Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 31

< December 30	January 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow 4 logo[edit]

Is this article ever going to have enough information to prove that this logo is important?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research from beginning to end. It survived deletion the first time around, although it lacked citations, because it was deemed to be "well-written". Essentially, the article claims that a number four ending with an arrow is "one of the most familiar television logos ever used by local TV stations across the USA" and then notes that Houston's Channel 4 had used the logo beginning in 1974. Since there are books about graphic design, it's either (a) so familiar that it's referred to as the "arrow 4" in a verifiable source that hasn't been cited or (b) not familiar enough to have been written about. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research, and per Mandsford. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 04:39, 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 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Endless Forest[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable game, article written in unencyclopedic manner that should be on the author's website instead. For example, asking for donations, no wikilinks, etc. _ZXCVBNM 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, no external sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it looks awesome (and incredibly creepy), its non-notable spam. The tone and content of the article can be changed, but the subject cannot. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Keep due to new references provided during the course of this discussion. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE This is an MMORPG!! This article is not about a random website or aything. This is a game. We, The Endless Forest community, will add sources. Give us time. There are plenty of articles about RuneScape and WoW, can't we have one for The Endless Forest. This is WikiPEDIA, not WikiPOPULAR. Keep this article! The game designers deserve it!WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebSiter100 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— WebSiter100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes, you are right about one thing. However, notability is not equivalent to popularity. MuZemike (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page. We will write up a proper reference/citation section as soon as possible. I have looked over the guidelines and corrected most if not all the errors so far in order to get it in line with the standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblywums (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe you need to read the guidelines at WP:NOTE. No matter what your subject is, if it hasn't recieved significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, it's not notable enough for a separate article. Unless you can find and post these sources here, it's still non-notable no matter how detailed it is.--_ZXCVBNM 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup — I have found three sources providing coverage [1], [2], and somewhat [3] and [4]. MuZemike (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, we will edit it and clean it up. But the article now fits most of the Wikipedia standards when writing an article about a game. Just give us time while we make it Wikipedia-worthy and do not delete it. We just added many sources as well. WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - In particular, there are way too many external links in the article. They should be few in number and restricted to a dedicated section at the bottom of the page. SharkD (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further, Fair Use probably does not justify the number of images in the article. Most of them will probably need to be removed. SharkD (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While they are in the minority, I think there are enough quality references in the article to support the topic's notability. That said, there is a lot of content in the Development section that needs referencing. SharkD (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup as per above. Perhaps we should Rename it as well? --.:Alex :. 14:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the capitalization needs to be fixed. SharkD (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep this article.~~ [Ed. duplicate vote] We will cite everything and give the pictures credit and everything if we can just have time. We will fix everything as soon as we can.Thank you.WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Please, vote only once per discussion. Voting more than once is considered incivil. SharkD (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - Consensus, not vote. Let's not give people the wrong ideas... Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are working hard to fix the article. What more needs to be changed so that it is fit for Wikipedia? 74.68.145.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

~~You should remove all the screenshots in the setting section unless they provide critical commentry towards the article and~~ replace the screenshot in the infobox with a logo for the game if possible. Salavat (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didnt relize they were free use. Salavat (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification about the images. Yes, we will replace the image in the infobox with perhaps the banner. WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Are those images really free, or are they mistagged? If the images are free, they need evidence of permission—for example, a link to a page on their website stating release under the GFDL. Also, those references need some cleaning up. It's hard to tell what's out there now, and some of them are forum posts that don't appear appropriate for Wikipedia. Pagra shtak 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the references are mostly used for development history information, so they can be considered a primary source. As for the images, I also don't remember it ever being mentioned that the game was released under the GFDL. I stongly suspect otherwise given the nature of its content. SharkD (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to remove the image until we can figure out the correct licensing, not sure if those screenshots are actually under GFDL or something else. Will re-add if they are actually free use, under the right licensing. Bubblywums (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Per MuZemike's finds. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am changing my input to Strong Keep after finding additional media coverage on this subject, including a write-up in the Spanish newspaper El Pais and two articles on the influential IGN.com site. Admittedly, this article is a mess and needs serious editing -- but it would be a mistake to delete it when notability can be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not a replacement for cleanup. Sam ^Blab 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's a lot of unreliable sources in here. But citing press releases and the official site is still acceptable for the purposes of WP:V. And in order to meet WP:N and WP:V, there are a few reliable third-party sources that note this game. I see no reason for deletion, now or in the future. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed, needs major cleanup (AfD is not a cleanup discussion page), but there are some reliable third-party that do note this game as mentioned above, which is enough to meet WP:V and WP:N, so I have to agree to keep the article per the notable and reliable findings. — RyanCross (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in addition to WP:JNN, WP:PERNOM, and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC not being compelling arguments, Ecoleetage, MuZemike, and Randomran have all presented compelling cases that based on available sources the subject actually is sufficiently notable for our purposes and that it only need improvement, like pretty much all articles can use (nothing is "perfect" after all). Anyway, good job finding the soruces gang and I'm glad to see the open-mindedness with those who have changed their stances in acknowledgment of these rescue efforts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is greatly improved with reference and citation of enough independent reviews to prove WP:N. Improvements to the article will obviously continue. Two3E (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in need of some TLC but that is a clean-up issue. I'm alo impressed with eager editors who need guidance so am willing to shovel some good faith as well. The article need to, per wp:lede, give a bit more oomph about why this game is unique and notable. On first blush it seems to be because it's a unique gaming experience that counter-intuitively blends societal constructs and deconstructions - just a guess. Finding some high-brow reliable source that states something similar and place that more prominently will help. Also see wp:citation templates as those bare http strings are dead give-away that you haven't suffered enough. -- Banjeboi 12:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, copliments and advice. We will add whatever needs to be needed. There is one sentence that needs to be cited correctly, and we will make sure about the images. The article may never be perfect but we will do our best to get it close. WebSiter100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:17, 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 deleted and salted. User:Carolrubensteinesq has been undef blocked for legal threats. Sockpuppetry request made. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Walterschied[edit]

This article makes claims of notability, but provides absolutely no evidence to back it up. It sources three things: the company website, IMDB, and another Wikipedia article...none of which is acceptable to build an article on. A Google search for the name yields 110 results, which appear to be meta type stuff: IMDB and mirrors, networking sites, and similar. There is nothing on Google News. Given that this article has been created, deleted, created, deleted and recreated once more, I'm now proposing Delete and Salt to prevent any more nonsense. Regardless of the previous AfD nomination and recreation, I'd like a firm consensus on this issue. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt I also did a lot of work in the first AfD [5] to see if this guy was notable; I can barely find out he exists. I found no name hit results in the major Hollywood rags (Variety and Hollywood Reporter.) Seeing as the same article (with essentially, if not exactly, the same content) has been created for a fourth time, it's time for this to be protected against being recreated. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as a badly-sourced article on a non-notable subject that's likely to be recreated if the creator's userpage is any indication. Graymornings_(talk) 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am an Entertainment Attorney in LA with a major firm and I know who Scott Walterschied is as do most people in the industry. So we should delete this page because Vernon and Hunster who are not remotely affiliated with Hollywood say so? That is proposterous!!! One is a Police dispatcher and the other does not say what he does. Scott is a well know producer/former agent at ICM and compared to other Producers on Wilkipedia he is far more important. It is humourous reading Vernon and Hunsters' comments. It's almost like reading comments of people who have some type of score to settle. I respectfully ask the Adminstrator look at these 2 records of malicious attacks on peoples' articles. Many thanks.
Carol Rubenstein, Esq.

--Carolrubensteinesq (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one additional thing to Vernon you are aware Variety online and Variety Magazine have seperate article content as so with the Reporter. His company has won many Emmys and they have been nominated for a Golden Globe and that article was in December 2008 Variety. Your research skills leave allot in doubt as to its' viability. Also a friend told me the Reporter announced a financed/distributed Lions Gates Movie with Scott's name along with Ethan Hawke (you do know who he is right?). Do you need the article mailed to you? Note to Wikipedia; you really need better control so people without knowledge, like Vernon and Hunster, cannot influence credible information. --Carolrubensteinesq (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Carol", again you are not registered with the California Bar [6]. Please stop this charade. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nor any bar she claims to be a member of. As a member of the Stonecutters, I must ask you to stop. --Smashville^talk 06:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would very much like to know why my name is seemingly being dragged through the mud, when this is a very simple case of an article not meeting the criteria for inclusion on the site. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy either WP:N or WP:Entertainer --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, no substantial third party coverage in reliable sources, gets a mere 38 unique Google hits (not all of which are about the same person). Hut 8.5 13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt no evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This person is stubborn, salting is needed. If there is any evidence of notability in the future we can reconsider. Chillum 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was (per the deletion log) a blatant copyright violation before, how come the exact same text is suddenly not a blatant copyright violation now? We don't keep blatant copyright violations just because they are re-posted. Was the article actually not a blatant copyright violation before? Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar[edit]

Questionable Notability Christopher Kraus (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently a high school, run by a notable religious group. Sources for this are difficult because of cultural bias, but thee has almost never been an article of a high school for which refs. have not been found if proper search is made, and so we normally treat any real high school as notable. DGG (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All it takes is a Google News archive search to confirm that plenty of sources exist for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 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 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Naylor[edit]

Naylor is a football player who only played in one Scottish Football League match. This was between Clydebank and Stranraer in December 1998. (see [7] and [8]) The match was in the First Division, which is mostly professional, but Stranraer are a semi-professional club who have sometimes been promoted to First Division level. I contend therefore that Naylor doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE because he didn't play in a match between two fully professional teams, and there are insufficient sources and references for him to pass WP:BIO. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. In addition to the above, I think Clydebank were a semi-professional club by that point, as they were sharing Boghead Park with Dumbarton. Clydebank went out of business within four years, although I would need to check re their status at that point. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neil Brown's site has him listed as Roy Naker, but it confirms he played a game. Was the Scottish First Division fully-pro in 1998-1999 - if so he is notable. Giant Snowman 12:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying, the division wasn't fully professional in that season because Stranraer for sure (and possibly Clydebank) wouldn't have had players on full-time contracts. It's only a fairly recent development (since about 2000) that all (or all but one) of the teams in the First Division have been full-time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case:

Delete as he has never played in a fully-professional league or competition, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GiantSnowman. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GiantSnowman. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:29, 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 and rename to Clásico Centroamericano. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica and Honduras football rivalry[edit]

This seems to be a list of soccer games by an arbitrary criterion. No evidence is provided that any special "rivalry" exist that distinguishes these games from any other games between other pairings of nations. (I'm aware that Category:International football (soccer) rivalries contains a number of somewhat similar articles, so I'm inviting wider discussion here rather than sending the article to WP:PROD.) B. Wolterding (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename . This is a very notable rivalry called Clásico Centroamericano (Central American classic). The rivalry intensified after the Football War, a five-day war fought by El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. The sources are in Spanish, but you can use Google Translate. --Jmundo (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep providing some more reliable references are added to the article. Giant Snowman 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Rename per above. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the suggested redirect/rename. - per above discussion. matt91486 (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per Michig. Schuym1 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Can Alley[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was a hugely successful toy/game back in the 70s/80s with a TV ad campaign featuring Chuck Connors. A Google search doesn't bring back a lot but this would surely have received a lot of coverage back in the day. See this for an explantion of what it was all about. --Michig (talk) 22:31, 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 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unequibryologic reasoning[edit]

Possible hoax; if not, non-notable concept. Cited sources don't seem relevant (see talk page); linked with hoax article Nathan J. Jerrell; few or no online sources that aren't mirrors. "Unequibryologic thinking is so abstract and free-form it is difficult to tell a genuine usage from an incorrect one, or even a malicious parody" -- perhaps that's what this is? Jfire (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--before nominator's quote from the article, it makes its own case for non-notability: "it remains an essential element of Comarxist, Situationist-Lettrist philosophy." Given that "Comarxism" doesn't exist, the topic's notability is pretty much shot. In all seriousness, there is nothing here. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as it has the air of a hoax about it. -- Sharpbrood (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete Nothing across extensive research databases on "Unequibryologic." That the word may appear in a few independent texts doesn't imply notability. Looks like either hoax or word salad. If the silly stuff (e.g., about its susceptibility to parody) could be replaced with sensible discussion, it may be possible to rescue it. Jlg4104 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Aw, this is just silliness. Delete it. Jlg4104 (talk) 05:10, 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 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial Crown[edit]

Non notable musical group. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:MUSIC. Reads like a fansite, full of POV forks. One of the sources is a link for MP3s. I can find no reviews about this band online nor have they toured or released any album on a notable label. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1(talk) 20:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an musical group he released in Germany and Estonia Suicidal Angels.

