the O'Briens house to the local school" etc. There are many Regional roads articles that need creation, these roads are less numerous (about 800+) but more important than local roads and currently only about 120 have articles. Snappy (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable" is a very nebulous concept. Besides, I disagree that we'll have thousands of L road articles. The reason? The huge majority aren't named. But this one is. As I've said, if it's deemed important enough to appear on official signage then it's worthy of some record in my view. But delete it if you must. I don't see what all the fuss is about. The article has beem categorised, it links to other related articles, and it contains an image. It is in no way rogue; it's just novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seighean (talk • contribs) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of notability has been well discussed on wikipedia. Lots of guidelines and criteria exist now, since you appear to be a new user please familiarise yourself with them. You think this road is notable, I think it is not. Other editors will contribute with their views and a consensus will be reached to keep or delete. That's how it works here! Snappy (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sir, so far several other people whose opinion you sought have disagreed with you. Now, I'm done with this discussion. As for "notability", please don't fob me off. I am very aware that the definition of "notable" is a matter that is far from clear-cut on wikipedia, as evidenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Wikipedia#Notability_of_article_topics . It was simply my intention to contribute in some small way to wikipedia by providing a short article that might be of interest and informative to certain readers (isn't that what all articles here are essentially for?). That was it. As I've said, I do not see how wikipedia loses by retaining this article, nor haven you spelled it out, either. (BTW - I did not say in this article that I'm from the area, so you might stop introducing it into this debate.) Now, thankfully I have better things to be doing than debate a rather tiny point over the internet with a stranger. Goodnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seighean (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This a discussion of whether this road is notable not about notability on Wikipedia. So far, you have failed, despite repeated asking, to provide anything that demonstrates that this road is notable. Also, your edit history clearly demonstrates your connection with County Tipperary, so you have a local bias, nothing wrong with that, but if you were from County Louth would you be creating this article, probably not! Also that argument that it doesn't matter to wikipedia if there is one small article on this road is actually false, if every back road on the planet gets an article then it degrades the quality of the whole encyclopaedia. Perhaps Wikialtlas would be a better place for it. Final question, how is the L3121 encyclopaedic? Snappy (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you say this: "Also, your edit history clearly demonstrates your connection with County Tipperary, so you have a local bias, nothing wrong with that, but if you were from County Louth would you be creating this article, probably not!", what on earth is your point? If I lived in County Louth, would I have taken pictures for the Jack Lynch Tunnel, Fermoy, M8 or Knockmealdown Mountains articles? Probably not! Seighean (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many thousands of road articles for roads in North America, and deleting articles relating to roads in another country would fail WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that logic flows actually, those articles have to rise to the same notability standards. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've encountered road and turnabout articles previously so am guessing this is not a hoax but really there is nothing in the present version that suggests this road is notable. Is there any reliable sources suggesting this road is a landmark or otherwise notable? -- Banjeboi 02:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it not be wise to mark the article as a stub and wait for someone, a historian perhaps, to expand it in time? The village of Golden is quite historic and notable, and I believe that in past centuries the L3121 was a fairly prominent trunk route. I have no source for that to hand, so I didn't include it. But surely we can let the article 'grow' over time. What is the rush to delete it? It's not misinforming anyone, and it provides an information link netween several other articles (the M8, the R639, New Inn, Golden, the N74) that adds, overall, to wikipedia's coverage of the area's geography. Seighean (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? Past centuries? If this road has been around that long, that is the notability, IMHO. Based on that I'd like someone versed more from historical aspects to weigh in then to see what is verifiable. That is, I think the road itself may be notable for how old it is as well as historical events that can be tied to it. -- Banjeboi 06:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, strange argument, you're more or less admitting the L3121 is not notable but don't delete it because someone else may in years to come, might discover something about it that makes it notable. Sorry, but that is flawed because if it is not notable now, there is no guarantee that some facts making it notable will be discovered in the future, and if notable facts are discovered then the article may be re-created. Btw, Banjeboi, most Irish country roads are probably as old as this one so again this doesn't means its notable. Golden the village is notable, so maybe the L3121 article should be merged into it. Snappy (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence my point that someone more versed in the history of the area would be able to help inform the decision. Is this, in fact, just one of thousands of old roads or does this one because it's been around so long have historical events tied to it. Many folks live next to and regularly travel historic paths but are blissfully unaware of the history - this is why historians are often quite useful. I haven't admitted there is no notability only that the article presently gives no indication of such. -- Banjeboi 07:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We delete local roads in the US, and should do so elsewhere at all. There is not indication of any other notability. If it is in fact an historic route, then rewrite the article with some appropriate material. I supported some articles on Irish streets where there was in fact some historic or literary of commercial significance, but I really do not see any here. DGG (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with other road articles in all of Wikipedia, there are some roads that just don't need to have articles. Chances are, the road in front of your house isn't notable enough. So what makes a road notable? Well, the root word of the word "notable" is "note", as in "noteworthy". THERE ISN'T A SINGLE THING ABOUT THIS ROAD THAT IS NOTEWORTHY. It has a name and actually exists (unlike Antarctica Highways)... so what? If it was the road traveled by the Third Infantry during World War II, that would be notable. If it was the location of 3 roadkill murders, that would be notable. Heck, if it was a vital route connecting two important towns, that would be notable. It's none of these things. It's a local road, which redirects to SIDE ROAD. Sorry to be sarcastic here, but I don't see any reason this article should be kept. Part of the short article states: "While generally straight, the L3121 is very humpy, poorly lined, and has no hard shoulder." which I think is an opinion, and might even be a sexual innuendo. We've deleted articles that had more written than this one in America, one of which was Bringle Ferry Road, which was a long road, providing one of the few bridges across High Rock Lake and access to Dan Nicholas Park. --Triadian (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For everyone's reference, this is the actual road. It runs from Golden to Newinn so you can connect the dots: [26] --Triadian (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the reasons already stated. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In order to exist, the article at least needs to demonstrate SOME significance. Trusilver 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical citation A historical reference for the road, detailing its condition and standard in 1893, is now cited in the article.Seighean (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After only a few days in existence I've already found a referenced, historical account of the road, contained in the Devia Hibernia, which itself deserves an article. Seighean (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the most notable thing about this road is that it is "'level and broad' while having a surface that was 'stony or sandy' to 'fair'" in 1893... Well I know a nearby field that was probably level and broad in 1893. I still say it doesn't meets notability guidelines by a longshot. It's a side road (secondary road at best), not a route. I doubt even that guidebook makes notability as an article.--Triadian (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say that. Do not put words in my mouth. I was challenged to come up with published data; and I did. I was challenged to come up with historical data; and again, I did. I think this is why articles like this should be kept for a while - one never knows what might turn up. Now we are after getting a potential second article, one of greater importance - the Devia Hibernia - because I had to find a source for this road article. One article can lead to the generation of another. Seighean (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI: VERIFIABILITY is not the same thing as NOTABILITY. Just because you can find something, somewhere that mentions the street, doesn't mean it suddenly becomes notable. Trusilver 21:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Devia Hirbernia provides a list of all roads (thousands of them) in Ireland at the time. Looking at the first couple of pages I see a road from Abbeydorney to Ardfert, which isn't actually notable either. This book proves that the L3121 (or whatever it was called then) existed in 1893 (but that wasn't in question), is still doesn't prove it is notable. Just because something has been around a while doesn't automatically confer notability on it. This road should have something distinctive or unique about it so that it justifies an article, while many thousands of other Irish minor roads don't. Snappy (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For an idea as to why some of us are arguing for deletion, this page might help. It's how we go about roads in the U.S.. I know Ireland is different and should be respected, but for relative purposes, the argument holds. --Triadian (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would also bring up WP:CSB, as the United States has subsections for every state whereas most countries don't have any and no project covering them. The US isn't where the majority of notable roads are yet the vast majority of all road articles are related to the US. 71.139.39.189 (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not exactly, because by phrasing the comment the way I did, I meant to quell any suspicion of WP:CSB. I offered it as a point with which you can relate; I'm not proposing any systematic bias here. --Triadian (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to WP:CSB. US roads are covered by the thousands. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the U.S. is much larger than Ireland. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing the root of the systemic bias does not give us license to ignore it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point: there are more roads in the U.S. than in Ireland so of course there will be more road articles related to the U.S. than Ireland. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even CSB doesn't give you an excuse to have an article with nothing NOTABLE. There's nothing notable about this road period. Nothing currently written is notable and nothing could be scrapped together a year from now to make it notable. It's just not notable: past, present, and future. --Triadian (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The suggest that we combat WP:CSB by throwing in some articles that completely fail WP:N is ridiculous. Trusilver 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Weak delete as it is neither a primary or secondary road, but a designated Local Road. The U.S. argument above is a red herring as WP:USRD had repeatedly established the notability of primary and secondary roads (with state and Federal designations), and a good number of articles on non-notable local U.S. roads have been deleted in the last couple of years. If it can be demonstrated that it is more notable than an average side street (and the article amended to reflect it), I could easily change my mind on this. B.Wind (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Weak Delete - I find it amazing that such a short and inoffensive article has generated such a lengthy discussion. Having read the numerous posts, and after some reflection, I've been more swayed by the deletionists in this instance. Seighean (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Seraphim♥ 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Knights[edit]

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

not notable (except among those affiliated with USC); advertisement for the organization written by someone affiliated with the organization...can't be more blatant than that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with nomination; if one removes Trojan Knights from the USC template, this article isn't referenced by anything. This is certainly written by an insider. Timneu22 (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit. Author's disclosure: I am affiliated with the subject, and so concerns about article's objectivity are merited and I would welcome third party editing of my content. Wrote the article after a previous article not written by an insider was removed for lack of citations. The organization is referenced in numerous media however, and does merit inclusion on wikipedia. Again, I welcome other users to edit the content provided. The article is in no way intended as advertisement, but merely as information. If school papers, student organizations and other local fraternities meet notability requirements, not to mention the USC Helenes, there is no reason the article should not exist. USCHistory (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It clearly should, however look to editing your own here to be more neutral tone. Adding a few sources would help. That was quick! I've added a few clarify tags, add more sourcing from the bits I cite below and this should be less traumatic. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, you can site the groups website as well, writing "acording to the groups website they ____" is fine as long as the claims aren't outlandish and are self-referential as they are considered experts on themselves. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for all your help and input, they're very much appreciated! I'll certainly continue to work on cleaning it up. USCHistory (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem, you do need to change 24 hours to something else like night and day or all night per our manual of style. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And clean-up. Here's a couple of book mentions; a few dozen LA Times articles, over 100 ghits from the university itself. Clearly a notable enough organization and clearly reliable sources exist. The rest remain regular editing which is outside the need of deletion. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Banjeboi. Appear to meet GNG. No objection if a good merge target can be found, but I don't know where would make sense. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient WP:RS exist for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DoubleBlue. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dary Matera[edit]

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

This guy is an unnotable author, and fails WP:N. Tavix (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article, so now it is a little nicer. Tavix (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google News results linked by John Z demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete A7 by TexasAndroid. Lenticel (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J bigga[edit]

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

Singer who claims notability; eight released albums sounds good, except it appears that they were all published through "West Network National" which (as far as I have seen) only seems to publish J bigga. Without that, does he pass WP:MUSIC? Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh, the page has been speedy tagged as "non-notable person". the albums and shizz are an obvious hoax, and take that away and you just have one very, very sad wigger. Ironholds (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the AfD in favor of the speedy. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:36, 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 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German-Speaking Stars and Statesmen abroad[edit]

German-Speaking Stars and Statesmen abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article creator also created Category:German-Speaking Stars and Statesmen abroad along with this, and it has also been nominated for deletion. My 'delete' argument there applies here, as well: Arbitrary inclusion criteria (what constitutes a "star"?), a nonsensical grouping (why stars and statesmen?), non-encyclopedic language (again, stars being completely arbitrary), and an undefined inclusion criteria (abroad? abroad from where?). faithless (speak) 05:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsensical and ill-defined category, per nom.; several people on it aren't from Germany (how shall we judge Kirk Douglas's fluency?). JJL (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All you need to do to get on the list is be born in Germany or Austria, leave the country, and become a "star" or "statesman". Or else learn German in school and then become famous. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. Also impossible to maintain; can you imagine the sheer size of "everyone notable born in germany and ventured outside its borders"? Ironholds (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not because it's that bad of an idea for a list, but because it's completely unsourced. For all I know, Leonardo DiCaprio and Sandra Bullock actually can carry on a "Wie gehts"-"Gut, und dir?" conversation, but I've never heard of it before now. I think this is mostly original research based on assumptions that a person with a German ancestor can speak the language fluently. Mandsford (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nomination says it all. What an illogical title/topic for an article. Timneu22 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apart from the fact it's mistitled and miscapitalized, it's got trivial inclusion criteria if any. Is someone who can speak two words of German included? What amount of fluency is needed? If every notable celebrity or statesperson speaking a reasonable amount of German is included, the list would be too unwieldy. - Mgm|(talk) 16:15, 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. The Helpful One 12:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Home (film)[edit]

Harvest Home (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give reasoning? "seems quite notable to me isn't what I'd describe as a Denning-worthy line of argument. Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 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 Has been speedy deleted by User:Efe at 07:46 on 29 December 2008; as WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CSD#A7 Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 07:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFS Productions[edit]

(delete) – (View AfD)

Indie film production company; I can't find much in the way of notability. Few ghits point to this page, but I haven't seen any secondary coverage. Related articles created by same user include Dylan seal and Summer helene. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:00, 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.  Sandstein  11:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half to Death[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the writer is actually fairly notable. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Seidenstud. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the future film notability guidelines as it has not begun filming or been discussed in independent reliable sources. Also, having a notable writer is no guarantee of notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF. No RS evidence that this film "scheduled to be released in 2008," has started shooting or even has a director. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough discussion in reliable sources to sustain an article. Also unlikely to be released in 2008 as claimed because that would require them to drum up press coverage and ship out reels to cinemas within 3 days... - Mgm|(talk) 14:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into the writer's page, as per User:Seidenstud and User:Mister Alcohol. travb (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per failing WP:FILM. It doesn't matter if Martin Scorsese wrote this, it does not pass future film notability. Trusilver 02:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In case nobody noticed, it's now 2009. No evidence of its release in 2008 (and IMDB is not a reliable source, by the way). Once a release date is announced in a reliable source, then - and only then - should an article on the movie exist. B.Wind (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NFF. Matt (Talk) 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (G3, vandalism) Confirmed hoax.. Multiple editors came up empty-handed when looking for sources. Mgm|(talk) 14:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richmonitius[edit]

Richmonitius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's a hoax. Three independent editors, including me, came to that conclusion at Proposed Deletion. At least two of us searched for sources ourselves, coming up completely empty-handed. Needless to say, there are no sources cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. The sole ghit is the WP page. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prod-2'd the article for being a probable WP:HOAX. No ghits and no news makes it largely non-notable, and a lack of reliable sources makes it not verifiable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism (G3). This database on viruses is exhaustive and doesn't list this. Also, I've had a basic course in virology and there's a lot of dubious statements in here that wouldn't fly without experimental evidence. Also not hits in disease databases or on NCBI for relevant genes. - Mgm|(talk) 14:22, 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 speedy keep. Renomination should only be considered when sufficient time has passed since the previous discussion. Since the nominator is also a single purpose account, I'm closing this speedily. If an established editor wishes to renominate, I'd recommend waiting until end of February/begin March. Mgm|(talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrome[edit]

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

This term has no had enough longevity and it having a wikipedia article can be politically bias and offensive maybe in the next 20 years this could be notable but now it just sounds ridiculous making the whole wikipedia organization look like it allows ridiculous terms to be used as valid articles. Articles like these are the reasons why schools encourage students when doing research to not use wikipedia. Dboy94 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - The 3rd AND 4th nomination were closed just last month. Also note that nominator is a spa and that 4th nominiation was opened by SAME spa and speedily closed. Dman727 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - Fair enough.Dboy94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Even though you bring up a good point I still support deletion for this article even if he did nominate this thing right after when I nominated and was kept and then nominated it again but also it is true when dboy says that these kind of articles make wikipedia look bad and that it has not been long enough since the end of bush's term for the article to not sound politically bias.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The expression is a joke. Wikipedia is not a collection of jokes. The fact that some people dislike Bush for various logical and non-logical reasons might be a legitimate topic for an article however. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced and notable, and that is all that matters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per previous AFDs: meets Wikipedia's standards.
    Term has been in widespread use for many years, and is currently growing in relevance.
    Explaining it to people who encounter it for the first time is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia should do.
    That the term is deliberately overstated (reflecting how difficult it is to explain why otherwise-sensible people say crazy things about GWB) does not make it "a joke".
    CWC 12:08, 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 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active NHL players by nationality[edit]