[9], The Embraced Review and is listed by Amazon [10]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Ward3001 (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Ontology[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this topic. Seems to be a neologism. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article subject is a neologism and a reference to a non-notable product. The browser plugin referred to in the article appears to have been a real Firefox plugin at some point, but it was hosted on a server that is now inaccessible. Wronkiew (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: no sources, or any indication that the topic exists at all. As well to have an article on 'Fairy Ontology' or '[insert word here] Ontology'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Messiah 6[edit]

Fails WP:NM, non-notable mixtape. No coverage from third-party reliable sources. DiverseMentality 19:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, just in case it is written to be notable. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete for now. non notable future mixtape. no outside sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 02:57, 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 No consensus; (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Bruni[edit]

Finding no evidence at all that would lead me to believe this person meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability. Her book (which has a separate article, also up for deletion for not being individually notable) may or may not qualify, but notability for having a Wikipedia article does not transfer from a book to its author or vice versa (so if anyone argues here that the book is notable, that's not applicable here). Google news search on her name shows only six articles ever mentioning that name: 3 in clear relation to the book and the incident the book covers (which has its own Wikipedia article), 3 strictly gossip oriented (accused by another of being drunk, having a catfight -- apparently the same incident). A regular Google search finds nothing of any value either really: a mere 1,800 hits with the name in quotes, with the sites in question being ones that fail Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources and the name being mentioned in trivial circumstances or clearly about the incident that already has an article. As a point of comparison, I picked someone I know who self-published a book and has a unique name so that there wouldn't be false positives, and it returns 6,000 hits with the name in quotes. If this person is honestly notable separate from the book/incident in question, I would love for someone to actually put reliable sources in the article documenting it. If it turns out the book is notable, then this should redirect to it, or vice versa. DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent prior AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "recent" prior AFD was deleted so this one could go up (procedural, it was a withdrawal of a withdrawal, so recreation works better), so if you had an actual Wikipedia-based reason to say Keep that you put on that AFD, that's now this one, so you ought to say it again. The still existing previous AFD is quite old (not recent) and included a lot of keeps but with no explanation of WHY anyone would think it's notable. This isn't a vote where people get to keep any article at all just by saying "keep" and nothing else, this is a discussion about its merits on Wikipedia. So far I've seen nothing from anyone that gives any reason how this article could possibly meet Wikipedia standards. Care to try? DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't violate WP:AGF. I was referring to the August AFD, which I consider recent enough. I don't think it is appropriate to press the same issues on an AFD within a few months, it borders on disruptive editing. Your comments border on uncivil badgering. I find the reasoning in the prior AFD a sufficient basis to keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that would be the AFD in August he is refering to - I doubt many peopel would be aware of the botched deleted AFD or consider it as counting. The main changes to the article since that date seem to be that a lot of the references have been questioned and removed by yourself. Taking that at face value then the article does indeed need refences, but from the last AFD that doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all. The google research above just seems like irrelevant handwaving to me I'm afraid. Artw 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN is relevant to Wolfowitz' rationale. With regard to the need for references, WP:BURDEN states that the burden of doing this falls on the person adding content. Unsourced content should be aggressively removed, and the remainder, if non-notable, should be deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent AFD. Artw (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above for exact same reason. DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:BIO is not satisfied. Prior AfD is not applicable now that this information from nom has come to light. Prior AfD keep was based on there simply being multiple mentions in RS, which have by and large disappeared. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good sleuthing, DreamGuy. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for doing the original legwork. DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book article (or the incident article, if that one is deleted) Doesn't appear to have notability out of having authored that book, and is only notable for that book. There is nothing notable on the article, apart from authoring the book. The links that were removed appear to be of very low quality (for example this looked promising, but turns out that it's only promoting a book) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ti the incident, under the assumption the book article will be deleted also. Better to have the redirect, so as to deal with people who might not see an article and decide to write one. DGG (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Having had quite a look at this article and You Can't Tell the People (also up for deletion)I beleive that since her notability comes from the book and the books notability comes from her actions (questions asked in the house of lords, the stunty launch, etc)merging part of the book article into this one would result in a much stronger article - With the synopsis section being dropped since it is largely recovers ground already covered in Rendlesham Forest incident. Artw (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect agree with DGG. Build up, don't tear down, unless absolutely nessesary. And it's not absolute. AWT (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant parts to You Can't Tell the People, or Rendlesham Forest incident if the book is also deleted or merged there. WP:BLP1E applies, and the level of detail already in the incident article seems about appropriate if that is the only one kept. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO. No non-trivial (mere mentions need not apply) third-party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've merged in 'You can't tell the people', per the AFD for that article and my comments above. I've left out the synopsis as it seemed overly long and too much a retelling of events covered at Rendlesham Forest incident - if someone wants to put in a more condesed verison then I guess that would be helpfull. I would urge those voting delete or merge to take a look at this latest version of the article and consider changing their votes. Artw (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per the new version, and the references that establish WP:N.--Jmundo (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball sleeve[edit]

Non-notable medical instrument. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep; hard to say that a medical instrument is non-notable. Possible redirect to compression bandage or something, but it does seem that they're out there and have some commentary: e.g. [11]--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere I'm not sure if this is the most common term for the thing; I've also seen it called a shooter sleeve or arm sleeve. But in any case, it's worth discussing somewhere, either in its own article, or in a larger article about basketball equipment. Here are some news items about it: [12], [13], [14], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate article Users are abusing their powers in deleting this article. There is not good reason whatsoever. This articles extends the knowledge of Wikipedia. There just needs to be more contributors on the job in editing this article. It does not need to be merged into a larger article because there are so much information on this particular topic. It should be kept for editing purposes. Over time, this article will expand and become a great article on Wikipedia. I myself wanted to see this article on Wikipedia and that is why I created it. There are so many things regarding it. Also, "shooting sleeve" and "arm sleeve" can be words that redirect to this article. Please consider what I said. Speedy deletion would be a very poor decision. --Neil Nijhawan 18:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting Wikipedia's goal

Wikipedia's goal is stated as follows: "The goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available..." People who use Wikipedia will be ignorant of this topic when they look for it for research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilstar32 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Give an article a chance

You never allowed this article to extend to its full potential. Like I said, as time goes on, more people would've made this article expand.--Neil Nijhawan 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be an ostrich "Just because you don't know the subject of an article doesn't mean it is without merit for inclusion on Wikipedia." I realized that the people who are not that aware of the basketball sleeve are the ones who want speedy deletion. These same people did not give time for people who knew of this topic to edit it.

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

These users are doing their best to keep newcomers out of Wikipedia. You cannot expect a newcomer to know all the rules ahead of times.

Merge and redirect; this phenomenon is too limited to warrant a full article. Should be merged with and redirected to compression bandage. Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an article on compression sportswear, which isn't great, but might be a useful merge target. Zagalejo^^^ 00:20, 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 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Mister (book)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per James Burns. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:45, 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 speedy deleted and salted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Holder[edit]

Non-Notable Lawyer. Article was recreated after speedy by what appears to be someone from Zapwater Communications, a PR firm she is a client of. Thus making the article one big COI & Spam violation as well. Improbcat (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and salt per G4. This page has been speedied five times and needs to be blocked from creation. Graymornings_(talk) 20:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and salt per Graymornings --Numyht (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy indeed--blatant self-promotion. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, indef-block original author - the original author has no desire to cooperate with the community. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zii[edit]

There was a prod disagreement, so I'm sending this over here. There are references here, but they give no evidence as to why this website might be notable. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WEB says "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." So far its only achievements or impact seem to have been making a couple of technology sites ([15], [16] for example) speculate on what it might be but come to basically no conclusions. That hardly seems like significant enough coverage to meet WP:N. When Creative Labs sees fit to announce what the site is for, we can recreate the article or add a section to the company's article if it turns out to be significant. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: the two 'references' currently in the article are a link to Zii itself and this, which as far as I can see has no relevance beyond the words 'stem cell'. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Olaf Davis. A mystery website is hardly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:17, 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 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrows Gaming INC[edit]

Procedural nomination; the article has been tagged for notability since June 2007, and I could neither establish the reliability of the sources cited nor find significant coverage in reliable sources through an online search. I have no strong opinion on the fate of the article. Skomorokh 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, appears to be promotional. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a promotional feel to the material and little evidence of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time Off[edit]

Procedural nomination; article has been tagged for notability since June 2007 and I could not find significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources through Google News/Books/Scholar. Skomorokh 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had little difficulty finding sources. See WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw those too; which do you think satisfy WP:GNG? The article remains unreferenced. Skomorokh 12:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources appear to be available but someone needs to show some interest in improving the article. --Stormbay (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the time period this was in print, this would have been a notable alt publication and circulation figures are rather substantial. That they continue to publish online actually puts them ahead of the curve in that regard. We're better off improving this than deleting so the only issues remain are regular editing. -- Banjeboi 05:32, 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 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Storey (cinematographer)[edit]

Procedural nomination; tagged for notability since June 2007, no sources cited except Imdb. No opinion on the outcome of this discussion. Skomorokh 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor credits or direction of barely-viewed works, not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable biography --Stormbay (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus; (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Ramlu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has been tagged for notability since June 2007. The article includes some coverage in third party sources, the subject has published at least two books, and there is a chance of meeting the spirit of WP:PROF as the head of department in a major university. This is a procedural nomination and I have no strong opinion on the outcome. Skomorokh 16:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head of a major department in one of the most prestigious technological universities in the world; author of two books on his subject. this = authority in his subject per WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am a little concerned about the use of "procedural nomination:". I understand that to mean when one sends an article to afd on behalf of someone, or the like technical step. Having a notability tag for any length of time whatever is not reason for nomination--the proper "procedure" at that point is an attempt at sourcing, not passing it to afd as if it were routine. and if one thinks it more likely than not to be notable oneself, there's certainly no reason to nominate it. We have enough work with the articles that one thinks should be deleted.DGG (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A procedural nomination is one which is submitted according to a procedure; the procedure here was to send to AfD all articles tagged for notability from this month which were not clearly notable, uncontroversially deletable or merge/redirect candidates. As a nod to the loaded definition of "procedural nomination" to which you allude, I as nominator was not endorsing a delete outcome. As for the reasoning behind the procedure, despite being an eventualist I think it is unsustainbly bad practice not to address within a month or two tags relating to the existential viability of articles. I hope this clarifies the nomination a little. Skomorokh 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a unit head at IIT does not meet WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society). Negligible citation impact, based on this search. His book “Mine disasters and mine rescue” yields only 36 entries in Worldcat; this is the most widely held book by this author.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is an Indian engineer; the work will probably have primary reference to India. WorldCat covers almost no Indian libraries, and very few libraries in the US and Canada buy books relating to India. The citation indexes--every one of them--do not appreciably cover Indian journals. There is currently no central catalog of books held in Indian libraries, or a citation index to Indian journals. This produces an enormous cultural bias.

As for the status of the position, i would not have claimed the importance of being the head of department for any other Indian university but IIT. The quality of the school makes a difference, and such factors are the reasons for guidelines being flexible. DGG (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not appear to meet WP:PROF and the publication record is weak. --Stormbay (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG. Also, being born in 1927, most of his work should predate the internet, increasing the systematic bias from usual search methods.John Z (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, basically per Eric Yurken. The citability results[17] are small (even taking into account that most of his work would have probably be done in the 1970s) and WorldCat library holdings results for both of his books[18][19] are small as well. I am not prepared to read too much into his position as a department head at IIT in the absence of some more tangible evidence of the impact of his research. It may simply be that he had greater interests and talents in the administrative area compared to research, which is partly indicated by the fact that he was also Dean of Sponsored Research at IIT. For establishing notability on the basis of administrative accomplishments, WP:PROF is asking for higher level posts than department head or Dean. Nsk92 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rezolution[edit]

This article has been tagged for notability since June 2007. Though it makes no assertion of notability, some third party coverage exists. This is a procedural nomination, I have no strong opinion on the fate of the article. Skomorokh 15:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non notable game. --Stormbay (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stormbay and WP:N. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 04:45, 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 21:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCM&E[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/RCM&E

This article has been tagged for notability and referencing since June 2007. A Google search reveals some coverage, but I could not any that would mean the topic satisfies WP:N. This is a procedural nomination and I have no strong opinion on the fate of the article. Skomorokh 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was created by Davidashby (talk · contribs), and lists as the magazine's deputy editor a Mr. David Ashby. Skomorokh 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom The Rolling Camel (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete The nomination covers it and the possible COI is an added concern. --Stormbay (talk) 03:43, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA ^duel 23:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Juhfiyeh[edit]

I hate to have to nominate this article, because I think it might be an interesting archeological site, but I cannot find any significant coverage for Tell Juhfiyeh. All I can locate is where it is, and when it dates from, and that comes from a single source. Almost all the other mentions are WP copies, or unreliable, or just listings with the name in them. Fails WP:Notability despite my efforts to clean it up, therefore nominating for Deletion. Afd rather than prod for extra measure of review in case I missed something. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Arabic Wikipedia's article apparently has 3 sources and it quite a bit more extensive than the English Wikipedia's article. Looking at it through an automatic translator gives the impression that it is indeed notable. If someone who reads Arabic could help us out and source this article, it is probably salvageable. LinguistAtLarge 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will concur and withdraw if we can get confirmation that "Tell Jehvip" is the same site as "Tell Juhfiyeh", and in that case I would strongly suggest the arabic WP article be translated, because it makes the notability very clear. This article was previously titled "Tell Juhfiyeh (Johfiyeh)", so that suggests there are alternative translations, however "Tell Jehvip" is not what shows in the history, and the arabic article for "Tell Jehvip" suggests it is from the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age, whereas the source for "Tell Jehfiyeh" says Iron Age. BUT... The arabic WP article suggests that "Tell Jehvip" is located 7.5mi SW from Irbid, and the english WP article confirms that "Tell Juhfiyeh" is also located 7.5mi SW from Irbid. SO... It looks like these are the same sites, but can we get confirmation of that from an Arabic speaker familiar with Jordan and Jordan's geography? Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just noticed my above post is a grammatical mess. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Running the Arabic spelling of Juhfiyeh listed in the Juhfiyeh article, "جحفية", through Google's Arabic->English translator does indeed produce "Jehvip" as the English spelling. As noted above, confirmation by a human translator would be greatly appeciated. Afterwards I will gladly withdraw the nomination, with the recommendation that the English articles for "Tell Juhfiyeh' and "Juhfiyeh" be linked with the "Jehvip" spelling, and that the English article for "Tell Juhfiyeh" be drastically editing to reflect the information in the Arabic article. I will do what I can in that regard. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say be WP:BOLD and do it. LinguistAtLarge 22:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination: I'm withdrawing my nomination because it is probably a waste of our collective time to get this human translated. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per above. Nom withdrawn and no deletes.John Z (talk) 22:52, 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. StarM 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Johnston[edit]

This athlete played a couple non-notable years; there is nothing notable about this player. Further, this article has original research and leans to POV. Finally, the article actually lists the man's next-door neighbor. This article is pure garbage. Timneu22 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports).—Sandahl (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~Passes WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

How on earth does it pass that? Black Kite 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, fails WP:ATHLETE. Black Kite 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Schuym1 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article that can be improved should never be deleted. As shown by the large number of news stories (here, here, and the Google News search), he undoubtly passes WP:ATHLETE although the idiocy about the man's next-door neighbor certainly needs to be removed. DARTH PANDA ^duel 18:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. He has never played in a professional league. Tavix (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, they changed WP:ATHLETE! Time away from AfDs really does that to you... Well, anyways, he fails it now, so Delete. DARTH PANDA ^duel 21:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE Tavix (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ur all fuckers