Active NHL players by nationality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sometimes lists get a little too specific. There is a very small chance of this list ever being accurate with players being promoted, demoted, waived, signed and traded every day. This list is utterly unmaintainable, which means it will always be wrong, which means that it is pointless. Smashvilletalk 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: For instance, this week was a holiday week, but there have been 25 player movements. The week before there were 58 player movements. Every single movement makes this list wrong because it means a player is either joining or leaving the team. --Smashvilletalk 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure of the notability, however I agree that maintaining this as a list of active players is unfeasible. However, as a historical list, showing the nationality of players through time would be useful, imo, especially as it would show the growth of the American and European markets. Resolute 05:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed...a historical list updated at the end of each season could be a far more reasonable undertaking. --Smashvilletalk 05:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete i support the deletion of this article and all other hockey articles that are of "current" or "active" NHLers. Masterhatch (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is both a haven for original research and nearly impossible to keep up to date. Who on the Calgary Flames is Brazilian? Last time I checked, Robyn Regehr is a Canadian who represents Canada internationally. Olaf Kölzig has definately never seen ice time with the South African ice hockey team, but he sure likes the German squad. This list will just confuse anyone who reads it. It's laced with falacies. Besides, "Most players from one nation on a team"? Come on now...anyone ever hear of the saying "Canada is a state without a nation, while Quebec is a nation without a state." I don't want to get into the whole nation-state debate, but you get my drift. – Nurmsook! talk... 07:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I proded it a week or two ago for the same reasons as smashville but it was removed and I was waiting till I had more time to afd it. But looks like smash took care of it for me. -Djsasso (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the demographics of the NHL would be of some interest, this list has all manner of problems that put it in the "try again" category. More players come from Canada than anywhere else, followed by the U.S., Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, Russia and Slovakia, that's fine. The New Jersey Devils had more Americans, Detroit more Swedes, Edmonton and Calgary were more Canadian, OK. One problem is the word had -- how do you maintain something like this, given the transactions that happen every day? And who's the British guy playing for Minnesota, or the South Korean Islander? I understand it was done by a player search, which puts it in original synthesis (with problems above as Nurmosk notes). The NHL guide or nhl.com probably does a similar list, but I can't see this as a keeper. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really find these types of lists unmaintainable. People should categorize the players' nationalities as an alternative. I could possibly see this list for old (retired) players, but not active. It will never be accurate. Timneu22 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. It confuses the locale of birth with nationality. Its unmaintainable. ccwaters (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After trying to create some order to the list, I've seen how impossible it truly is to keep it accurate. The massive hurdles of defining player nationality and who is considered active makes for a difficult list to maintain. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:LC items 6 and 8-11. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "british" MN player is Owen Nolan...Actually was Irish born in...Belfast? but grew up in Canada..And Richard Park (whom my brother coached in Deer Wood MN at, Former North Star, Steve Jensen's Heartland Hockey Camp) is from Seoul South Korea. He used to Play for Minnesota Wild, but now Plays for the NY Islanders...Wow another coincidence "Islanders" see above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.89.154 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horror-fi[edit]

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

Per WP:NEO. See here (towards the bottom), and the article's talk page, as they seem to evidence that this page was deliberately created to start and spread a neologism. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:17, 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 keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Versus Japan[edit]

Casino Versus Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Musician of suspect notability, apparently authored heavily edited by himself. ZimZalaBim talk 04:18, 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.

Comparing between diesel and gasoline engines[edit]

The result was Speedy Deleted Pure WP:OR and non-notable content. Saving time at the AFD and just speedy deleted it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing between diesel and gasoline engines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research essay ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The information on this topic should be placed in Diesel engine, Gasoline engine, and Internal combustion engine. WP should not have articles whose expressed purpose is to compare two things. However comparisons can be worked into other articles. The author of the article should be encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia while he (or she) learns more about the process. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: I added the speedy delete tag. This article is purely original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Timneu22 (talk) 16:27, 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 16:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeuscart[edit]

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

Non-notable ecommerce shopping cart software with insignificant install base. Essentially wiki Spam. Proxy User (talk) 03:50, 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 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40 Thieves Hookah Lounge[edit]

40 Thieves Hookah Lounge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined the speedy because there is some claim about its notoriety and uniqueness. There are sources although I do not think they qualify as reliable sources. A stiff rewrite will be needed. The link to a Nebraska newspaper is only about this establishment peripherally. JodyB talk 03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an on-line Yellow Pages listing service. In the sense that there are not a whole lot of "hookah lounges" around might be so, but that's not good enough. People, it's a lounge with a semi-unique concept. Let them buy their advertising like everyone else. Proxy User (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The language of the article is still quite promotional, and even if it were a notable establishment, the article would need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's standards. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (G11) — article is nothing but a Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam. MuZemike (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll have some of that, please. Hold the spam... Proxy User (talk) 01:39, 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 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecompetitors[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. I searched and found no coverage in secondary sources. No usable or meaningful third-party sources found at all, in fact. The "formal presentation" appears to be a sales pitch at a conference. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. This article could be saved with a rewrite, but I still don't see any independent sources about it. The article right now is written like it was copied from another website.

I didn't research, but my hunch is that this is the case. Timneu22 (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals annual international conference is specifically NOT designed as a platform to sell or promote specific products or services. The SCIP09 committee selected the “Global Competitive Intelligence, On Demand,” proposal because they believe it will "contribute" to the non-profit organization's purpose in the field of competitive intelligence. This is an independent global source.Porterfan1 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It may possibly be notable after it is presented, and is reviewed--but an article 4 months ahead would require some really extraordinary source that it was already notable. No prejudice to reinserting after there are 3rd party independent reliable published references to it. DGG (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Dec_1#ecompetitors.com. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to ECOMPETITORS. Obviously a part of a "team"[29] Whom seeks to exploit Wikipedia[30] for the purpose of promotion and advertising. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 18:29, 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 by ESkog. (non-admin closure) Scapler (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pint-Cone Award For Underappriciated Youtubers[edit]

Pint-Cone Award For Underappriciated Youtubers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable internet award with no references I could find. Scapler (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no notability implied, no references to outside sources given. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have speedy deleted this page as part of an nn-bio from the same user. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:36, 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 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hidious In Strength[edit]

Hidious In Strength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sleep Chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable band by apparently non-notable artist. Article's only reference is not independant of the subject, therefore not reliable. The article itself basically says the band is non-notable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this nomination Sleep Chamber, also for non-notability, and that it is a WP:Coatrack for negative BLP information about John Zewizz. (note: first three !votes below mine were added before bundling this article to this nomination.Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Coatrack is a controversial essay, as the template at the top of this essay states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." On the other hand, Wikipedia:Content forking, a content guideline, states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." This rule nulifies WP:Coatrack. travb (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't there be an AfD notification template placed on the Sleep Chamber article page as well, since its deletion is being debated now? Quaeler (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (non-bold). It seems like if the Sleep Chamber article meets notability, so would too a hypothetical article on its founder - John Zewizz. Were the original author of this article gifted with a shred of tactics, they would have made an article for Zewizz as a keystone to the support for this article (which concerns one of Zewizz's project - generating a non-trivial amount of material). We should look past their lack of planning and keep this article in exchange for a promise from them (should they ever pop up to defend their article) to write the Zewizz article posthaste. Quaeler (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (Sleep Chamber) Hmmm.. i'm not sure about the non-notability of Sleep Chamber; it depends on what metric we want to use, of course, but i can go to Amazon.com or Ebay and find items from their catalog for sale which would appear to make it 'legitimate' and therefore 'notable', in my opinion; further, they were prolific and seemingly 'known' in their subculture (while not particularly involved with that subculture, i'd at least heard of them during the late 1980s).
As far as being a coatrack - this is a slippery slope; the article is a literary masterpiece in neither style nor content, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is addressing a (again, imo) notable act and appears to feature no more bias than any other article written by someone who cares enough about a topic to bother writing an article. Quaeler (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (also non-bold) - There seems to be a contradiction if this article exists but an article for John Zewizz does not. A Google search does seem to indicate that John Zewizz is mildly notable. It seems that in a perfect world this article would be a redirect to a subsection in a John Zewizz article. It is unclear if even John Zewizz himself achieves notability sufficient for Wikipedia by my standards but he seems to have more notability than many of the fringe artists that has passed the notability for their articles at Wikipedia so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. So until a John Zewizz article appears for a redirect, I have a weak keep opinion. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:47, 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 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable in every way, shape, and form. According to the "article", this group barely exists at all. Proxy User (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Barely-existant: only releases were "limited edition" self-released cassette tapes. If this were about a current band it would have been speedied in about 10 seconds. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND by an impressive margin. Arguing WP:COATRACK is a not too subtle smokescreen for glossing over the fact that there is nothing here worth saving. Trusilver 02:29, 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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MJZine.com[edit]

MJZine.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability? Many webzines have unique niches and that does not make them ipso facto notable. Avi (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of an all inclusive, tolerant, exhaustive encyclopedia, as Wikipedia aspires to be, the page for MJZine.com was created. MJZine.com was the first of its kind in the Messianic Jewish community - a webzine created by and for the younger generation within the Messianic Jewish community. MJZine.com was created to foster and build a sense of community to a religious minority, the Messianic Jewish community, that experiences a great deal of persecution and harrasment from all sides, Christian, Jewish, and Atheist. It's inclusion in Wikipedia is to archive this historical act. Should we see an attack on the Messianic community again, as evidenced by scheduling the MJZine.com page for deletion immediately after it was "born" on December 25.

Can't help but see the humor in the parallel to the birth of Jesus which is also celebrated on Dec 25 when this page was created, and the desire to delete the page immediately after it was created, just as King Herod wanted to kill Jesus immediately after he was born.