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction Is Folks[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient 3rd party verification. JamesBurns (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per James Burns. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:30, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Little (singer)[edit]

The subject is not notable per WP:Notability_(music). She appears to have performed one, perhaps two, songs in the soundtrack of a single movie. More information on this individual can be found at http://www.australiamovie.net/2008/12/australia-the-soundtrack/ and http://www.opheliaofthespirits.com/. Article was originally tagged with {prod} template but was deleted by the author without explanation. JohnInDC (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient notability, as per WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be asserted (perhaps a review of her score?)--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as nomination was withdrawn. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern School, Lucknow[edit]

This article is entirely an advertisement. If the school is notable (which however seems to be rather unclear to me), the article should be recreated in due time from a neutral point of view. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear advertisment and complete violation of NOPV. Does not establish notability. R.T. 14:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as problems have now been addressed. R.T. 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – rewrite yes, deletion no. There is more than enough coverage from 3rd party – reliable – certifiable sources to establish notability. Bad writing is not a reason for deletion. I started to reference the piece and correct some of the misinformation. But all in all a keeper. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. TopGearFreak 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not mean to sound sarcastic here, but did you even read the article. The opening statement establishes notability and is clearly referenced. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify if needed. Clearly meets WP:N. Plus high schools are generally notable. Hobit (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are generally notable. There are two o.k. refs in the article. A quick search shows more could be added if needed. The current version is not great, but does not read like an advert to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite from a neutral point of view. LinguistAtLarge 16:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the POV problems have been taken care of. LinguistAtLarge 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not only contains a high school but also has won a significant award to underscore its notability. TerriersFan (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - since the article has effectively been rewritten and the advertisement removed, I withdraw the nomination. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:01, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ball sport (Battlestar Galactica)[edit]

Unreferenced piece of original research about a fictional ball game that appeared in a few episodes of a TV show. Appears to be few useful sources available. Note that this is not the card game which also appears under the names Triad and Pyramid and has an article at Pyramid_(card_game). Black Kite 13:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, hard to follow. TopGearFreak 14:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep or merge. This is related to the card game (see the article). There are also a few references to this game. [20], [21]. Article is in horrible shape, but this might be recoverable. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Battlestar Galactica: The Official Magazine, issue 1, pp. 28-29 apparently has an article on this. While primary, I'm happy to remove the weak part. It certainly needs a rename though (triad or pyramid). I'd suggest merging the two topics actually. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica sports? Possible. There are far more sources on the card game than there are on this (which is why I didn't nom it). Black Kite 15:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced plot summary for non-notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is not a hopeless case, as indicated by Hobit, and deletion is therefore not appropriate. See policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit and Colonen Warden. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Unreferenced to reliable secondary sources, consisting solely of plot and bearing no evidence of meeting the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing sourced to merge, and the article title is too bad to serve as a search term. Sentences like "Since the rules aren't given", "seems to have been more thought out as a sport than it was in the original show" and "Ronald Moore said at a convention" imply that there's a lot of original research/synthesis and unverifiability besides the plot summary, all of which are a very poor reason to have the article. I am not convinced that the sources from above are anything but trivial plot summaries, but I encourage others to prove me wrong. No reservation against article recreation if properly written, although it maybe wiser to add found information to a parent article and wait for SPINOUT potential. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backup MyPC[edit]

non-notable software. The article seems designed ('Due to changes in both product and company names, this article may help customers still holding a version of BackUp MyPC, or who formerly used Backup Exec Desktop locate the successor product PC BackUp and the current company that distributes PC BackUp.') to be a help manual rather than an article, and the only claims to notability are ridden with OR ('Backup MyPC is believed by the author of this article to have originated as the desktop version of Backup Exec.' for example). Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination - WP:OR and fails WP:N. See also creator's rationale for creating the article explained at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Can I set a future expiration date for an article I create?. ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Tracking the ownership and/or name changes of a relatively obscure piece of software, through WP:SYNTH & outright WP:OR is WP:NOT within the purview of Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps?[edit]

I would still like contribute this information (this product name, which is part of the history of two other products) if not in the form of a separate article.

I would like to avoid, however, adding this information as part of the history of the current product, for which I would need to add an article, and of its predecessor Backup Exec, which is already present, and then have that article and edits to Backup Exec also be rejected.

I didn't have any comments or problems with a few previous contributions I made, so this review process is new to me.

One member was kind enough to reply in an area I found through 'Help' and that led me to this page as the correct place to discuss this article.

I only added the rationale for the article within the article in response to the proposed deletion, and would otherwise not have put in those sentences, but they seem to have created additional objections.

I understand those objections as well, but as you can see, am having some difficulty understanding where best to include this information. I certainly see information in WikiPedia about defunct companies that were related to current products and companies, just as Backup MyPC is a defunct product related to current products and companies.

CornanTheIowan (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial thing to have in this sort of situation to avoid deletion is reliable, third-party sources. If you can find those then the information will probably be kept if you include it as part of the history of Backup Exec. Ironholds (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now rewritten the article almost completely. While the information in this article was difficult to find originally (predecessor and successor products and companies), once I knew all those names it was easier to find references.

I'm not sure if I will be able to find Internet citations for every detail, the all the major events are now covered with external references.

CornanTheIowan (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(finished editing)[edit]

I'm ready for further review. Backup MyPC has in fact a long history beginning as Veritas Backup Exec Desktop and extending up to the present, though in my first revision I had yet to pull together the most recent pieces of its history.

I may add one more reference to Backup MyPC's use as an OEM backup tool on recent / current Hewlett-Packard computers, but I'm not satisfied with the citation I could provide yet.

Other than that, I'm open to further input and review and hope that I can share this history at WikiPedia. As with other reference articles, its purpose is to bring together information that would otherwise take visitors some time to collate from multiple sources, just as it did for me.

CornanTheIowan (talk) 11:23, 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. StarM 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Warm Welcome[edit]

Articles on chapters of fiction books are too granular. Covered in The Hobbit. Failed {{prod}} by author removal. Toddst1 (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to the proper book article?. Wikipedia is not Sparknotes. TheLetterM (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may well be there is enough out there to write such an article, but I can't find it and this article isn't even close. Hobit (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. It's even "signed" as though it were a talk page. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:06, 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 Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Laser[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable group. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable album by notable group. See this for a professional review of it by a reliable, third party magazine and [here is another one. Ironholds (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Ironholds. I also found this, this, this, and this Schuym1 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK...withdrawn. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Panda (group)[edit]

Non-notable band. Search found very few Google hits. Fails WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per third-party reliable coverage here and here. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news search showed plenty of coverage.--Michig (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmmm...wonder why my search didn't come up with much of anything...withdrawn. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Solis Nery[edit]

blatant advertisement written by the subject (WP:COI is not a justification for deletion, but often indicates the intent of the author) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI and intent are not reasons to delete; in this case, it would be the notability of the poet that is being contested. He's won several awards and, imo, is perfectly notable; Keep and cleanup, I'll do the second bit in a few hours. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Does need clean up, and yes there maybe COI but they are not reasons for deletion. I inline cited and referenced the piece to establish nobility. I’ll clean-up some of the other fluff, but this is a definite Keeper. Happy New Year all. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Insane Poetry. Speedily redirected, this didn't really need an AfD and redirects are cheap. Black Kite 13:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in chaos[edit]

non-notable album. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:47, 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 21:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice (recording artist)[edit]

not notable; fails WP:MUSIC; advertisement written by someone affiliated with the subject (I know WP:COI is not justification for deletion; however, it does shed light on the intent of the author). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Press release-like language aside, the subject is a self-distributed musician with extremely slight credentials beyond "sharing the stage" with other recording artists. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject doesn't come close to meeting requirements of WP:MUSIC; blatant advertisement that appears to have been written by the subject or someone associated with her. -- 68.183.55.64 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. This one isn't even close. -- 128.97.245.9 (talk) 09:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demand Generation[edit]

I can't tell that "demand generation" differs in any way from marketing and wonder if this article is a particular person's original research on that subject. Comments? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR. Usrnme h8er (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made a comment about Demand Generation not being different from Marketing, and it's worth a clarification. Marketing is a very broad term that encompasses everything from branding, advertising, and promotion to product strategy, pricing, and merchandising. Demand Generation, is the subset of marketing (usually in business to business) that focuses on more tactical campaigns that generate leads for a field sales team. It is a market space that is relatively new, perhaps 5 to 10 years old, and does not have a Wikipedia entry yet. It's a term that is recognized by industry analysts like Forrester, Aberdeen, Sirius Decisions, etc, so I do feel it warrants a separate entry from Marketing.

Since branding, advertising, promotion, product strategy, pricing, and merchandising all have the goal of generating demand, I'm skeptical about the specificity of this designation! Anyway, since a deletion discussion is in effect, the place to most effectively make your thoughts known about the nomination is on the discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demand Generation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Demand Generation, as a sub topic of the general topic Marketing, is similar to the other sub topics like advertising, branding, etc. Those all have separate Wikipedia entries, as they are separate disciplines in Marketing, with separate skills, roles, techniques, etc. The question is whether, given the fact that there is of course overlap between any of the sub topics, Demand Generation should be seperate. This is similar to drawing a line between Advertising and Branding, whereas they share many of the same concepts (a TV spot does both), they are really separate disciplines with separate thought processes

Demand Generation is both relatively new, and mostly relevant in a B2B environment, but I believe warrants a separate entry for two reasons - the advent of significant numbers of Vice President level roles with a title of Demand Generation, showing significant corporate adoption, and the coverage of analyst groups like Sirius Decisions, Aberdeen, Forrester Research, etc. Thoughts?

—Steven Woods (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that until recently, generating demand wasn't a focus of marketing? I always thought that it was the overwhelming purpose of marketing and of nearly every one of its subdisciplines, and that this has been so for centuries, but now you're saying it's a relatively new concept. The point I'm trying to make is that demand generation isn't an aspect of marketing (like branding, ad placement, POP displays, store placement, tie-ins, premiums, PR, etc.), it's its purpose. It also isn't clear why it would be specifically B2B, as though the very real goal of generating demand among consumers wouldn't rightly be called "demand generation" —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the general notion of "generating demand" is common throughout the history of marketing, but the structured discipline of managing, nurturing, scoring, and handling the flow of leads that come from the variety of online sources where people get their information IS new. That marketing discipline is what the wikipedia article on Demand Generation refers to. Prior to the popular adoption of the Internet for any and all information gathering, marketing would create buzz (via promotion, advertising, etc), which led to inbound phone calls, which would go straight to sales.

Now, that is not how people buy (they use Google, websites, free trials, etc), and marketing (especially in B2B) has developed a discipline of cultivating and managing this online demand. That discipline, and the marketing departments that support it, is called Demand Generation. Demand Generation departments, executive roles, analyst research, vendor communities, etc, have really only been around in any significance for 5-10 years, hence the absence of this entry on Wikipedia to date. It is now a significant discipline in marketing though, so I do feel it warrants an entry.

How would a debate like this best be resolved? What evidence would best clarify the issue?

—Steven Woods (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That will depend on what other comments make their way here. The article won't be deleted unless a consensus for deletion is established here. I still don't understand what you're saying—if there's a new discipline rooted in the new Internet technology, why would it be named something generic that doesn't distinguish the new discipline from the activities that that name equally well describes and that have been going on all along?—but if the discipline is genuine and notable, then that's a side quibble and would lead at most to a proposal to change the name of the article to something more specific. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Multiple sources in Google Books, and additional resources found at the summit.--Jmundo (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Demand Generation is a neologism for marketing. There is no evidence this term is notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:42, 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, Sandstein 09:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I was originally going with a merge/redirect to Marketing, however, after reading the piece, and looking on Google Scholar there is a proliferation of books – essays – texts and such, as shown here [22] that I can easily see an article on the subject. I would ask the author to rethink his current choice of references, more than happy to give him a hand, but overall I say keep. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this proliferation of books establish that "demand generation" isn't just a newfangled buzzword meaning "marketing" and that it calls for its own treatment separate from the Marketing article? —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree, it is part of the Marketing genre. However, in my reading of the term Demand Generation Demand Creation are actual one and the same, with the term being used interchangeably and is a specific part of a marketing strategy. In reviewing the topic page on Marketing, I noticed that the page is quite long at this point and has several articles, similar to this one, listed as see also. In that this article deals specifically with a given aspect of the marketing, plan and is referenced and cited, I see it as a stand-alone piece. Regarding newfangled word, I saw cites as far back as 1977 when I did my search. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Marketing -- use of a different term for the same thing doesn't warrant a new article unless the phrase itself has established specific notability only applicable to that phrase. (I'd be hard pressed to even come up with an example that would work, but can imagine that circumstance like that might exist.) DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty much per Shoessss. Plenty of reliable sources can be found in Scholar; they just need to be included. MuZemike (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoessss. Plenty of reliable sources can be found in Google Scholar, and they just need to be included. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Shoessss I would definitely like to take you up on your offer for references help - I'm a newbie here. Also, I agree with the comment on Demand Generation and Demand Creation often being used somewhat interchangeably to refer to the same area of marketing.