The essence of the notability is that it was the first and only one of its kind. I will add this to the main page. Further, references to "MJZine.com" appear in a few journal articles published in the Christian community and in the Messianic Times newspaper. There is no other encylopedic source to explain to the reader what or who was "MJZine.com". Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do Not Delete The point is...wikipedia gets #1 search ranks. If it is "truth by majority" then I will make it my MISSION IN LIFE to shut down Wikipedia. Most of the editors really don't know anything about the subject matter and a bunch of bullies can gang up to decide which article they want. This is not only insane, but scary and fascist. Wikipedia doesn't deserve to exist if a few kbs of useful data are scheduled for digital Auschwitz and extermination because some religious bigots don't think what is said is worth being heard. Wikiepedia search engine rankings should maybe then actually reflect the real world rankings for as it stands this is a serious violation of free speech. Hkp-avniel (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete per WP:WEB. For a brief period before blogs, social networking, and video became the focus of the web, there were plenty of "webzines", but like this one most didn't go very far or get much recognition whatsoever. This particular specimin had all of three issues before disappearing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. Enigma message 05:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom andy (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's see, a webzine with just three issues and no claim in the article of meeting WP:Notability. A friendly suggestion to Hkp-avniel -- if you want to make information about your webzine available, there are plenty of free web hosts out there. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:25, 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. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 03:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Brazilian[edit]

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

Skanter is at it again, creating his not notable "Something-Brazilian" pages about non notable communities in Brazil. This time it's his/her's sockpuppet, named Skanter3. This article lacks sources, and it has no notability. Just like I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angolan Brazilian, this article not about Afro Brazilians because its hard to trace the origins of Afro Brazilians because of slavery. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Good grief, if we had an article for all the racial permutations... At first I thought it was going to be a new personal hair removal process, and alas, that would have been more interesting than what I found at the article page. Proxy User (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is a notable individual listed in the article. Badagnani (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot see how an article like this will ever have any reasonable content. I shy away from any hybrid-race article, because it's just not notable. Canadian-Brazilian? Austalian-Latvian? Where does it end? Easy delete here. Timneu22 (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an inexpandable dicdef. If the size of the group is not even known, that's a good indication an article shouldn't exist. - Mgm|(talk) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A new record. Unlike the empty categories with population 600 or 100, this list is apparently "Population: 1". Normally I'd say redirect to the name of the one guy on the list, but I don't want to encourage the "fill the niche" method for making articles. Mandsford (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's absolutely nothing in the article that establishes notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources that establishes that this is a notable community. Zero Google hits. Guest9999 (talk) 23:42, 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 WP:CSD#G3. Hoax, vandalism. –Moondyne 09:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parnellville[edit]

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

PROD which I contested due to no reason being given. However on closer inspection (and having carried out a google search for myself) this place appears to not exist. roleplayer 02:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: No evidence of existance on google. Probably a hoax and/or vandalism from the author, Rob "Parnell".--Sallicio 02:51, 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 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim DeChristopher[edit]

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

Person notable only because of one event; this would seem to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Recommend delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suppose it is true DeChristopher "has been in the news" only because of a single event, but I also find the event fairly substantial. Furhtermore, not only do "reliable sources" "cover the person in the context of a particular event" (the sale of public land in Utah), but they dedicate entire articles specifically to his act of civil disobedience and environmental activism. Vasilken 06:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realize you created the article and thus believe it should be here. However, as you mention, all the coverage is in the context of this news event. Had this event not happened, there wouldn't be (any?) secondary sources on the subject, because he wouldn't be newsworthy. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There will be further coverage of him as federal prosecutors prepare to file charges against him while activist organizations consider ways to help him. In any case, what is the "passability" test for this? If the case were to drag on for months, with continuous news coverage, would the article still be subject to deletion since everything was centered around the original event? Alternatively, if he were acquitted this time but was later arrested for, say, armed bank robbery, would the entry be allowed to stay because he would have been newsworthy in the context of two events? Finally, should we also delete the entry for Gavrilo Princip? He was only known in the context of a single event, too! Vasilken 11:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There will be further coverage..." "If the case were to drag on for months..." "If he were acquitted but later arrested for, say, armed bank robbery..." WP:FUTURE. None of this has happened yet. As of now, he has been in the news for one and only one event, and you should know better than to compare an entry on him to one on the chap who set off the spark that resulted in World War I. If he becomes that famous, if there are books written about him, then we can recreate the article. Remember WP:SCRABBLE. If this event is that noteworthy, create an article on the event, not the person, as per WP:ONEEVENT. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article isn't about him, it's about his action. It was a very minor, not-notable event. TJ Spyke 02:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I looked at lots of articles trying to read about his action and trial. It would be nice to have it on Wikipedia. Jeshii (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep Tim DeChristopher's environmental activism and emergence as a public figure that sparked protests throughout the United States and garnered international media coverage warrants a Wikipedia page about him, his actions, and his experience in the American judicial system. This is not a one-off media event. DeChristopher's initial act of defiance has lead to a two-year debate about civil disobedience as means to promote environmental awareness and protection. It has also become a lense through which Americans have gained sobering insight into their justice system. The fact that DeChristopher's Wikipedia page is garnering such heated debate (while countless personal pages exhibiting far less deserving individuals)underscores the level of public interest and events surrounding this person. If this was truly a "one-off" media event, or if people were only interested in a single event rather than the man behind the movement, the existence/deletion of a Tim DeChristopher Wikipedia page would go unnoticed.

(talk) 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.243.252 (talk)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cebu. MBisanz talk 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Sugbo[edit]

Kingdom of Sugbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe that this article is problematic. 'Sugbo' appears to be an alternative transliteration, or a historical transliteration, or a prior form of, the name 'Cebu', which is a province of the Philippines. The Cebu article already has some information about the pre-Spanish history of the area.

The present article is sourced only from myspace, and has very little content. The content is barely verifiable, and does not appear to be taken from academically rigorous origins. Although the original poster promises to expand this article, I believe that this would be best done under the pressure of a current AfD and with the help of AfD participants, to see whether a separate article is warranted and can be put together using available materials. Richard Cavell (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom's investigation and I can't find anything on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete; Redirect it to Cebu if the name can be verified, otherwise delete. - Mgm|(talk) 21:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to Cebu. Sugbo/Sugbu is the native name of the settlement in Cebu. However, I think kingdom is a little bit excessive since it is more like a chiefdom.--Lenticel (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is even a note saying more to be added. Wikipedia is an ever expanding project with no deadlines. --Balloholic (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the creator added a note saying more was to be added, so what? It's a 1 sentence article. An article has to be able to pass guidelines the same day its created. TJ Spyke 02:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Although Wikipedia is a project that does not run on deadlines, we cannot ascertain whether or not the person who wrote the article will really add more content. Likewise, if the person does add more content, the question still remains whether or not the article's contents are verifiable, notable, OR or what-not. While I hope that this article will turn out well, I'll wait and see how events unfold. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuetral - per above. --Knowzilla 19:58, 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 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertions of notability. Article has been 1 sentence, only stating that it existed, for the 4 days it has existed. The 1 source provided is nice, but is still just 1 source (and hosted by Tripod, which I believe offers free webhosting to anyone). TJ Spyke 02:52, 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.

The result was redirect to Processed cheese. No consensus for outright deletion. Redirect target may be adjusted editorially and content merged from history where deemed necessary.  Sandstein  10:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial cheese[edit]

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

One-off term, neologism. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would say with processed cheese. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a notable term, Processed cheese covers this subject. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Probably worth a mention in Cheese#In_language and processed cheese. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like all original research. Timneu22 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The term appears to be wider spread than the nominator believes. I've even found it on a patent. It should be covered somewhere, though I'm not sure where. - Mgm|(talk) 13:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Probably worth a mention in either processed cheese or Cheese#In_language or both. But not as a stand-alone article. Geoff T C 17:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/undecided. The topic is not about processed cheese, and can be extended to any product (including cheese; fake "french" wine labels, fake "german" beers etc.). These pseudo-geographical "engineered brands" are far more common than the article lists. If anyone vouches to expand the topic, my vote is to keep. NVO (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was originally leaning toward redirecting to processed cheese until I was reminded that virtually all cheese is artificial (man-made). So even a redirect would not be appropriate here. If it's not in "processed cheese" it shouldn't be mentioned at all. B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Cup[edit]

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

A camping cup is not notable. Fremte (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Reliable Sources and an explanation for the admittedly unusual shape would go a long way to making this a Encyclopedic Article. I wouldnt complain if it were deleted without prejudice towards future recreation. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Keep or Merge These were originally sold by the Sierra Club. If that angle were worked in it could be notable and even interesting. Or it could be merged to be a section in Sierra Club. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steve Dufour. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥ 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40 Cal.[edit]

40 Cal. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Saw this last month and meant to nominate it for deletion but never got around to it. It failed WP:MUSIC then and still does now. JBsupreme (talk) 01:06, 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. The article no longer suffers from the issues it suffered from when it was nominated. (It was also nominated far too early: 2 minutes after creation) Mgm|(talk) 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jhansi High School[edit]

Jhansi High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN elementary school. Dengero (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G11, promotional tone. _ Mgm|(talk) 13:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not this was a G11, I have cleaned it up so it isn't now! TerriersFan (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This school went to AfD 2 minutes after creation. "Xth class" (10th) indicates that Jhansi is not just a primary school but also a lower secondary school. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a significant high school. Another wholly premature AfD. Plainly, the nominator did not follow the processes in WP:BEFORE. There are sufficient sources available to meet WP:V. Indian schools have a notoriously poor internet presence so reasonable time to find local sources to avoid systemic bias is needed. What is a reasonable time is a matter of judgement but I suggest that 2 minutes is on the short side! TerriersFan (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Nursery to 10th" if that were the US, it would place it has a junior high school, not a high school and we do not normally keep such articles. The lead paragraphs on Education in India seems to confirm that India works similarly, but the inforbox seems to indicate otherwise. I noticed that we lack an article on Secondary Education in India--or even a lear section of the general article. DGG (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most high schools in the UK educate to 10th grade/age 16. The limit for middle/junior high in both UK and US is grade 8/age 14. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 2 mins was enough for me to give it a search on google. And while titles were found, none of them indicates to me it's in the location set into the article. But now that you mention it, I didn't consider the availability of information about a school in India. Dengero (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In India, according to the revised system of education, 1st to 5th standards come under primary education, 6th to 10th under secondary and 11th to 12th under higher secondary. Also, schools having 8th to 10th standards are commonly called High Schools. Salih (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret then that this is then a junior high school--it does not prepare directly for university. DGG (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Only after completing 12th standard one can get into university or affiliated colleges. Salih (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like a high school which can be supported by indie sources. JBsupreme (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2008

(UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spirit of Manila Airlines. I'm closing this as a redirect to finish the merge of confirmed destinations to the main article. Mgm|(talk) 13:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Manila Airlines Destinations[edit]

Spirit of Manila Airlines Destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#CRYSTAL WP:NOTABLE KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is like gibberish. I can't understand what it's supposed to be. A list of flights for the airline? ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 15:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Spirit of Manila, it's not long enough and too crystal-bally to need a separate article. Pulsaro (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too future, and more than a hint of spam about this and the main article too... Peridon (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Spirit of Manila. There seems to be no need for "Spirit of Manila" subjects to be split from the main article yet. Yet I can envision that this information would be useful to travelers intending to fly via the new airline. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge back to main airline article. These timetable-realated articels are fundamentally unmaintainable. The airline will do so on its own website, but we cannot guarantee that the article-creator will stay around to keep it up to date. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Spirit of Manila, the airlines has less than 10 destinations. pikdig (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Spirit of Manila Airlines. It's a start-up with only three destinations. If and when the number of destinations expand (which will most likely happen since SOMA has ambitious plans to expand), then I will support the recreation of this article without prejudice. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Spirit of Manila Airlines, like the others here have stated. Timneu22 (talk) 12:38, 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 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Asquith Simmonds[edit]

Robert Asquith Simmonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced biography of a computer programmer, probably a hoax. Zero google references when searching for the full name. roleplayer 00:37, 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. The analysis principally by Nsk92 and Guest999, which demonstrates that there are no sources establishing the general topic of "biscuits and sex" as such and that the article accordingly violates WP:SYNTH, has not been adequately refuted by those advocating to keep the article.  Sandstein  10:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuits and human sexuality[edit]

Biscuits and human sexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The connection between biscuits and sex, if there is one, is synthesis of published material that appears to be original research. It seems to be a loose collection of info with no other connection than that it somewhat involves biscuits and sex. McVities providing biscuits for Ann Summers parties? Erotic art made with biscuits? Nineteenth century women referred to as biscuits? I have no idea why this article exists. Graymornings(talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article gives multiple examples of the link between biscuits and human sexuality. — Realist2 00:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously, as the creator. In what way is this original research? Every single factual claim, is cited; in almost every case to easily verifiable and indisputably reliable sources. It's only a "synthesis" in that it's an article about different aspects of a topic – which every article of ours other than the most specialised is. What "novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources" are you suggesting I'm making here? I very carefully avoided making any conclusions or value judgments. Your nomination, which appears to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, seems to me to fail to do the same. Obviously, it's a sketchy article; it was less than six hours old at the time you nominated it for deletion. What policy exactly are you claiming this article violates? – iridescent 00:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are sexual acts involving biscuits, art with biscuits, etc. but it's not a notable connection. There's no historical link between biscuits and sex other than these very tenuous connections. No one other than you has said "X has a meaningful connection to Y." Graymornings(talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xyr nomination only boils down to "I don't like it." if one constructs a straw man and ignores the actual wording of the nomination which challenges this on the basis of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. So where's your source that explicitly discusses an explicit overall connection between sex and biscuits? Note that your currently cited sources have all been demolished below by Nsk92. Uncle G (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. This nomination is explicitly on the grounds of WP:SYN – both written out in the nomination and wikilinked, so there's no possible way I'm misunderstanding the intention. As the article does not reach any conclusion – novel or otherwise – it's impossible that WP:SYN applies. When challenged, the arguments are shifting to WP:NOR; again, there is no OR aspect to this article, every claim in which is sourced. You and the nominator appear to misunderstand the way Wikipedia works; this is not Citizendium, and our articles are not handed down on tablets of stone in a finished state. New Wikipedia articles are created as works in progress, which are gradually expanded by other editors; in some cases it can be a matter of years between the initial creation and the expansion into something approaching a "finished" state. There's plenty of scope to expand this one; I've already made a couple of suggestions on the talkpage, most obviously relating to the constant sex-and-biscuit imagery in Two Pints of Lager & a Packet of Crisps. Yes, obviously this article is a "collection of facts on a related topic", but that is the whole point of Wikipedia articles; by this logic you'd AFD Tourism in New York City since all the sections have in common is that they're all about buildings that happen to be in NYC and visited by tourists, or BDSM as a loose collection of assorted sexual practices that happen to involve ropes. – iridescent 12:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, you are inventing straw men. No-one has nominated Tourism in New York City for deletion. The subject is this article, and I notice that with your distraction of the discussion to other articles you didn't respond to the challenge presented. So I repeat it: where's your source that documents an explicit overall connection between sex and biscuits? The "every claim is sourced" argument has been demolished below, where it is pointed out that some of the content has been somewhat creatively taken from the sources (at least one of which contains a quote from someone stating that there isn't a connection between biscuits and sex) and that several analyses actually aren't supported by any sources at all, and you've presented no source that documents any such umbrella topic as this.

          And, kiddo, there's a saying about trying to teach people how to suck eggs. I know how Wikipedia works. I've worked on articles that took nearly five years to write. But they all had sources from which they could be built, and that showed that such a topic even existed outside of Wikipedia in the first place. You have no sources. You've presented none. And people who've looked, such as me, haven't found any. (My credentials on finding sources for the seemingly unlikeliest of topics should be well known.) So, again: Where's your source? Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Someone made the same bad argument elsewhere on the project today, and it's now being recycled as an AFD nom. The article is well-sourced, not original research. I don't see why we should expect that this article cannot be improved. لennavecia 00:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like it is not a reason to initiate an AfD. This article seems at least as worthy as Gokkun, for instance, and is fully cited to reliable sources. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a good thing that that wasn't the reason, then. The reason, as linked-to in the rationale, was that it violated the Wikipedia:No original research policy by synthesizing sources talking about other subjects into a discussion of a sunject that no sources actually address. You cannot refute that by saying that the individual pieces of other subjects that are synthesised together are themselves verifiable. You cannot refute that by making straw man and putting it in place of the nominator's argument. You can only refute that by citing a source that explicitly makes a connection between sex and biscuits. You haven't done so. Neither has any other editor opining to keep so far. And as a result the argument that this is an original synthesis, in violation of policy, remains standing. Uncle G (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You and the nominator both seem to have missed the point that the "synthesis" objection is only valid if a "novel conclusion" is drawn from the sources. What is the novel conclusion that is drawn in this article? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. You have missed the title of the article, where the idea that there's an umbrella topic of biscuits and human sexuality is implicitly propounded — an original idea that is further propounded, without foundation in sources, in the article's introduction. Uncle G (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I've polished my glasses and had another look at the title, so I don't think I've missed it. The only thing I've so far missed is the "novel conclusion" required for your synthesis argument to stick. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know about Uncle G, but I thought the novel conclusion was the fact that there is any connection between biscuits and human sexuality at all beyond these trivial mentions in popular culture. I mean, I could write an article titled Boats and human sexuality and throw together unrelated information ("In the James Bond movie Goldeneye, there is a picture of a boat behind the bed..." "People often go on singles cruises...") but unless this connection has been explored in any depth at all by someone other than me (i.e. in a published source), it's not encyclopedic. Graymornings(talk) 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • An article's title is merely that, an article's title. Where's the "novel conclusion"? ."Conclusion", not what you or anyone else believes to be an inappropriate, or even a novel, "conjunction". --Malleus Fatuorum 07:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Original research is any novel concept, idea, analysis, synthesis, or conclusion that doesn't exist in sources. That you are carefully omitting all of the other parts of the policy indicates a degree of cherry-picking. And I find it hard to believe that you've read the title and introduction of this article and failed to see the concept that it is purporting. It's the concept of biscuits and human sexuality. It's right there in both the title and the introduction, staring the reader in the face. Are you going to rise to the challenge of citing a source that documents this concept? The article's creator has not, yet. Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I used to believe I'd seen everything, then I just saw the section on biscuit porn... Nonetheless good references are provided for the information provided, and if the connection exists, as it clearly does, why not have an article on it? -- roleplayer 00:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where's the source that explicitly says that a connection exists? Note the analysis by Nsk92 below, which indicates that none of the current sources support such a connection. Uncle G (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's somewhat ironic to me that this article has such strong support (and I'm not calling it undeserved, mind you), when a perfectly notable and similar topic, WP:Articles for deletion/Unification Church views of sexuality is having a somewhat rougher go of it. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. JBsupreme (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator is absolutely correct, the subject of the article is artificially chosen and the article is a bad case of WP:SYN, an ad hoc collection of several refs involving the words "sex" and "biscuits" in them. It makes for a good laugh but not for a coherent encyclopedic topic. One can create an article of this kind by taking any two words from the dictionary, running a googbooks search for their combination and then making a collage Wikipedia article from them called "A and B" where A and B can be anything. There is no indication in the references cited that anyone ever actually considered "sex and biscuits" to be a separate and coherent topic worth saying anything about. For example, the Madonna-Guy Ritchie episode does not even seem to fall into the scope of the article as it is defined in the article's opening paragraph. Madonna claimed[32] that Ritchie was trying to lose weight on a "cookie diet" and that the loss of sex drive was one of the side-effects. That does not really correspond well to the article's stated subject: "human sexual behavior involving biscuits or cookies, to pornographic material involving biscuits and cookies, or to the use of biscuits and cookies as a medium for the production and distribution of pornography". The McVitie's story also seems like rather a stretch. A careful reading of the reference provided there[33] shows that McVitie's justified its partnership decision with Ann Summers by demographic marketing considerations ("new cookies are aimed at the same target market - women aged 20-45") rather than by asserting a special connection between biscuits and sex. The ref given for the Mondongo story[34] also appears to say that Mondongo's choice of buscuits as a medium for making a series of pornographic images was motivated by other considerations and not by asserting some kind of a special link between buscuits and sex. The ref says: "Things stink and no wonder Mondongo has even thought of making a work from out their own faeces. They didn’t, they chose biscuits, this time, equally heinous since they are what the wives of the military would have nibbled on at tea-time as they told stories to their ‘adopted’ children." Again, I don't really see in any of these references a specific discussion of relationship between sex and biscuits as a coherent topic. Overall, the entire subject of the article seems to be an artificially created one to me. Nsk92 (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would think that if there were a connection between these twain, it would have at least been mentioned in The Sex Life of Food (ISBN 9780312363765). It isn't. So far, I've been through the first 30 Google Books results, and found nothing whatsoever to support such a connection. Google Scholar has turned up nothing so far, either.