—Steven Woods (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not a problem. Sorry for the delay getting back to you, but on a short holiday. I’ll start giving you a hand tomorrow. Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:39, 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 no consensus. to delete. Valid concerns raised on both sides, but there is ultimately no consensus to delete this article. StarM 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Beaman[edit]

I came across this article looking for a cleanup project. But in reading it, I came to the conclusion that this guy simply does not meet WP:NOTE. So I'm placing it here for others' opinions. If it survives an AfD, I'll take the time to clean it up, but I don't want to waste my time prettifying something that should be deleted. Un school 08:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he has an entry in a Dictionary of American Biography and "An authoritative review of his life and career, "Memorial of Charles C. Beaman," prepared by Edmund Wetmore, appeared in Bar of the City of N. Y. Report, 1901, p. 96". Not enough? Juzhong (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, those two alone are not nearly enough. DreamGuy (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By past practice at AfD and the guidelines, these substantial multiple independent reliable sources are quite enough, and of course there is much more out there.John Z (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's debatable whether those are "substantial multiple independent reliable sources"... but even if sources are reliable for facts that alone doesn' mean they prove notability. The sources and topic must have some sort of notability for modern readers. Sources from more than a century ago and a trivial listing in a dictionary that covers tons of people (like a Who's Who) only demonstrate notability to someone from a century ago. DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the most blatant example of recentism that I've seen here. If he was notable a century ago, then he's still notable now in Wikipedia terms. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable per refs in article, which also include the NYT obit at the top of the 312 gnews hits, which is quite a lot.John Z (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; damn you! I was about to post the NYtimes obit :P. The article definitely needs a rewrite in tone. Unschool: the NY times obituary was on the first page of google search results. Next time I'd advise working out notability yourself and only bringing it to AfD if you're still not sure. Ironholds (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence almost sounds like a claim that it's obviously a notable person and that raising the question was a waste of everyone's time. I'd go the opposite and say it's obviously not notable and suggest to you that maybe you could learn a thing or two from the person who nominated it. DreamGuy (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but after she died, my grandmother (a high school receptionist) was in the New York Times as well, so I'm not sure that that meets the test. But I'm learning here, and I don't mind the guidance of any who offer it. Un school 03:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a death notice (non-selective) rather than an obituary (in the NYT, very selective).John Z (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could be, John Z; I was a teenager at the time, and wouldn't have noticed the difference. Question, is what we are calling an obit in the NYT different than other major city papers, such as the Chicago Tribune or Washington Post? Un school 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, how, exactly, does it pass WP:BIO? Care to explain your reasoning? Maybe a specific example from the criteria as applied to this person? DreamGuy (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since when does a NYT obit from 1900 mean someone is automatically notable for Wikipedia? Obituaries at the time were paid placements. Still are now in many places. On top of that thee were lots of minor celebrities in centuries past which would not come anywhere close to meeting current notability standards. If there are no contemporary sources calling him notable, then he's not notable. If that's the best you have, that's clearly not enough.DreamGuy (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an NYT obituary means notability for Wikipedia? - is since always afaik. Never seen anyone with an NYT obit not be kept. Do you have a source that they were paid placements back then?- something I strongly doubt. There's a difference between obituaries and paid death notices. The existence of contemporary sources is also something never required. The opposite - that notability is permanent - is what has had longstanding consensus.John Z (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any refs to back up your claim that notability is permanent? That makes no sense and has never ever been how things have been done here. And, seriously, the idea that a NYTT obituary from any years means automatic notability in Wikipedia is not only bizarre but obviously completely impractical if you take three seconds to think about it. We barely have articles for notable political figures of that time, let alone any member of society whose passing got mentioned. Someone who was a DA is 1887 isn't notable now because he was notable then. It's just common sense. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Juzhong (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So how about this book about him? THIS LAND OF PURE DELIGHT: CHARLES C. BEAMAN AND BLOWMEDOWN FARM ? Juzhong (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Juzhong, that looks pretty significant to me. DreamGuy, does this affect your opinion? Un school 03:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a self-published book by the people who run an obscure historical site. It's comparable to an art gallery publishing their own exhibition catalog, an auction house printing up a book of the items they have for sale, or toy retailer printing up a retail catalog. None of those say anything about real world notability. If the people who have vending machines at Rest Stop #43 on some state highway write up a brochure about the rest stop hoping to get people to stop by, that doesn't mean the rest stop deserves a Wikipedia article. Juzhong keeps adding things he/she thinks are sources to lots of AFDs lately, but none of them come anywhere close to Wikipedia standards. I really wish that someone who is so vocal on so many AFDs would take the time to familiarize him or herself with our standards before trying to pass off such fluff as real sources. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose he helped found a really notable rest stop, and then the folks who were continuing the legacy of the rest stop thought it was worth commemorating him by writing a book? Juzhong (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Could be better sourced, but is covered via multiple secondary sources. MuZemike (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's in the Dictionary of American Biography, and being in the national biography of any country is considered undoubted reason why there should be a Wikipedia article. There's really no need to show anything more. But since the NYT was questioned as evidence of notability: We do have a consistent policy of regarding an obit in the NYTimes as proof of notability, and every article I can remember defended on such basis has been kept, 100% of the time. Their obits are not indiscriminate or written by the family. If a case is to be made that this was not the case in their earlier years, I'd want to see some sources saying so.Lots of wp practices seem bizarre until one realizes that it helps to have direct and unambiguous criteria. We then do not have to judge on the basis of what seems important, but we can judge on the basis of what good authorities consider to be notable. Otherwise we start getting into a dispute about the notability of lawyers and analyzing each career. we'd do better to write articles. DGG (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think an entry in the Dictionary of American Biography is enough to confer notability. However, it appears that the bulk of this article (up to "He died in New York in December of the following year. -- H. W. Howard Knott") has been copied verbatim from that source (which is available through Gale's online Biography Resource Center). Zagalejo^^^ 20:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG has the right of it, as far as I have been able to tell from other debates. Additionally, his book on the Alabama claims is used as a source in that article and was reprinted in the Michigan Historical Reprint Series. This suggests that he made an enduring contribution to his field, though I admit to not checking more deeply. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either the NYT obit or the Dictionary of American Biography alone would have been enough evidence of notability, per long-standing consensus. Jfire (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. More than enough sources have been presented to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EPIPE[edit]

Non-notable permastub with no sources. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:27, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Delete- Patented barrier coatings technology with no mention in scholarly publications which significantly prevents expansion on description level. News search or regular search also doesn't indicate any significant prevalent usage. Importance on usage as Unix needs to be evaluated. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any information that wasn't part of an advertisement. Raitchison (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability as established by the above research. MuZemike (talk) 22:03, 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 merge to Georgina Bruni . MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Tell the People[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You Can't Tell the People

Not a notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the book made it to a revised edition. I'm a little disgruntled by the links to lanridpath.com, but checking the edit history shows that the article is not purely self-promotion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but need work. Very notable. Build articles up, expand knowledge, don't tear them down. AWT (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guy who runs the place, if an article doesn't have reliable sources it should be ruthlessly deleted. Deletion is a form of building up the encyclopedia. If you believe it's "very notable" then please provide evidence of it that meets Wikipedia criteria. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:JNN 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VAGUEWAVE DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A seems to have a fairly wide following, easily meets WP:NB IMO. Raitchison (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any rationale or evidence for why you think it meets WP:NB? And if you come up with any concrete reasons, could you edit the article to reflect that, please.DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Rendlesham Forest incident (or merge anything potentially useful that's not already on the other page). People assert that it's notable or passes WP:NB, but give absolutely no indication of why they think so. And, certainly, if it does meet WP:NB it should be trivial for one of these keep voters to go to the article and edit it to prove so. Voting keep without improving the article doesn't improve Wikipedia at all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per DreamGuy's rationale. There's enough explanation of her nethods and such to warrnet inclusion in her article or in the article for the incident, but there's not enough notability or outside criticism substantiated for a separate article. ThuranX (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgina Bruni. I couldn't find any reliable sources establishing notability as an independent article; the basic information of the book is already mentioned in the Georgina Bruni article. Plausible search term. MuZemike (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Georgina Bruni or Rendlesham Forest incident. If it's notable then where are the sources showing notability? Please present some. Google books only shows a few UFO books mentioning it[23]. Idem for google scholar [24]. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge the lead into Georgina Bruni - which should make that a considerably stronger article, and to a large extent her reputation and the books reputation are inseperable (questions asked in the house of lords, the stunty launch, etc). I'd leave the synopsis section out of being dropped since it is largely recovers ground already covered in Rendlesham Forest incident. I don't beleive we should merge either article into Rendlesham Forest incident. Artw (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Georgina Bruni: Information is already detailed in the Bruni article, not notable enough to stand on its own. JamesBurns (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that this book meets WP:BK. Non-notable book about a notable incident. Sources relating to the underlying Rendlesham Forest Incident do not add notability to this topic, for which no non-trivial third party references exist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:25, 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. or at the very least no consensus for deletion. Whether the material should be kept in a separate article or merged elsewhere does not require an AfD. There is no consensus to delete the material especially since one of the delete votes essentially supports a merge. If Nick Pope is deleted at some point in the future and this article has been merged, GFDL issues can be dealt with at that point. StarM 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Lightning Strike[edit]

Nick Pope walled garden non-notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but need work. Very notable. Build articles up, expand knowledge, don't tear them down. AWT (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, how about you provide evidence of it? DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Review here [25]. I'm guessing there are more, but don't have time to search. JulesH (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a somewhat pointy nomination. His books are notable, regardless of what subject they're on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria 5 of WP:NB if nothing else. Raitchison (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. "?! Nick Pope? No offense, but WHO?!? That criteria is for people like Shakespeare and Poe and so forth, and in practice some of the famous people like that do not even have articles for all of their works. DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nick Pope. If this book were as notable as the Keep votes assert, the article would have some amount of that in there. Unfortunately, this article is like so many other UFO articles - It's all self-cited, with no outside information, reviews, analysis, assertions of notability. Stick it in the author's article. Notability not inherited. This same argument for all Nick Pope books. ThuranX (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Nick Pope. Inadequate evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And I am shocked that there are keep votes here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same rationale I have made in the other two Nick Pope book AFDs. MuZemike (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Nick Pope. No sources showing notability. People can re-create when they have them. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 02:48, 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. or at the very least no consensus for deletion. Whether the material should be kept in a separate article or merged elsewhere does not require an AfD. There is no consensus to delete the material especially since one of the delete votes essentially supports a merge. If Nick Pope is deleted at some point in the future and this article has been merged, GFDL issues can be dealt with at that point. StarM 23:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Thunder Child[edit]

Nick Pope walled garden non-notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but need work. Very notable. AWT (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just copy and past this to lots of AFDs? "Very notable"? Would you mind explaining how you came to that conclusion? DreamGuy (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Review here. Mentioned here (in David Langford's Ansible) although somewhat trivial. JulesH (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a somewhat pointy nomination. His books are notable, regardless of what subject they're on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria 5 of WP:NB if nothing else. Raitchison (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." does not apply to Nick Pope or tons of other authors. He's a million miles away from Shakespeare. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nick Pope. If this book were as notable as the Keep votes assert, the article would have some amount of that in there. Unfortunately, this article is like so many other UFO articles - It's all self-cited, with no outside information, reviews, analysis, assertions of notability. Stick it in the author's article. Notability not inherited. This same argument for all Nick Pope books. ThuranX (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick Pope. Inadequate evidence the book itself is notable. Pope is not so notable that any book he writes automatically deserves an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anythign salvageable to Nick Pope, but that article needs some major editing to begin with anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, you cannot !vote to delete and merge at the same time due to GFDL concerns; it's one or the other (I assume smerge). MuZemike (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also could not find any reliable secondary sources for this book. I also oppose a merge as I also support deletion of Nick Pope. MuZemike (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work to source better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Nick Pope. No sources showing notability. People can re-create when they have them. It has the same problems as Operation Lightning Strike from the same author. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources for this article. JamesBurns (talk) 02:47, 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. or at the very least no consensus for deletion. Whether the material should be kept in a separate article or merged elsewhere does not require an AfD. There is no consensus to delete the material especially since one of the delete votes essentially supports a merge. If [[Nick Pope[]] is deleted at some point in the future and this article has been merged, GFDL issues can be dealt with at tat point. StarM 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Skies, Closed Minds[edit]

Nick Pope walled-garden non-notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but need work. Very notable. It's his autobiography and the UFO version of Spycatcher. Build articles up, expand knowledge, don't tear them down. AWT (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly notable within its field. Being in a "walled garden" is not grounds for deletion - write some links. Another Science Apologist classic - "I don't believe in it, make it go away". Do some research, SA. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:CIVIL... and instead of just declaring itnotable you might want to try to give a Wikipedia-specific reason why it would qualify as notable. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil? You can talk. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a somewhat pointy nomination. His books are notable, regardless of what subject they're on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria 5 of WP:NB if nothing else. Raitchison (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not by a long shot. Nick Pope is not so famous everything he touches is famous by extension. He's not Shakespeare. In fact, it's arguable if he's even notable enough for a Wikipedia article himself. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nick Pope. If this book were as notable as the Keep votes assert, the article would have some amount of that in there. Unfortunately, this article is like so many other UFO articles - It's all self-cited, with no outside information, reviews, analysis, assertions of notability. There's one paragraph there, stick it in the author's article. Notability not inherited. ThuranX (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nick Pope. Inadequate evidence the book itself is notable. Pope is not so notable that any book he writes automatically deserves an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything worth saving to the main article, which has massive problems of its own (no reliable sources, etc.). DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I could not find any significant coverage of this book through reliable secondary sources to establish notability. I also oppose a merge as I also support deletion of Nick Pope (in which I have just endorsed its PROD). MuZemike (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some refs over there, for what it's worth.Artw (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known and widely sold book in the UK. Added some reviews, one mentioning UK bestseller status, which should help with notability questions, though more work should be done there. Artw (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably the most prominent UFO-related book in the UK, by the UK's best known ufologist. Coverage sufficient to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: insufficient 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:49, 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 per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Steiger[edit]

This writer wrote the biography of Rudolph Valentino, however, I do not believe that makes the writer of the book biographically notable. The article appears to be promotional. Is he notable for his newspaper column? I don't think so. They didn't seem to have much circulation from what I can see, but I admit to not reading many newspaper columns between 1970 and 1973. In any case, from my research of the subject, I do not think he is any more notable than your average run-of-the-mill author in spite of his WP:ONEEVENT success with the Valentino biography. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 162 books? Notable; unless you can show they're all self published. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My claim is only one of the books is notable. What is the threshhold for the number of notable books one must publish before one becomes less-than-notable? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep prolific author and columnist; Amazon carries a large number of his books; balanced article; no reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author of one notable book and 161 others. Notable author in the field of ufology, which nominator seems to have a thing against. Plase see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this guy has sold 162 books through normal publishers (not vanity presses)... he has sold 17 million copies... an average of 100,000 copies per book, and in a niche area at that? Passes notability standards by a mile. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many books, many copies. The numbers have it. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As other have said has authored many many books through independent (some major) publishers. Very notable. Raitchison (talk) 15:49, 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 redirect to Andrew Collins (author). — Aitias // discussion 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Alchemist[edit]