    There's a connection between nutrition and sex drive (particularly observed in cattle in the literature, it seems), which the Madonna tidbit clearly fits into. But it isn't restricted to specifically biscuits (or indeed humans).

    Similarly, there's ample discussion of food metaphors for sex and sexual attractiveness, into which discussion of slang names for young women can be placed. (Indeed, they are so placed in actual sources that are more than dictionaries of slang.) But, again, the metaphors aren't exclusively biscuits. ("Coffee grinder" is one, for example.)

    Everything here is a fact taken from a larger overall different subject and discussed here under an umbrella that doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia, rather than in the context of the proper subject that it belongs in, and that it can be found in in sources. Uncle G (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It *is not* "well sourced". A couple of articles about Madonna, some stories on advertising tripe do not constitute acceptable sources. Did any of you "Keep" folks (other than the author) actually look at the sources? This article is a well done hoax, but hoax none the less. Proxy User (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not my experience that Iridescent contributes in bad faith, or writes hoaxes. Uncle G (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. Is it in dispute that "there are sexual acts involving biscuits, art with biscuits, etc"? For the synthesis argument to stick, the basis of this Afd, a novel conclusion must have been drawn. What is this novel conclusion? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Biscuits and human sexuality can refer to human sexual behavior involving biscuits or cookies, to pornographic material involving biscuits and cookies, or to the use of biscuits and cookies as a medium for the production and distribution of pornography" is a novel conclusion not supported by any sources. As is "The cultural link between biscuits and sexuality dates at least as far back as the nineteenth century". "Possibly the best known sexual activity involving biscuits" is original research as is "the game became popularised in mainstream culture following its depiction in the 1991 novel The Liar and 2000 film Crazy; the pastime also increased in popularity following the success of the musical group Limp Bizkit, popularly believed to have been named for the sport.[7] Numerous depictions of the pastime exist in both pornographic and non-pornographic material; however, there are few if any commercial pornographic movies featuring the practice." The "pornography section" presents a biscuit tin created by a worker annoyed at their employer - the fact the tin contained biscuits rather than anything else was irrelevant. Guest9999 (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those appear to be simply statements supported by the sources, not novel conclusions drawn from original research. Have biscuits not been used to create pornographic images (production and distribution)? Has the term "biscuit" not been used since at least the 19th century in reference to a female of easy virtue (cultural link)? Still don't see any "novel conclusions" being drawn in this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are unpublished facts and analysis of sources - original research as defined by Wikipedia:No original research. None of those statements appear in any sources given in the article. The fact that the term biscuit was used to describe a woman of easy virtue - doesn't mean that biscuits have been culturally linked to sexuality - the term doesn't even necessarily relate to biscuits. Without sourcing how do we know it's not derived from the particularly promiscuous wife of of Lord Biscuit or some kind of play on words. Guest9999 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources appear to have written about the purported links between biscuits and human sexuality - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original work and so should not be the first to publish on any topic. As it is this isn't even an article about "biscuits and human sexuality" it's a list of a few instances that have - supposedly - involved both, since no one has written anything about any connection between the two it's effectively a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation. Additionally a lot of what makes up the article is very misleading, describing this as pornography is borderline-ridiculous in my opinion (and more importantly not supported by reliable sources) - additionally a worker trying to get one past their employer really has little to do with either biscuits or human sexuality. There's synthesis throughout (for example from the sourced "in nineteenth century American usage the term "biscuit" referred to a young woman seen as a sex object" the editor has derived "The cultural link between biscuits and sexuality dates at least as far back as the nineteenth century" - a slang term does not establish a cultural link, especially when the etymology of the slang isn't known). The lead is also original research as the phrase "biscuits and human sexuality" seems to have been invented purely for the purposes of this article, the list of things it can refer to appears to have been arbitrarily defined by Wikipedia editors - it can't be defined by sources because there aren't any. Guest9999 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no rses, bunch of randomness does not a real concept make. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since apparently biscuits is too specific, have Iridescent write Food and sexuality and merge with that -- Gurch (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been suggested on the talkpage, but it would be a huge task, covering everything from Nyotaimori bars to the symbolism of the cherry, by way of Vore and Sitophilia. Unfortunately, of our two main paraphilia authors, FT2 is busy on Arbcom, and Taxwoman is (ahem) no longer with us. Anyway, I strongly suspect such an article would be so long it would be broken back into separate articles, and we'd be right back where we'd started. – iridescent 14:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, good, another argument against the existence of ArbCom -- Gurch (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The irony here is that Iridescent has actually shown the existence of at least two subjects that we don't cover at all: nutrition and libido (almost entirely unaddressed in libido) and food metaphors for sex and sexuality. (I've just rediscovered baseball metaphors for sex, which I was fixing up almost exactly two years ago, when it was at AFD.) Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the explanations given above. Article is fully cited and I don't think it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Chamal talk 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or relist due to last-minute AFD-related merge, see comment below. Not sure - postpone AFD? This is a very new article. I'm not sold that this is pure WP:SYN but it's close. I'd recommend withdrawing the AFD and seeing if the article can be improved or merged with a future, perhaps largish, sex and food article as I suggested on the talk page. If not, redo the AFD in a few months. In the alternative, keep/no consensus to delete for now with a recommendation of "improve ... or else." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC) updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: if it does get deleted, userfy and tag with a joke box like the one at the top of WP:Editor for deletion. Oh, and while you are at it, nominate the primary author for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while it is drawing information about various aspects of biscuits & sex together as one article, that's simply the function of an encyclopedia. No original conclusions are being drawn and information appears to be supported by sources. While it is a "synthesis" in the sense of "a combination of information on a subject", that's simply what an encyclopedia article is. It is not a "synthesis of published works to reach a new conclusion" that would actually violate WP:SYNTH. ~ mazca t|c 15:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a novel concept that is being propounded here, namely the umbrella concept of biscuits and human sexuality. If you want to refute that, please cite a source that documents the existence of any such umbrella concept, or that links the disparate facts (taken from other subjects) presented in this article into a single subject. I presented this challenge at the start of this discussion, and even went looking for such sources myself. As you can see from the above, I couldn't find any. No-one else has cited any, either. Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep bizarre articles like this is what makes Wikipedia great. Graymornings desperatly needs a sense of humor. travb (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However "strong" your keep may be, I notice that you haven't risen to the challenge that I made at the start of this discussion, and haven't shown a supporting source documenting any such umbrella subject, either. Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In so far as the citations refer to biscuits or sexuality but not the other, their use violates WP:SYN, and in so far as they relate to both, the coverage is desperately trivial. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An artificial grouping of several pairings does not a topic make - in other words, amusing as the title is, this is still OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no coherent link between biscuits and sexuality. None of the sources posit one. Therefore this article is no more appropriate than "Corn and bacon" or "Leather and smoking". --Alynna (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've read, reread and read again (and thoroughly enjoyed on every occasion) but I'm still struggling to locate the alleged WP:OR / WP:SYN. As Malleus has oft repeated throughout this discussion there is an absolute absence of "novel conclusions" & what I read is a factual and perfectly sourced article. Nancy talk 23:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps re-reading the Wikipedia:No original research policy may help, then. Original research isn't limited to just conclusions. It encompasses novel concepts, ideas, arguments, analyses, and syntheses. Please point to a source that documents the concept that is embodied in this article's title and introduction, and that is the umbrella concept that purportedly brings all of these separate and individual items in the article together. Uncle G (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the sources evince nothing more than the coincidental juxtaposition of two unrelated topics. This supposedly encyclopedic coverage of the purported connection between the two is simply synthesis. Jfire (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Article has good sources. The nomination has a bad case of I don't like it.--Jmundo (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only material vaguely encyclopedic is the Soggy biscuit part, which already has an article. DGG (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You must be joking. I'm not seeing any explicit citations for "Biscuits and human sexuality" as a specific topic: on the other hand, taking two unrelated concepts and cobbling together every intersection, no matter what lovely citations you add to it, constitutes original research. Is this intended to be the Rule 34 of Wikipedia? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and CalendarWatcher, this one is basically an OR essay Tavix (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SYN. Tgreach (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Nothing against Iridescent - she's a great admin and article writer, but I think the connection between biscuits and sexual behavior is incidental and not an example of a phenomena worthy of an article. Avruch T 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates WP:SYN. Epbr123 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm really reluctant to say, for Iridescent is a great editor, and this was a fun article to read. However, Uncle G's and Nsk92's analyses are telling. I can't see that this is a 'unified' topic, but more like a series of (sourced) tales in each of which 'biscuit' and 'sex' both appear. The Food and sexuality article sounds like a good idea. — BillC talk 08:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - everything is cited to (as far as I can tell) reliable sources. Also per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you prepared to qualify that statement in light of the fact that I, for one, said I did like it, yet opined that it should be deleted? — BillC talk 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure somebody could source a "Whipped cream and human sexuality" article as well. Still just as pointless. BJTalk 18:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rule 34 (and WP:OR too). Миша13 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to say, quite a lot of people seem to think I've nommed this per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let me make it clear: I do like it! I laughed when I read it. It's funny. That said, humor isn't a good reason to keep an unencyclopedic article. If we're really going by WP policy (and not WP:ILIKEIT), this article doesn't have much going for it. Graymornings(talk) 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - well reasoned nomination. Clear case of synthesis. A number of entirely unconnected events have been put together to try to build an encyclopaedic relationship between biscuits and sexuality. In fact, if we want to go down the food/sex line bananas, oysters and asparagus have better claims - see here. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though difficult for me take an adamant position. In the end I feel an RS-supported listing of instances throughout history where there are clear connections between biscuits and sexuality doesn't fail WP:OR as i see it, and with growth this might be much more clear (the article has not yet touched upon the school of sex urge-suppression of Graham crackers) so I don't see any hurry in deleting it. MURGH disc. 01:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear case of synthesis as has been explained well by several people commenting here. This is sort of a pons asinorum for WP:SYN. If you don't see how the article lead and in fact its existance violates the policy, then you don't understand what synthesis means in the context of Wikipedia. Quale (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Saint Joseph's University buildings. MBisanz talk 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student housing at Saint Joseph's University[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Student housing at Saint Joseph's University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This one is a different article. All it seems to me is a current available housing option for the university, which is not encyclopedic. I don't see how it passes WP:N. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 00:32, 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 per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel vs Genocide[edit]

Israel vs Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Opinion piece. First prodded as such, then tagged as nonsense. It is indeed not clear what the author's point is. Unencyclopedic no matter how you look at it. Strong delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete: I think the goal of the uploading user is pointed out in the emboldened capital letters at the start: pure POV. -- roleplayer 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely not neutral point of view and I'm not sure that it can be rescued. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pertinent information here belongs in the Israel article or in articles relating to Israel's conflicts. Talmage (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whatever might possibly worth saving in this pile of dung should be incorporated (if it is not already) into other articles. Unschool 01:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant info---should be kept in some form, if not word for word in current form. Do not delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.193.34 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I did NOT make a title such as "Israel vs Palestinian genocide" because this is not about generalizing "all" Palestinians, nor "all" Arabs, it is Israel vs the UNDISPUTED (no "POV" here!) danger of Genocide from a few fronts. Thank you, and a happy new year to all. Ygorisos (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can the article be renamed and improved? Perhaps to Israeli Genocide or Israeli Conflicts or Persecution of Israel? I'm on the fence. Talmage (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And that would not make it any less of an unacceptable WP:POV opinion piece. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Take it someplace else. Proxy User (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty obvious WP:POV pushing. Resolute 05:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious WP:POV opinion piece. Unencyclopedic no matter how you look at it. Proxy User (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This conflict is already covered neutrally elsewhere in Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks to me like POV pushing at its best. Israel's conflicts and differences with its neighbouring countries have already been covered in the relevant articles already, and in a more neutral way too. We definitely don't need this. Chamal talk 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly "point of view". The flip side is that Israel is bombing the hell out of Palestinian neighborhoods in Gaza. But it's being done in a benevolent manner. Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without question. Should probably be a Speedy Delete. Timneu22 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Delete—Bigoted propaganda rant. Violates WP:NOT.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously POV, but good information that WP is lacking. Guy0307 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as per Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content travb (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, irredeemably POV. Stifle (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One might edit a bit but the base of it all is very factual and neutral, it is just trying to explain the very danger Israel faces.

As to "being covered elsewhere", not really, this aspect of fighting for survival against genocide, nothing about that was covered, yet. Guys3000 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)— Guys3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was merge to Georgetown, Kentucky#Education. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Elementary School (Georgetown, Kentucky)[edit]

Western Elementary School (Georgetown, Kentucky) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable school. No sources. No citations. The infobox isn't even filled out. Contains original research too. Delete or merge with a better article. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:19, 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 Paris Hilton's My New BFF. Anyone wishing to merge can find the content in the page history. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Flickinger[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Winner of a reality TV series, who hasn't done a lot else. The user contesting the PROD stated in their edit summary, Many people do something of note, and then fail to much afterwards. imo that's kind of the point, and the reason why this should be deleted. roleplayer 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, that may be nothing else to you, but it's quite enough to be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia... Proxy User (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Notability for one event, however much publicity surrounded it=epic fail. All the articles outside the show were focused on PH and looking at Flickinger as "some chick paris was with". The "significant coverage" bit of the notability guidelines requires that sources, quote "address the subject directly in detail". I'm constantly having to tell this to people; being mentioned in passing in a reliable third-party source is not the same as having significant coverage in a reliable third-party source. Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only notable for one event. Ironholds (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Paris Hilton's My New BFF as plausible search term. She doesn't seem to have done much besides that show, but she's still likely to searched for. Covering her in context seems a good idea. - Mgm|(talk) 13:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Paris Hilton's My New BFF: I agree with MacGyverMagic, replace the pages content with a redirect that brings them to the shows page. No need / individual notability for her to have a page Hardnfast (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Paris Hilton's My New BFF, makes sense for verifiable information about the winner to be included in the article for the show; no evidence that the individual is notable outside the one event. Guest9999 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aliennetwork Records[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. All of the artists don't have articles. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:13, 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. Don't deserve articles, but redirect enhances Vii's content. This is like having cake, and eating it too. (non-admin) Cerejota (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinball Fish[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable video game. Only reference is a review on... Youtube. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

…and my subsequent !vote is to redirect both to Vii as plausible search terms; neither establish any sort of notability, let alone independent of the parent article. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahro Suryoyo[edit]

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

Notability concerns by editor : 69.226.97.157 (talk) who was unable to properly list article. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I do not speak the language, but it appears notable. My Swedish is way less than my little Norwegian, but this seems to talk about it [36], as a media association known in Sweden as part of their Aramean-Syriac people. Furthermore, I am weary of anon nominations with no previous discussion in the talk page of the article and by a SPA. I know the nom is acting in good faith, but to ask us to delete a page that has been around for months, created and updated by active editors and with no specifics as to why this is not notable, well, I dunno. If stronger notability concerns are raised by active editors (be them anon or registered) I might change to delete. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Established news organizations should be included. If it doesn't deserve a stand-alone article then let's figure out where to merge it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be filled out with more info, but so do the gazillions of other stubs hanging around. -Yupik (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although an avowed deletionist, this magazine does seems noteworthy. The article needs a major overhaul but that doesn't affect my decision. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:29, 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. The Helpful One 12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Paranormal Investigators[edit]