Fictional (or is it?) character invented by Andrew Collins. I don't think sources outside of Collins' books will be forthcoming. Does not seem notable enough a character for its own article. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect To Andrew Collins. the 'psychic questing' series of books redirexts to the author, thus both the idea of derivative notability, and of this as a spinoff article, fail to explain it. further, it's full of cite needed tags for stuff that's apparently just 'rumors in the scene' at best, which can't really ever be supported. If fully removed we'd have 'the black alchemist is the antagonist in a series of novels by AC call PQ.' not even enough for a stub or to assert notability, which is not at all asserted now. ThuranX (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ThuranX - I can't find any evidence for the real world notability of this character. Scog (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andrew Collins (author) and not plain old Andrew Collins (as mentioned by SA above), which is a disambiguation page. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andrew Collins (author). Not every character in a book needs an encyclopedia article. Are there reliable and independent sources with substantial discussion of this character, as there are, say for Professor Moriarty? Apparently not. Edison (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 05:03, 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. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilocation[edit]

WITHDRAWN

WP:NEO. Not a recognized term except by paranormal enthusiasts who seem to like to invent scientific-sounding words for every myth and story they want to believe is real. Until this term gets noticed by people who aren't true believers, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deletion rationale is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Artw (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel a follower of cults or anything, and am familiar with the term. ~~--89.78.165.36 (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)~~ --Ouro (blah blah) 07:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in, sorry)[reply]
Keep - I just found an extensive entry on Bilocation in The Catholic Enyclopedia, an entry dating back to 1907. So, no: it's not a made-term by "paranormal enthusiasts", unless you want to lump Catholics of a century ago into that category.-- P L E A T H E R _talk 07:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bilocation of Christian saints is long-since addressed in sources. That the article already mentioned this aspect of the subject at the time of nomination made this a nomination that was not only unresearched, but that was not even based upon reading the article itself. There are multiple independent sources covering the subject in depth, going back to at least the 1840s. The Primary Notability Criterion is amply satisfied. There's even a whole Christian theological dispute on the matter that isn't yet even touched upon by the article. This was an entirely meritless nomination. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive this user is trying to make some kind of WP:Point and have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Artw (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; an obviously POINT-y nom. Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:49, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moore (ufologist)[edit]

Claim is that this is a "well-known" ufologist. Hmm, I cannot find third-party (non-ufological, that is) sources that seem to think he is all that "well known". He wrote a couple of non-notable books and seems to be farmed out a lot to UFO-conventions. That's about it. I don't think he's particularly encyclopedia-worthy. WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in a small field does not require people outside the field to find the person notable. "Charles Goren" is famouns in the bridge world, but not really well-known among, say, biologists. Collect (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but notable in a small field doesn't mean notable enough for a Wikipedia article either. Notability in UFOlgoy might be enough for UFOlogopedia, but not for here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly notable in his field; notability outside of the field is not required. Article needs serious work, but this is not a reason to delete. Useful sources: [26], They Know Us Better Than We Know Ourselves Bridget Brown, NYU Press 2007, Conspiracy Theories in American History Peter Knight ISBN 1576078124. One of the leading investigators in the Roswell incident and MJ-12 conspiracy theories, two of the best known UFO-related conspiracy theories in existence. One has to question whether the nominator actually did any research into whose article he was nominating before doing so. JulesH (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"notability outside of the field is not required" -- where on earth did you ever get that idea? DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the idea from the fact that Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not say that it is. Niklaus Wirth is not notable outside of the field of computer science; perhaps we should delete the article on him also? JulesH (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he's as notable as JulesH asserts, he should be found readily in some mainstream journalism. However, 3 pages of Google results found nothing but other UFO websites, and Wikipedia mirrors. Unfortunately, UFO websites aren't neutral about the veracity of one of their own. With no real, reliable information, delete. ThuranX (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's found readily in google news archives and google books. Juzhong (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he co-authored some of the biggest books in Ufology/alternative science field (getting both Roswell and the Philadelphia Experiment into the public arena) and was an intelligence asset in the disinformation campaign waged against Paul Bennewitz as well as being one of the group who released the Majestic 12 documentation. The book Project Beta is basically all about him and I can use that to fill in quite a bit of background. The main problem is that he is... controversial and it will need a little care to avoid WP:BLP issues but it is doable. (Emperor (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Desperately needs sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability -- multiple instances of nontrivial third party reliable sources explaining why the world as a whole (as compared to UFOlogists) should care. If those can be found, then find them and put them in the article. Without any it should be deleted -- and if you come up with some later, then go ask for an undelete. No reason to keep bad articles around without improving them just by asserting that they could be improved but not proving it by actually doing it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:DEADLINE. Also see WP:DELETION which states that articles that can be fixed by editing should be in preference to deletion. JulesH (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a combination of not meeting notability standards as well as being an unreferenced BLP. If it can be reliably sourced, then I do not oppose recreating it. MuZemike (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Emperor. travb (talk) 22:00, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Brennan[edit]

This particular article, aside from being an obvious soapbox advertisement for her "schools" seems to me to fail WP:BIO. Is this woman famous outside of the fringe-elements who deign to worship any person with a collegiate degree that validate their beliefs? I don't think so. Aside from a number of fansites and references blatantly promoting this woman's business, I can find no third-party verification that she has any notability whatsoever. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally I think this sort of stuff is a load of nonsense, but that doesn't justify its deletion. If you look at other areas of the WIkipedia (I am currently trying to get some sort of NPOV on the various Ayn Rand pages and that is a real nightmare, including some of the so called notable people who have wikipedia pages) its not bad! I suggest making sure its neutral, makes no claims and promotes no specific services but otherwise keep it in place. --Snowded TALK 08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What any of us may think of this person's claims and beliefs, or those of her supporters, is wholly irrelevant to whether an article on her should be retained. Her most obvious verifiable claim to notability is that her books have been published in a variety of languages internationally, as can be seen at Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de (in translation), Amazon.fr (in translation), Amazon.jp (in translation), and elsewhere. As supporting evidence, articles on her already exist in German, Russian and French Wikipedias. The related information in the article, which gives more information on her background and claims, is intended to be wholly objective, and makes clear, for instance, that some of her claimed qualifications are from non-accredited institutions. Although the article refers to her business interests, it does so in a neutral way and is in no sense "an advertisement for her "schools"" as is claimed. Any changes to that position to reflect a non-neutral point of view should be reverted or improved, but deletion of the whole article - apparently because the editor proposing deletion (who incidentally is subject to a RFA elsewhere) rejects the views of the article subject - is unacceptable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Blowdart - this AFD smacks of bias. Brennan is about as high profile as they get in the energetic healing field. I've lost count of the times I've heard of "Hands of Light" described as a classic reference. K2709 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep; snowded and to some extent ghmyrtle have good points. Truth has nothing to do with biographical inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced article clearly showing notability in a particular field. Raitchison (talk) 15:59, 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 merge to Centre for Fortean Zoology. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animals & Men[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Animals & Men

Not a notable magazine, that I can see. All potential references I could find are either to fan sites or to the magazine itself. Doesn't seem to have won any major awards or have that high of a circulation. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Centre for Fortean Zoology. Look, this thing publishes irregularly, so it's barely a periodical at all. And 80% of this ostensible article is just listing the issues. Please, what little there may be from this worth saving will fit fine into the article from which it was apparently spawned. Un school 06:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge, per Unschool's argument. there' no inherited notability, nor is this article significant enough to be a fully fledged spinoff article, merge it to the parent organization. ThuranX (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge or plain old Redirect but clearly doesn't deserve an article of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centre for Fortean Zoology. Nothing to establish notability independent of the Centre. MuZemike (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel hair[edit]

I do not believe there are any reliable sources which indicate enough research on this subject for us to have an encyclopedia article. Much of the article right now is original research and the term itself seems confined to the Ufological community (not widely enough known to pass our WP:GNG. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the pasta. I've never heard of this term before in that sense. I would have just redirected without any discussion. Nate • (chatter) 06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have checked for sources before? Did you just now? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Violates WP:OR and utter nonsense to boot. Why wasn't this CSD'ed? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, quite rightly, no speedy deletion criterion applies. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to pasta, per suggestion above. This is just nonsense. Un school 06:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capellini or Spaghetti. LinguistAtLarge 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capellini. Article is original research. Matt (Talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense or not, it's neither unverifiable nor original research. I find plenty of books documenting this, including documenting several possible prosaic explanations of this phenomenon. (Such as page 82 of ISBN 9780520239050, for example.) This isn't something that one person believes, nor is it something that only one person has written about. It's certainly not something that isn't written about at all. I have no access to the book, but commentary on the WWW leads me to believe that even Terence Hines has written about this. There are, indeed, sources available for both sides of the "It's just spiderweb." argument. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capellini. Is there a pasta for con trails too? :) --Blowdart | ^talk 08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to capellini as noted by Blowdart. We're now supporting a ridiculous idea based on a fringe idea? Alien spaceship exhaust falls on people as spiderweb-like ectobooger? Waste of space. ThuranX (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move Lots of sources for this including works published by the AAAS. Note that we already have Angel hair pasta as a separate title. The title Angel hair might be made a dab page and the content moved to Angel hair (UFO) or similar. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense, a subsequent redirect is fine if anyone can find a likely target but this is, to quote Jimbo in another case, abject nonsense on a stick. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I view this article to see what is the difference between angel hair and linguine, and I get a lot of fringe-theory about UFOs, ectoplasm, and other nonsense stuff? Redirect this to a more appropriate pasta article please. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Capellini, as in angel hair pasta. Maybe someday someone following Wikipedia poicies on notability and sourcing can make a case for the UFO term to have a separate article under a different name, but glancing at the link provided by Colonel Warden above, it's going to be a tough sell, as most of the books that come up seem to be pretty iffy-sourcing wise, and the quotes that come up in the text of the books found do not seem to suggest it has much overall notability to stand alone as an article separate from miscellaneous Forteana. Just existing as a real term in limited usage within a specific field alone does not a Wikipedia article make. DreamGuy (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May be WP:FRINGE but there are plenty of reliable publications on this subject. Maybe move to Angel hair (UFO phenomenon) and redirect the main page as above. Useful sources in addition to the one reliable source already quoted in the article: [27] [28] [29] [30]. JulesH (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first three links you provided are not anywhere near close to a reliable source. Pravda.Ru is like The Weekly World news but online so worse. The first and third are short blips with no information from edutainment sites. The last is ForteanTimes, which, while fringe, is a reliable source for the opinions of people on the fringe. But the mention there is extremely brief, and thus is not a "nontrivial" mention as required by notability standards. And, really, if you offered those up as reliable sources you really have to go back and read WP:RS to understand it better. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep and move - the source is out there! Artw (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ per dearth of in depth independent coverage. The AAAS book mentioned above is, I believe, UFO's - a Scientific Debate By Carl Sagan, which does not discuss the history or provenance of the term, but does mention it as a term that comes up when talking to UFOlogists. Angel hair seems to come up often enough to be notable to the UFOlogist community, but if nobody outside of one small community has noticed and treated the topic, WP:GNG says no. Redirect to Capellini if deleted, obviously. - Eldereft

(cont.) 17:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep New sources below and in article push me over. The unmodified title should probably point to the pasta, but that is not an AfD issue. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looking at the sources provided by JulesH, WP:GNG says yes. Juzhong (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read WP:GNG? ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" -- only semi-reliable sources do not go into any detail, and the only ones that have gone into details are horribly unreliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- And they are addressed in detail. How much detail do you expect. It is more than a stub and less than the article on World War II. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies and previous decisions specify how much detail is needed for these kinds of things. In the field in question coverage is slightly above completely trivial, outside the field all references are extremely trivial. There is a differences between using reliable sources to prove that some term exists and provided arguments proving notability for a full article. You don't seem tog et that, because you use arguments for the former while concluding the latter. That's not how things have eve worked here. DreamGuy (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Capellini. Simple mention of the term does not establish notability; references must discuss the term in question to qualify as sources. Horologium (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Mkay. So why aren't you voting keep? Juzhong (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reread what he said. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then just go ahead and amend the vote to keep? Juzhong (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about you go read out policies instead of being so uncivil in your assertions that others are wrong? The vote was made appropriately and for reasons that follow Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNACCEPTABLE. The presumption that you can and will change another person's "vote" because you assert special authority is disruptive and incivil in itself. Redact your comment. ThuranX (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing uncivil being said here, nor does anyone have to "redact" their comments. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think Juzhong was being uncivil then you need to reread what he wrote. That kind of attitude gets warnings and leads to blocks. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Leads to blocks" What is the punishment for vandalizing the article as performed by DreamGuy in this edit? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was not vandalism, and labeling it such demonstrates your lack of understanding of the vandalism policy here as well as WP:AGF. Your actions here are HIGHLY uncivil, bordering on outright personal attacks. If you keep that nonsense up I'll report you for such violations. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism. Deleting verifiable references and additions to an article in this edit, to bring the article back to the point where you voted to delete it, is pure, 100%, unadulterated vandalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't blame me for asserting he was wrong, DreamGuy told me to re-read it, I did, and he should still be voting keep according to his own statement (this bit: "references must discuss the term in question"). Juzhong (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to even be reading what people said and interpreting them whatever way you think will make you sound right in your own head. You should just give that all a rest. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the entire discussion, and although I see strong comments from many of the participants, including you, there is nothing that would be considered a personal attack by one editor against another. Mandsford (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False labely edits vandalism? Someone saying he should go change someone's votes? If not outright violations of WP:NPA those are substantial violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my comment was written before at 17:53 and everything in between came later. It's a heated discussion. To everybody, I would point out that, technically, even "aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict" are considered a violation of WP:CIVIL, and I think that all of us tend to be aggressive when it comes to caring about Wikipedia. However, nobody here should feel that someone else has gotten the best of them. Keep, delete, merge, whatever happens, it's only a debate. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources, and fails verifiability. Flying saucers emit something like pixie dust? I do like the pasta. though. A redirect to it would be helpful. Edison (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spaghetti. The content is either completely original research or unverifiable, take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Reliable sources for fringe theories are the published fringe authors and fringe periodicals. So long as there are multiple fringe sources. We don't require articles on religion to provide sources from scientific publications, but sources from their philosophical peers. This article meets every criteria for Wikipedia entry in that is it has "multiple independent sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to start a Fringeopedia and use that as a rule, by all means. We look for reliable and notable sources giving nontrivial coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, that is how Wikipedia works. If the source is reliable enough for Google News and reliable enough for Google Books, it is reliable enough for Wikipedia, despite denigrating the sources as non-scientific, and fringe. You wouldn't ask a religious article to draw its sources from scientific papers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you'd expect articles on religious topics to have enough mainstream coverage to demonstrate notability first. If the only thing talking about it are religious works, then it's not notable for an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is not a reliable source. The only reason why there is an article about Moses is because other sources that are reliable have given coverage to Moses. UFO stuff are not any better. UFO literature is not a reliable source. They can only establish notability if there stuff is given coverage by reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I challenge the notion that any sources for this nonsense are either "reliable" or "independent." Edison (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then go through the sources one-by-one and tell me what is wrong with each one. Use the same skepticism you would use for any article on a religion. It doesn't haven't be a scientific fact anymore than any other folktale. Sources have to be independent of each other to be "multiple independent", and they are. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already went through the ones above. DreamGuy (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you said "Pravda.Ru is like The Weekly World news but online so worse", and what reliable source told you that? Or are you engaging in original research? The headlines from Pravda.Ru today are: Russia’s new international role becomes its biggest achievement in 2008; Israel launches massive military operation against Gaza Strip; and Military expenditure increases dramatically all over the world. How did you come to your conclusion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it astounding anyone on Wikipedia doesn't know that pravda.ru is a trash tabloid site. It's been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere a zillion times. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here I called you a vandal, that doesn't make it the truth (pravda in Russian}, just my opinion. When it appears on the Wikipedia blacklist (our official burn notice) the source is unreliable, until then it is just people's personal opinions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't the truth, but it is a personal attack prohibited under Wikipedia policy. I'm afraid you misunderstand the use of the blacklist, and the standards of the reliable source policy. Should I set up RichardArthurNorton.com and begin slandering you, it is not presumed reliable until I start spamming it onto articles and get it blacklisted. It is the considered consensus opinion of reasonable people on the reliable sources noticeboard that Pravda.ru is not a reliable source for anything, including this article. Nevard (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12 pages matching "Angel Hair" in The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age[31] By Donald Howard Menzel, Lyle Gifford Boyd. "Angel Hair, Pancakes etc" appears to be the title of a chapter. There is even a subsection entitled "other varieties of angel hair". Juzhong (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need multiple reliable sources establishing notability in a non trivial way. Even if we consider that book reliable, it does not give any reason to believe the term is notable enough to carry a Wikipedia article in and of itself instead of a subsection of another article. Try lots more books, books only about this topic, reliable scientific studies, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct that a book has to be entirely on the topic, or even primarily on the topic to be used. attempts to insert this into WP:RS have been rejected by the community. The requirement is substantial coverage, and a chapter of a book is certainly sufficient for that. There also seems to be some serious confusion here between the sort of sourcing that would be necessary to establish this as a real phenomenon, and that which is necessary to establish it as connected with UFOs. The first of course is not met. But even the Pravda article is suitable for the second. DGG (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a RS but it's been discussed in an episode of Alcoa Presents: One Step Beyond. http://books.google.com/books?id=VcFZltNy-lAC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=%22angel+hair%22+ufo Juzhong (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly a response to "nobody outside of one small community has noticed and treated the topic". Anyway it's evidence of public interest. Juzhong (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Multiple independent reliable sources" means more than one, and less than infinity. The number used in the article looks fine to me, if I am performing my math correctly. Don't confuse the truth with reliability. The phenomena doesn't have to real, just the facts verifiable in a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capellini. Pravda as a source? Raelliay? Nevard (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether one believes that UFOs leave behind residue, this is apparently what it's referred to in those circles [32]. The article is sourced, and more sources could be added. Certainly, I see no reason to redirect "Angel hair (folklore)" to the article about "angel hair pasta". I'm not aware of any folklore involving noodles. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one would redirect [[Angel hair (folklore) to the pasta. This article is (or was, if someone took itupon themselves to move it already) at Angel hair. If there is an angel hair (folklore) (which their shouldn't be, it's not really folklore as much as UFO-dreck) it should redirect to something like list of UFO reports or list of Fortean phenomena or whatever. Trivial sources do not establish notability for a separate article. Lots of books reference similar jargon within niche fields, but they don't all get separate articles here just because a number of books in that niche mentin them. DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page move shenanigans are the result of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) moving it to Angel hair (folklore) and User:Brewcrewer attempting to redirect it instead to Angel hair (UFO phenomenon) (which instead simply created a double redirect, which I fixed with a rather testy edit summary). I'm strongly tempted to undo all of the page moves, because it's creating a mess which somebody is going to have to clean up. Moving pages during AFD discussions is not a good idea, especially when there is no consensus to make the page move; in this case, there was no discussion at all about the move to the location chosen. FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer's intent, but the timing and implementation were sub-optimal, to put it mildly. Horologium (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double redirects eventually get cleaned up by a maintenance bot. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I screwed up. I intended to move Angel hair (folklore) to Angel hair (UFO phenomenon), but mistakenly moved Angel hair to Angel hair (UFO phenomenon), which as you can see messed everything up. As for the mid-afd move, I did not think the name of the article was really an issue here. I actually have not !voted at this afd and I have not decided how I will !vote. But I figured, that in any case, the article should be moved. I even though that RAN would agree with my subsequent move. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to pasta or Capellini. Perhaps condense and merge the content to Unidentified flying object. --Hojimachong^talk 21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected[edit]

As this page is moving way too much, I have move protected the page. Leave the page in one location, because constant moves make it very difficult to track. Once the discussion has closed, the name (if the article is not deleted) can be settled by consensus. Horologium (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. The article was called "Angel hair" at the beginning of the discussion, and has also been called "Angel hair (folklore)", "Angel hair (UFO phenomenon)" and "Angel hair (UFO)" in the last couple of days. I've heard the term applied to tinsel being hung on Christmas trees, but there's not much folklore that I'm aware of outside of the UFO fringe. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no (UFO) tagged articles under Category:UFO-related phenomena, just (folklore), hence my choice. Rather than invent a new parenthetical, I used the existing one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Sufficient sources. I commented on the specifics of why they're sufficient above. It is only necessary to show substantial discussion by books or newspapers, and that;s been shown. The quality of the book or newspapers is irrelevant entirely; when you're dealing with something as fringy as this, you show coverage in fringe sources. The article needs adjustment in tone to indicate the nature of this. As someone very much dedicated to the idea that the Scientific point of view on the world is only sensible one, I would hope to see full coverage here of every alleged UFO-related phenomenon. Such presentation serves the educational purpose of demonstrated the nature of the nonsense. I think the correct title is Angel hair (UFO phenomenon). I am truly startled by the extraordinarily non-objective view of some of my scientific colleagues above, that the correct way to expose such stuff is to pretend nobody talks about it. DGG (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon your comments here and on other articles lately (hope you haven't been following my edits around, as you've appeared in some odd locations lately to revert me) it's clear you have a rather unique personal view of what entails notability. You're certainly entitled to that, but to say that supporters of science on the page aren't being objective is simply wrong, and the claim that our actions are motivated by pretending nobody talks about it is just nonsense. Both statements would seem to be uncivil and violations of WP:AGF. People talk about lots of things. Most of them do not get Wikipedia articles of their own. That's objective, and that's not pretending anything, it's facing facts and following policies. DreamGuy (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, do you support changing WP:N to mean intrinsic importance? I'd like to do that too, but as an alternative reason for notability, not a replacement. DGG (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects should be regarded as a reliable mainstream source. It has a quite substantial discussion which can be found online. Juzhong (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can also add a pseudoscience category, what do you think? I am not worried that people may think that it is a scientific principle, but that category may help. Things from the sky are always in folklore. Remember the Yellow rain scare? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Richard Arthur added enough sources to show that it's sort of notable. I expect wikipedia to have dedicated articles for this sort of obscure stuff, like Ballooning (spider). Article should be nudged a bit towards listing the prosaic explanations first and then explaining what UFO theorists propose as possible origin, to avoid the POV that this is really stuff falling from extraterrestrial aircrafts (I doubt that there is any official report anywhere giving any ground to this explanation, I think that they all say stuff about spiders and other explanations). (It could be merged somewhere, but UFO#Analysis is already full and it seems that we don't have a separate article for listing UFO phenomena.) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable UFO lingo even if nonsense, mentioned in dozens of books. But please rename it to something more specific and redirect angel hair to the more notable pasta. --Itub (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided are more than adequate to demonstrate that the belief in this stuff is a notable phenomenon. There is no requirement to have scientific sources for non-scientific subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. but I'm more than willing to userfy if someone would like it to work on. StarM 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sharif[edit]

blatant advertisement written by the subject (yes, I know COI isn't a justification by itself for deletion; however, it does provide a good indication of the author's intent) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs) 22:13, December 30, 2008
Delete - Fails notability guidelines for people. Matt (Talk) 07:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Wikipediarul e s 2221 08:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I personally believe that a conflict of interest is enough reason to reject an article, as I believe that it is impossible for an article written by its subject to be reliably unbiased. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fail WP:BIO. Also approaching snow territory. VX!^~~~ 20:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Approaching? I'd say we've reached WP:SNOW and that has nothing to do with the fact that I nominated this article for AfD. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably userfy, people should be nicer to new users. This is a reasonably neutral bio written by its subject, who appears knowledgable in an area where Wikipedia is not strong. It stresses his notable achievements, which a bio should. Better to extend a helping hand than a bitch slap (excuse my French). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia has polcies and guidelines that this article does not meet. This has nothing to do with "being nice." If we were to follow your suggestion, no article would ever be deleted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be more civil. Aside from the very relevant WP:BITE policy, the AFD guidelines are quite clear: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." You have done none of these things. Your actions do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, either. Given the number of speedy deletions you have had declined in the recent past as clearly inappropriate, and the number of other deletion proposals you have had rejected, you really ought to consider the likelihood that your opinions do not reflect consensus or policy and guidelines rather than continuing to present inappropriate proposals. I do not see why article improvement is inferior to summary deletion of articles from new users. We were all new users once. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please spare me the lecture and the high and mighty attitude. My edit record, including the fact that the majority of my CSD and AfDs have resulted in deletions, speaks for itself. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO. Violates WP:ADS. Agree with Gmatsuda; I think WP:SNOW applies now. -- 128.97.245.9 (talk) 09:54, 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. StarM 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens from Space: The Real Story of Unidentified Flying Objects[edit]

Simply not a notable book. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guidelines for books. Matt (Talk) 07:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:JNN 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. It's an argument to avoid if it's not true. A lack of reliable sources about it, and no arguments of notability in the article, however, is a reason. ThuranX (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there don't appear to be any substantial sources for this subject. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this was published more than 30 years ago it's difficult to find evidence of notability using online sources but I was able to find a large number of other works that cite this book. citations. Raitchison (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lunatic fringe cites the lunatic fringe. That does not establish notability from reliable sources.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these books are reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One I saw was reliable. But keep in mind that a mere citation or mention doesn't make something notable, multiple notable third party reliable source has to cover the topic in a nontrivial way. Nothing in that gives any indication of more than trivial attention paid by sources that are largely not significant. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Scholar finds three citations[33], they are all from very fringe sources wich don't appear to be notable. In google books it appears listed in UFO bibliography listings, but the description of its entry is exclusively about his author and his role on the NICAPexample. The fame of this book seems to be almost exclusively from being written by this guy, no real fame of its own. (no redirect, since the value of the redirect appears to be quite low, it's unlikely that someone writes all of the title with the correct capitalization in all the worlds, the search engine will find the author's page) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article contains no reliable sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure whether this book is notable or not, but I would question whether anyone has checked print sources from the year of publication of the book (1973) for reviews. If there are adequate reviews, then the book is notable. The book is widely cited, which suggests but does not prove notability. JulesH (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article makes no assertion of notability, and lacks sources outside the subject's own claims. And how many simialr vanity pressed 'tell-all about aliens' books are there? dozens? hundreds? ThuranX (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BK. The Amazon link shows that it is mentioned in books, but there is no way to tell how big of a mention is in the books. Schuym1 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being way far away from Wikipedi's standards for notability. DreamGuy (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found to establish book notability. At that point, it can always be recreated. MuZemike (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidence of the book's n0tability is lacking. Could be listed in the Donald Keyhoe article as one of his works. Edison (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with anything salvageable going to Donald Keyhoe per Edison. 07:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Userfy for now. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 04:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete: per WP:BK & complete lack of third-party sourcing to establish notability.