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

Notability not established regarding the organization; the article also contains unreferenced materials; advertising or unnecessary promotion of a group; many of the "sources" are broken links. There are far too many fringe and non-notable paranormal investigation "organizations" or groups that contain not even a trace amount of notability or claim to fame -- and having a mention in a news article or magazine does not make one notable. seicer | talk | contribs 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Charles Goh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as his biographical entry does not explicitly state why he is notable. Much of the content derived on the biographical page is copied from the Asia Paranormal Investigators page. seicer | talk | contribs 05:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not see any notability. Delete. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established by references to a large number of articles covering the group. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the group--many of the references refer only to Goh, not the group; some of them appear to be so closely worded as to be either copies or PR placements. As for the man, I'm not sure, and would prefer him to be renominated separately after this closes. DGG (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete many of the "cites" on that page (for instance one that claims to cite the Straits Times, the biggest paper in singapore) are dead, don't work, mendacious, unclear. This looks like a trivial student prank, at best, or at worst a local group of kooks who've made it into the "on a lighter side" sections of the media in a small and rather dull country of 3 million people. Not notable, not verifiable, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be speedy? It was a strait delete last time... looking into it.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the photo should be eight-sixed too. -Yupik (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable organization (clearly). ScienceApologist (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - enough media references for the group itself to prove notability. --Blowdart | talk 08:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neutral article, enough third-party sources to establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Minor fame or infamy is not notability, something which often gets forgotten in these discussions. There seems to be a common trends in these votes that if someone has had something printed about them by a few sources, they should have an encyclopedia entry. This is simply wrong, and against the guidelines laid out on the notability pages. And no offense to anyone, and I mean this with the best faith possible, but the combination of the title and the picture in an encyclopedic article just serves to make Wikipedia a laughing stock. Phil153 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article rewritten to fix broken links and more references added so sources are verifiable. Singapore Tourism Board currently recommend joining their spooky tour as one of the 20 unique things to do in Singapore. Please see references in article for this and related TV shows, programmes, newspapers reports for evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firet (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*cmt A singapore tourism board boost SPA? That's advertising, not evidence of notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:30, 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. Mgm|(talk) 13:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ugly[edit]

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

Non-notable, self-professed "up and coming" band, written as a promo Closedmouth (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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 keep. John254 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Post War Blues[edit]

The Post War Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google. I also can't find any sources on Google News and Google Books. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just added a few facts to the article for all those Wikipedia notability fans out there not knowing too much about blues, its artists, labels and publications and instead seem to believe in the Google God ("Wer Wahrheit sucht, darf nicht die Stimmen zählen" Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1646–1716 (My translation: Who seeketh truth might not tally votes ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 16:39, 20 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) 00:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon boys (and girls?) - What about a hefty notability discussion !?! Or do I have to wait until you're all sitting in front of your screen at your working place again not knowing what else to do with your hours of work ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you please take into account that the article has been heavily expanded in order to eludicate the notability of that label since the nominator did his nomination ... StefanWirz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did I read somewhere that Afd-nominated articles should be discussed (even thoroughly discussed), not only voted pro or con ?!? The article now contains 1. a discography, 2. a list of that label's roster of artists, eight of them being notable enough to have an own Wikipedia article (blue links), 3. hints on liner notes by (at least two) notable authors (Paul Oliver, Charles Radcliffe), 4. two references (reviews) stating the notability of the label's output - one by a worldwide accepted blues authority (Keith Briggs). Don't know what else might be lacking to prove 'notability' ! StefanWirz (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The article is very poorly written, but that alone isn't a reason for deletion. A google search revealed enough information to suggest that the organization exists but I'm not totally convinced of its notability. Trusilver 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had to add the founders name to the search but found these four books which should help explain the man, the label and their mission. Blues players are well-known for not being well-known. Many have existed and died making only those who bought rights to their music rich. this seems to be a piece of that lost puzzle showing someone who tried to help document the art form. This, this, this and this might also help. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 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 keep. John254 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BELLZLLEB[edit]

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

Tagged and contested as a speedy deletion under CSD A7. This is a procedural nomination because there does not appear to be enough in the article to remove the request for deletion outright. I do not offer an opinion to keep or delete. --VS talk 11:47, 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) 00:07, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 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. Notable or not, WP:NOR (including WP:SYNTH) is core policy, and the promised stubbifying or improvement has not taken place, so it's deletion for now. This does not prohibit the creation of a non-OR stub.  Sandstein  22:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underground culture[edit]

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

This is a very short article which, in a hamfisted attempt to cover a wide variety of only vaguely-related concepts, ends up saying a whole lot of nothing. In the lede, we are led from the Underground Railroad to Vietnam-era draft dodgers to the American Indian Movement at Wounded Knee. But, very little is said about any of them. The article is unclear as to whether it is about political movements that stayed "underground" because of repression (like the French Resistance) or subcultures and music "scenes," such as mod and punk. It is this vagueness which, in the end, makes the article of little value. Furthermore, considering that all of these topics are already discussed elsewhere (for example History of Western subcultures in the 20th Century), this article should be deleted as needlessly repetitive.-RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:03, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far far far far far farrrrrrrrrr too vague of a topic. JBsupreme (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. Maybe what we're ultimately looking for is a short article, differentiating between clandestine political organizations, grassroots subcultures, & like Edgy commercialized subcultures (or some other division) & directing peops as appt.? Franciscrot (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly written, vague, a whole lot of air. The article is unclear about anything at all. Proxy User (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--"If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --Jmundo (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure OR. Trusilver 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your argument?--Jmundo (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll play ball. The article is a very poorly executed attempt by the original author to convey a subject that I'm not entirely sure that he himself really was all that clueful about. The end result is an article that says basically nothing, is more than half OR and the rest is complete synthesis. The references that do exist are tangential at best. The article exists within a scope that makes it irrelevant and useless. Were it to be merged into a larger article, I would see no problem with it. Trusilver 08:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though less than coherent at this point, it just takes soem editing to make an adequate stub. The general concept is notable and sourced. DGG (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - dosen't quite go into any of the sugested merges. Stubbifying it per DGG may not be a bad idea. Artw (talk) 03:29, 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  22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobius (beer)[edit]

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

Unremarkable Product. Only exists in 2 states in the US, and no references are presented. Delete Dengero (talk) 09:15, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject fails WP:N as it refers to a beer available in a very limited area and also a beer type which is of a small subset or style. Geoff T C 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep source supplied by Martijn Hoekstra seems to be a minimally acceptable source. [38] looks slightly better. Multiple, independent, secondary. I'm good. Hobit (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comment by Hobit. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Owens[edit]

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

Even though this page now shows it was created as a hoax, it's creation falls squarely into WP:HOAX & WP:MADEUP and I was tempted to CSD it as such. Even though the hoax itself has now started to garner some third party sources and blogs, this page in itself is certainly NN as anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that fake information can be easily added to Wikipedia, and is no different to the hundreds of hoax pages created daily. Khukri 12:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient notablity. If someone wants to merge to a hoax list article that would be okay with me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retitle as Edward Owens (hoax), as the hoax is what would properly be discussed in the article. We do not speedy delete articles about hoaxes. Discussion of the hoax in the Chronicle of Higher Education is sufficient for notability , as the most reliable source for the material it covers. DGG (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & retitle Per DGG. The Chronicle story[39] is enought to prove notability - it wasn't just Wikipedia being hoaxed - and rarity. Hoaxing as a teaching device is not common.John Z (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable hoax that didn't seem to fool anyone particularly important, or have any measurable impact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the reasons already noted. There are certainly hoaxes that meet notability...this isn't one of them. Trusilver 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if the major publication in the subject field reports the hoax it shows its significance. I trust their judgement more than ours. DGG (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- Notable hoax not only in the academic world, the Chronicle story, but also in the internet realm.--Jmundo (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- This article must NOT be deleted, even though the damage has already been done. Anyone who read this article, or any reference to it, prior to the revealing

of the hoax will now have a set of false beliefs about the past. Only if a searcher returns to this article, or one derived from it, can the hoax be discovered. There remain other references to the so-called pirate, even within Wikipedia, that do not indicate that the story is false. The students may have thought what they were doing was instructive, but they quickly lost control of the information. So Wikipedia needs to retain the corrected article as at least a last resort attempt to correct the fraud and lead searchers to the truth of the matter. T. McFadden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.52.218.40 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google Edward Owens. The First three pages are about the Hoax, and most of the people mentioning the hoax are involved in the academic world in one way or another.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Fremantle Football Club players#Delisted players who did not play a senior game for Fremantle. Black Kite 17:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Clancy[edit]

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

Didn't play a single senior game while at the Fremantle Football Club. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Has had a non notable career at Subiaco, a semi professional club. Jevansen (talk) 14:27, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 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. Lenticel (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mauppie[edit]

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

Neologism QueenCake (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_29&oldid=1116722092"