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

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

The result was delete. StarM 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Coe[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Publisher of one non-notable book. Claim to fame within the paranormal community seems to be that he was the first contactee. However, that doesn't make him article-worthy. Could not find any reliable third-party sources that documented is encyclopedia-worthiness. Perhaps a WP:ONEEVENT persona as well? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. (Hope I'm not abducted by aliens for this vote.) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:BIO. Matt (Talk) 07:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am swayed by the thought that this person verifiably claims to have been the first ever person to have been abducted by aliens. The first alien abduction story came in 1961, 8 years before the publication of this book. So he was a pioneer. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nothing, I was abducted by aliens in 1937.^{[citation needed]} Protonk (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article contains no sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - RichardCavell's argument that 8 years after alien abduction fantasies proved publishable, some other guy came forward to cash in, therefore he's for real, is not reasonable to me, and the article makes no actual assertion of notability beyond the subject's own claims. I don't agree with the WP:ONEEVENT suggestion in the rationale for deletion, however, as being first at a notable thing is often notable. However, in this case the article fails to substantiate the firstness as well. ThuranX (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Thuranx. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of the reliably published third-party sources about Coe that would allow him to pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 23:24, 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 keep. John254 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Powell[edit]

Found this article by hitting the random article link. I see that this was speedy deleted back when the article was created in March and was recreated. This individual is not sufficiently notable, per WP:ATHLETE, with inadequate reliable sources available. --Aude (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ATHLETE. Un school 05:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played in Under 19 World Cup Cricket. That would seem to satisfy WP:Athlete.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, because I really don't know about such things. Is "Under 19" Soccer the "highest level" of amateur competition in soccer? As an American, I think of the highest level of amateur play as being affiliated with collegiate play, but obviously, that isn't the case in the US with soccer. "U19", however, sounds like some neighborhood association level of play, to my ignorant self. Un school 07:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under-19 means only for people under 19 years of age, so no it's not the highest level of amateur sports. It's basically high school kids. TJ Spyke 08:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have the high school world series here and similar competitions for high school aged kids. Segregating competitions by age restrictions seems irrelevant in this case. It feels to me like soccer is being ignored here but somehow baseball passes muster. Cultural differences? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Athlete. TJ Spyke 08:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reference shows he has played first-class cricket which is one of the notability criteria for cricketers (see WP:CRIN). The West Indian domestic competitions in which he has competed (Stanford 20/20, WICB Cup and Carib Beer Cup) are all fully professional levels of the sport so in fact he passes WP:ATHLETE. I have improved the article and made it clear he has played first-class cricket therefore notable. --Jpeeling (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Jpeeling (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jpeeling's comments above. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — playing at such a high level does seem to indicate notability. I won't check, but I'm sure there are also other sources that also provide coverage of this athlete. MuZemike (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A first-class cricketer. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jpeeling. Johnlp (talk) 23:15, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The love of ray j[edit]

I found a few hits for this on Google, and thought about cleaning this up. However the Google hits struck me as suspicious, for some reason. So I went to the VH1 website, and there was no mention of this impending show. I think that this may violate WP:CRYSTAL, at the least, and more experience editors may be able to give better reasons for deletion. Un school 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources for this. What I found was something on Yahoo! Answers, but not much else. --Aude (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Can be recreated if verified. Tavix (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search leads me to think this is unfortunately likely for real. However, I found no authoritative references to it. If it materializes, someone can create a real article for it. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like I said in the prod, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 13:37, 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 deleted. Hoax article. --Aude (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Chesler[edit]

Obvious hoax/nonsense biographical article. NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. RMHED (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speedy--blatant nonsense. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as a combination of blizzard conditions and withdrawn nomination. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uliger[edit]

This is simply the Mongolian (in the current spelling Buryat) word for "tale" or "fairytale". The article rambles mostly about trivialties that could equally be said about the oral tradition of any other culture of this world. The original source is gone, but still available through archive.org. There almost the same text served as an introduction to a collection of tales, and was clearly not intended to provide scholarly insight. When we take away all the fluff, we're essentially left with a dictionary entry with neither real content nor a reliable source. --Latebird (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're the Mongolian expert so I'll trust your judgement if you think it can't be expanded. Why you didn't speak to me personally about it first beats me. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what's wrong with having an article on Mongolian myths and fairytales? at least users might search for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wronglostboy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently wrong with having an article about Mongolian myths and fairytales. But first, it would probably rather be called Mongolian mythology (which currently redirects to the also extremely substandard Altaic mythology), and second it must contain non-trivial and sourced information. The current article contains nothing useful besides the dictionary definition. You could rename it to "Märchen" and replace all instances of "Mongolian" with "German", and most of it would still read like it made sense (actually, I just tried that, and there was only one sentence I had to remove). --Latebird (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an overview of mongol myths and legends would be very appropriate but I would suggest a redirect to Mongolian mythology.

Keep. expand, and retitle, using a redirect from this term. The encyclopedia is in English, and we use the english names of things when we can--it aids accessibility; otherwise, how is someone coming upon the title of this article likely to have the least idea what it's about? DGG (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Expand" is not a valid keep argument. Or are you volunteering to do the expansion? --Latebird (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more valid argument might be that Encyclopedia Britannica thinks it notable enough for an article. The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is not based on a lack of notability, so that is simply off-topic. All the same, note that the Britannica doesn't really have an article about it. That's merely an index entry, pointing to two articles about Mongolian literature which happen to mention the term in passing. --Latebird (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought deleting or keeping articles was very much based on notability. How you think that considering whether this article is notable and could contain comprehensive information is irrelevant deeply concerns me. The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:55, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of Notability is by far not the oonly valid reason to delete something, it just happens to be the most common one. --Latebird (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I don't see what is non-notable or non-encyclopedic about this, or even non-scholarly. It seems to me that all this stub needs is a sympathetic expert. (I'm really sympathetic to this subject, just not an expert.) Why delete this? That it comes from a now questionable source isn't really much of a reason, and the argument about replacing Mongol with German, well, I don't buy that at all, sorry. (And as far as I know, 'expand' IS a valid 'keep' argument.) Drmies (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I agree with Drmies, this seems notable enough to me, and I'll bet there are similar articles for other aspects on other cultures. I mean, I suppose one could argue that this could be merged into Mongolian culture, but I don't even see that as necessary. My only question is whether or not the information is actually accurate and true, and the more knowledgeable among us don't seem to be questioning that. Un school 04:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note--I added a few things I found on the fly via Google books. Now, we have a few references and a small bibliography (granted, two of the books appear to be out of print or self-published). It seems to me that a separate article on this topic is warranted; no doubt a more knowledgeable editor could add more. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Outside of missing some references, in its present state, the article seems reasonable to me.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It starts to look a little better now, thanis Drmies! I just poked around in the related category trees a bit, and found that Mongolian folklore would probably be the best title for the type of information presented here. Any thoughts about that? --Latebird (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Academically they're called uligers, and they are well studied and researched in spite of how obscure they may seem to English language speakers. Although an on-line search would have readily shown they are notable. Mongolian folklore comprises the folklore of the many tribes of Mongolia, while uliger are largely Buryat. There is no reason to call them something other than what they are, and certainly a future article on Mongolian folklore should not be limited to the oral epics of only the Buryat. Also, not all of the Buryat uliger are Mongolian. Uliger is the correct name, plus a redirect from a page with the diacritic. --KP Botany (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a rather artificial distinction and an unnecessary restriction for the article, as probably most of the stories are common to the folklore of all Mongol peoples. Could it be that just the (Russian and/or Western) research has mainly been focused on Buryatia here? We have a similar situation with Overtone singing, which is common to all Mongolic and Turkic cultures of Central Asia, but where western literature has in the past primarily focused on research from Tuva (resulting in a very unbalanced Wikipedia article). Since the Uliger article currently doesn't mention anything that actually *is* specific to Buryatia, I think a more general title would be appropriate. Once the actual content starts to highlight such distinctions, there will still be plenty of time to split it up. But then, an AFD may not be the right place to discuss such content questions, just that we need more of it... --Latebird (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that throat singing isn't only Tuvan (the best throat singer in the world was Siberian), but want to restrict Uliger to Mongolia? I'm not following. It's not just Russian research, by the way. The best researched uligers are known from Chinese research into a specialized type of uliger by eastern tribes in China (Inner Mongolia), and there is a lot of German research done on uligers. Let's go ahead and call it what it is for now, then expand that for as much as we can, rather than overgeneralizing it into something it isn't. I hate having to write an article about Literature on Wikipedia because someone thinks Ernest Hemingway is too small a subject for his own page. It's significant on its own. --KP Botany (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is strong enough and significant enough to constitute its own article The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has gained a lot over the last few days. There are still a few big question marks about terminology and scope, but at least we have something to work with now. Because of that, I hereby withdraw the nomination. Thanks for the help, everybody! --Latebird (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right on. Happy new year, everybody. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 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 Keep as per the consensus from this discussion. Non-admin closure. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ysabella Brave[edit]

This person was a popular YouTube performer some time ago and then essentially disappeared from the site long before her channels were deleted. She had her (well-deserved) moment in the sun, but I don't see how she currently overcomes WP:NTEMP. She has released no albums and the New York Times reference has nothing of consequence other than a pointer to the already cited LA Times Magazine feature. I don't think this meets WP:NN. Perhaps someday she will merit an article here, but that day is not now. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ weak keep - I recognized her name but couldn't quite place it at first. Essentially she is an amateur singer who does not achieve notability. As pointed out, notability is something that does not fade. If she makes the cut past the interpretation of notability, it opens the floodgates to many, many Youtubers to make articles. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to weak keep. I misinterpreted WP:NTEMP a bit. The question is if she was notable enough in the past. Perhaps, perhaps not. If she had a LA Times feature, as Jmundo says, I can accept her as notable. But it's still a questionable call. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmnnn, I don't see how she ever satisfied WP:NOTE, which prefers multiple sources and not just a fan piece in a newspaper's magazine section. (The NYT article simply refers to the LA Time's opinion piece.) This is not someone who appears to have ever achieved notability in the first place.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 07:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NTEMP, "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic. LA Times Magazine feature should be enough to met this criteria. --Jmundo (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: if you read the article, it is an opinion piece by a single author declaring his status as a fan. IIRC, it has no other content. It is also far from obvious she ever obtained WP:NN in the first place. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 00:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Based solely on the strength of 110 videos over the course of one year, she has amassed a following of 1.3 Million subscribers and a recording contract with Cordless Records (A division of Warner Music Group)." 1--Jmundo (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a contract with an online music distributor seems a world apart from actually having an album (which she does not). Yes, she had many subscribers, me included, although I assume that number should be divided by 2 as she had two separate channels, but her performances in the past year were fortunate to have 5,000 viewings. This is all far too Warholian for my tastes to warrant an encyclopedia entry.RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article lists her as having 33,389 subscribers, not 1.3 million. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ysabella is part of the history of Youtube - if her label releases her music, her's will be a notable case of a person who achieved a career as a consequence of her participation in the Youtube community. My wife, my kids and I have been fans, and we are distressed by the removal of her channel for no stated reason. Ysabella is an important person if only for the way she has been removed, and this situation must be scrutinized and written about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.123.3 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal reminiscences do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for arguing about perceived injustices on YouTube. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was once a more informative, balanced, and well-sourced article. Unfortunately, it got hijacked by at least one "fan" who insisted on deleting any and all information -- and sources -- that he deemed to be critical or even insufficiently worshipful. The result is a page that would only be out of place in a fan magazine by virtue of being so badly written.RandomCritic (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping the entry for Ysabella Brave. RandomHumanoid, although claiming to have been a fan, seems to be one of those on the internet who have taken against her. She is certainly notable enough to be in Wikipedia having been featured in articles written in the New York Times by Virginia Heffernan and the LA Times by Pulitzer Award Winner Dan Neil, as well as other Newspapers. A google search of ysabellabrave yields 84,600 results. She has been consistently active on YouTube. It was mentioned that she had 110 videos. In fact she had 181 videos (17 original songs, 48 talk videos, and 116 on her regular channel). She had almost 36,000 subscribers on her regular channel and almost 13,000 on her talk channel. Someone suggested this number should be halved because she has two channels, yet presents no statistics to back up that statement. She had well over 20,000,000 video views. This is certainly notable enough. Though the channels are currently suspended, it is not known if they will stay suspended. YouTube has been known to reinstate channels. So, deleting her entry based on that unknown seems grossly unfair. And RandomHumanoid, is, in fact, inaccurate in what he has written. He wrote concerning her presence on her channel "then essentially disappeared froom the site long before her channels were deleted." This is untrue. In a little over a year and a half she released 16 original songs on her channel which she not only wrote lyrics and music for and performed, she also wrote the accompaniment, played all the digital instruments, and created the video to go with each song. An amazing accomplishment. On average she put up 3-4 videos per month in the last year. All of them receiving at least 10,000 views, and many substantially more. That is hardly disappearing from YouTube. So, since RandomHumanoid is inaccurate in facts, one should not give a whole lot of credence to his argument. Performer's careers ebb and flow. Should Wikipedia articles be based on current popularity? Or, should they be based on celebrity achieved. Without question, she has achieved more than celebrity enough to be retained in Wikipedia. Her entry on Wikipedia has been subject to a lot of diabolical editing by what are known as Ysabellabrave haters. And Wikipedia has had to take a stance against them. Many have messed with her Wikipedia page with deletions and inaccurate edits. From the start the Ysabellabrave haters have tried to get her entry deleted. One, need only look at the history of the edits and silly controversy about her name. Now, those same Ysabellabrave haters see an opportunity to get it deleted completely. I hope Wikipedia realizes what is really going on here. People have tried to get her Wikipedia entry deleted from the start. This is just a continuation of that campaign. It is wrong, it is unfair, and it is intentionally destructive to a very fine person and an excellent performer/composer/lyricist/videographer/artist. And Wikipedia should not allow them to prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomesaregood (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be placed on her discussion page and your vitriolic diatribe violates WP:Civil and WP:AGF. It also contains numerous factual inaccuracies. Finally, none of this is relevant to the notability discussion at hand. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, RandomHumanoid, state the factual inaccuracies. I did state the factual inaccuracies that you made concerning the number of videos she posted (if you want I can post a complete list of every video she posted to show your inaccuracy) as well as her activity on YouTube, which you did not refute. And, I was pointing out that the amount of credence given to your posts should be based, in part, on the fact it was factually inaccurate. Pointing out you made mistakes is in no way being uncivil. It is being accurate. All of what I wrote is relevant to the notability discussion at hand. I believe many of the posts concerning Ysabella Brave since the creation of her entry have violated the Civility standards of Wikipedia. Mine do not. I am dealing with facts and inaccurate postings by others. It is a proven fact that there are a number of people on both YouTube and on Wikipedia who have tried to get her entry deleted from the beginning. Their purpose has had nothing to do with accuracy of listings or amount of celebrity, but everything to do with their having taken against her. Did she achieve celebrity enough to be in Wikipedia? Obviously, since she is in Wikipedia, the answer is yes. The typical ebb and flow of celebrity should not obviate that inclusion. Should we create a bar chart about celebrity? Last year she had enough, this year she doesn't, next year she does, etc., and pop her listing in and out of Wikipedia based on a yearly reckoning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomesaregood (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fans are frightening.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promodnonman: Pure and simple, I was interested in information about what happened to YB and came here to find out what was known. I simply like having a place to find information. the notes that would delete information of interest from an encyclopedia should be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.102.96 (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists are frightening. -- Gnomesaregood 06:10, 29 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomesaregood (talk • contribs)

Keep per 20 000 000 views on YouTube , for over 84 000 Googlehits, for being featured not only on those mentioned LAT and NYT [34] , [35], [36], but also on numerous highend blogs like [37], for being phenomenon on YouTube if not for longer, then at least for the time span 2006-2008.

It is interesting to see, that the move to delete her entry on Wikipedia occurs so very in time of her disappearance from YouTube. So very suddenly. Even though it is so fast reaction, still there was obviously enough time for someone to make in time in between interesting deletion on part of this article undermining (somewhat weakly but unnecessarily) general impression from the article. Reo ^ON | +++ 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources cited above. Meet GNG, not a single event. Hobit (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Looks like the article has made the minimal requirements for notability, which, as Hobit mentioned above, extends past one single event. MuZemike (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The entire nominating argument is fallacious.
The deletion nominator states:
"This person was a popular YouTube performer some time ago and then essentially disappeared from the site long before her channels were deleted. She had her (well-deserved) moment in the sun, but I don't see how she currently overcomes WP:NTEMP."
It appears the nominator is saying that Ysabella Brave once met notability guidelines, but now she doesn't "currently overcome WP:NTEMP"
The relevant sentence of this three sentence WP:NTEMP guideline is this:
"If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic."
In other words, if Ysabella Brave met the notability guideline before, as the nominator appears to acknowledge, then there doesn't need to be continued media coverage of the subject. Once Ysabella Brave became notable, she remains notable.
It troubles me greatly that the nominator quotes a guideline which contradicts the very foundation of his deletion argument.
The nominator states: "She has released no albums", Wikipedia:Notability (music) has no such guidelines.
The nominator then acknowledges that Ysabella Brave has been in the most influential newspaper in the country, the New York Times, the NYT seems to find that it is notable enough to mention, but the nominator doesn't. The nominator mentions the LA Times article, the "second-largest metropolitan newspaper in the United States and the fourth-most widely distributed newspaper in the United States".
The nominator ignores the local San Diego Daily Transcript.
Only on Wikipedia can one single person put an article at jeopardy by arguing the notability of a subject when the most influential newspaper, and the second largest newspaper in the country found the subject to be notable.
Not to mention the:
Business Wire, and
two Globe and Mail articles on Google News.[38] travb (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep these discussions civil and about the article, not about editors. As I have said, I do not think she ever became notable. Period. Thus, the AfD. Your comments about me are offensive and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored, plenty of important issues to address about this AfD. travb (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : I just learned that both Ysabella Brave's channels were pulled last month, because of the Karaoke songs on one of them, which she was willing to remove, and I consider this an extreme travesty of justice — and that her article here was so swiftly nominated for deletion by overzealous guardians of who should or should not be considered notable here, or remain so, an even greater travesty. ~ Kalki (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A continued Strong Keep. RandomHumanoid seems to think that anyone questioning him is being offensive to him. He says to be civil and keep the discussion about the article. But, he is the one who has nominated her article for deletion with very specious reasoning and an obdurate insistence that she isn't notable enough based solely on his opinion. He posted inaccuracies about her and her YouTube channels which were pointed out. Yet he clings to his opinion based on those fallacies. Of course, this is about what he has written which was demonstrably incorrect. He also accused me of being offensive. What I think is offensive is denying the notability of someone who has been written up in The New York Times (more than once), the LA Times, San Francisco Newspapers, and various Newspapers around the world which haven't even been mentioned; been written up in notable blogs; had almost 36,000 subscribers to one YouTube channel and almost 13,000 to the other and was the 76th most subscribed director on YouTube at the time of the suspension; etc. A few days ago a Google search for ysabellabrave yielded 84,600 results. Today (01.01.09) 88,300 results, an increase of 3,700 hits in a few days. Certainly another indication of notability. Someone who was not notable would not be yielding that many increased results. I agree with Kalki that there is a travesty going on here and it has nothing to do with her notability. I resent that one person could put Ysabella Brave's entry in an uproar based on his thoughts that she wasn't notable enough, or notable at all. I also find it very suspicious that she was flagged for deletion only days after her YouTube channels were suspended. She was certainly notable enough for RandomHumanoid to notice her entry in Wikipedia. Signed by Gnomesaregood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.236.54 (talk) 22:10, 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. A merge to Chaos_Theory is advisable, but should be discussed separately. Ruslik (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predictability[edit]

Seems like a dubious concept. I tried to find sources for it, but couldn't find anything that came close to this concept. Listing to generate discussion, I myself am so far neutral. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Unless I'm very much mistaken, "listing things to generate discussion" is hardly the purpose of AfD. :) -- Mvuijlst (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Deletion as a means of discussion is an interesting concept. Collect (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--A search in Google Books seems to verify the subject.--Jmundo (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, this is about predictability in social settings, or psychological settings. This article is about predictability in the physical sense, which is already covered by articles such as determinism.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when one is unsure about notability of an article, bringing it here is I think exactly the right course. Let people see and judge. DGG (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but re-write to include the "Statistics 101" take on the predictability of a system in addition the current article's presentation: predictability as a concept of chaos theory. See the last paragraph of page 120 here to see a reference of this type. If you google for 'predictability "phase space"' you can get the general idea. —Noah 07:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge with chaos theory then.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Prediction. All the articles relating to prediction are quite poor and this one is no exception. By gathering all the strands in one place, maybe we can get a good article started. Note that this article's thermodynamic usage is compartively obscure and is not what the average reader is likely to be looking for - common words of this sort should go to a good general article or dab page. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Chaos Theory. This is a highly notable concept but would benefit from greater context. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chaos Theory. It seems like that is a good fit as well as compromise, not to mention makes this term more understandable in that context. MuZemike (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge lord is this article full of technobabble travb (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus; (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice (Project)[edit]

Contested PROD ... totally lacking WP:RS coverage to establish WP:CORP, just primary sources ... may be notable someday, but not at this time. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a Bible translation project, not a company. I have not heard of this translation, but most translations of the bible are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 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 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, unless some third-party sources are found. I can't find anything but trivial mentions of it in a few newspapers (mostly in holiday-gift roundups), and nothing in books or Bible-scholarship journals. --Delirium (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. Changing to Keep. _{Comment added below.} My first thought was that this was really interesting, and should be kept. But there are so many translations of the Bible out there, do we have articles on them all? Judging from Bible translations, it looks like most translations probably do not have their own articles, so I was leaning "delete". However, looking on Google, I see a ton of discussion going on out there, as well as what appear to be some articles in some reputable sources. But I don't know much about how the AfD community regards sources, so I'll just leave these here for others to use in their consideration. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] I don't know, the more of these I see, the more attention this thing seems to be getting. I'm starting to lean to "Keep", but I'll wait until some experienced AfD hands can advise me on the relevance of these sources. Un school 05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the nom, and it does seem like the nom is off the mark. As User:Peterkingiron noted, WP:CORP is irrelevant here. And I think I've found enough 3rd party sources to support the translation, if not the project. Maybe it should be moved to The Voice (Bible translation). Un school 05:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are sufficient for notability. I support the move that Unschool suggested above. It's the translation, not the project , that is notable. DGG (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge with The_Voice:_New_Testament, incorporating all the new references User:Unschool gathered. ~~I don't see how the sources are remotely authoritative. The first is from a source selling the translation. The second looks like a lunatic fringe website. And the third is from the project itself.~~ --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be notable enough. No reason to delete.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Voice (bible translation). Springnuts (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC) The_Voice:_New_Testament as suggested by others - a rename to The_Voice: Bible or somesuch might be appropriate. Keep iaw sources found by Un sch. Springnuts (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Springnuts (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — ~~none~~only one of the sources in the article (the Christian Post one) ~~nor those dug up by Unschool~~ would possibly qualify as what I consider to be reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Note: Amended !vote after a second look. However, I still side for deletion for lack of significant coverage as well as borderline spam. MuZemike (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.

I'm not sure what User:RandomHumanoid means by "the first" source, but the first source that I have listed is an article from The Christian Post, a well-respected Christian online journal. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article I think demonstrates that it is a perfectly good source.

I was referring to the sources in the article at the time I made my comment; not the list that you provided. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Does it make any difference looking at this article from The Christian Post? Un school 06:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found that we have another article, The Voice: New Testament, which is actually about the translation, not the project. I propose that the two articles be merged into The Voice (bible translation). Un school 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from nom:

(a) To clear up some confusion, I interpreted "a Bible translation project" to be an "organization" for the purpose of this discussion, and thus Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (or WP:CORP) seemed appropriate, specifically,
… to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article.
A fundamental part of this is WP:V that comes from WP:RS, which this article was sorely lacking, i.e., it contained only primary sources, and no independent, secondary sources.
(b) As for The Voice: New Testament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I think that we may be looking at a "walled garden" (and possible conflict of interest) because both articles were created on the same date by the same author, KBurchfiel (talk · contribs) (a single-purpose account if I ever saw one) ... oddly enough, each is missing from the "what links here" for the other.
(c) While the current version bears Much Better citations than the version that I nominated, in my opinion they have not improved enough to satisfy the generic WP:N as defined by "multiple, non-trivial independent secondary sources."
(d) While I'm leaning towards Merge, I have no opinion regarding a renaming ... I just don't think that it has been around long enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards regardless of calling it an "organization" or the "fruit of the tree" in the case of "the translation" ... Happy Editing! — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) _{00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment: Is it just me, or does the first citation, "New Testament, The Voice Edition". HearTheVoice.com. (a primary source if there ever was one), smack of spam? I mean, it is an order page in an online catalog! I put some lipstick on this pig (a {{MySpace}} and more info in the {{cite}} tags) but I'm quickly losing interest in it. Happy Editing! — 72.75.108.10 (talk · contribs) _{11:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Yes, anon, it clearly is spam, and assuming this ends up merged, as it appeared headed, I assure you that link will be stricken. Un school 19:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - re: The Voice: New Testament, I put some lipstick on it (copied the refs from The Voice (Project), including the WP:SPAM link) and find that it also lacks WP:RS, so a Delete for either one should be a Delete both, IMHO. — 72.75.108.10 (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I would keep The Voice: New Testament, but reduced to a redirect to a merged article. Springnuts (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note: I'd just like to respond to say that I'm not a single-purpose account; my purpose is to contribute where I can and make edits where I see a need. If you look at my contributions page, you'll see that I've also started articles on Howard Brinton and the Winchester Regional Airport. Not sure what a Quaker scholar and a regional airstrip have to do with a Bible translation. I only created this page because I received "The Voice: New Testament" for Christmas and thought it was deserving of a Wikipedia page. If smarter minds than me think I'm incorrect, that's fine; I acknowledge that the page is lacking in outside resources. Personally, I think the article would best be merged with The Voice: New Testament, as some users have suggested. KBurchfiel (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Interwiki redirect. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

As it stands, this is a very short essay on the meaning of a word with examples. It's been around for a year and no one has been able to source it. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, unless it can be shown that this is encyclopedic it should be deleted. dougweller (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be attempting to make the case that there is a particular ~~Internet-specific~~ sociological use of the term that transcends what one might find in a dictionary. That said, it seems to me to be a violation of WP:NOT#OR, and offers no sources to establish any notability for a unique ~~Web-related~~ use of the word.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bring back {{wi}}, speedily if possible It seems a few hundred people access the page every day, so we may as well have it link to Wiktionary. Importance may be too general, and perhaps too polysemic, to make an article out of. The article current describes social ranking of people as a measure of importance, including artificial ranking in social media sites. Unless scholarly research exists on either using the name "importance", this article should probably be made into a dictionary link. Gracenotes^T § 20:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should have an article on the subject of importance. It has one on Time which is also impossible to define.Northwestgnome (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm... SI's definition of a second is pretty clear. Time can be mathematically modeled and roughly measured. People have made philosophies based on one's perception of time. On the other hand importance is relative, and I'm not sure what anything beyond a dictionary definition could provide that characterizes its essence. Gracenotes^T § 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Dougweller's meticulous efforts to source this article have been unsuccessful, so we can safely assume there is nothing sourceable to say. Scaldi (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Could we possibly merge to Social status? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added some tags & links just in case the outcome turns into a keep. If people are checking in regularly, seems like a redirect might work, either to relevance, notability guidelines or social status. What's the convention with this kind of thing? Like, a disambiguation page with Importance (sociology), Importance (Wikipedia) & Importance (search engines), each one a redirect to another article? Franciscrot (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a disambiguation page would be great, with a brief definition of the concept of importance at the top. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:39, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore soft redirect to Wiktionary, possibly with a few disambigs to related articles in Wikipedia. "Importance" is simply too fuzzy of a term to define in this form; most of the Web-2.0 nonsense that's currently here is entirely subjective, and in some cases simply wrong. (Examples, respectively: "Digg.com has become the master of creating importance...", "Importance is now used by almost all community content sites as a method of ranking the members of the community...") Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on one of the many meanings of a word? What about the other senses of the word? Where do you draw the line? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a disambig, one that includes a link to the wiktionary article and links to Social status, prestige, Relevance and maybe others. Reyk _YO! 07:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify — it seems like the best way to go right now, though I would not oppose a restoration of the soft redirect, either. In either case, the article is not written in an encyclopedic way and seems to push only one aspect. MuZemike (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly an article can be written here, but the present extremely naive one will not be helpful. A Dab page would take care of the immediate problem. DGG (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore soft redirect. When the soft redirect was replaced a while back, I did not revert because the article looked like it had potential. But the potential has not been met. So this is in essence a Delete opinion of the current contents, but a endorsement of what was there for a long time before the current contents. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very minimum-shift keying[edit]

This topic is really just psuedoscience that has attracted very little attention other than a few comms practitioners who enjoy investigating crackpottery (I include myself in this category!). The terminology finds essentially zero usage outside a couple of obscure papers and Phil Karn's rebuttals on his personal website. Pretty much no-one (including experts in the field) will have heard of it, because it's such low-key nonsense.

In summary, falls foul of WP:Notability, and the majority of the article content is WP:Original research (even though I agree with every word of it...). Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously PRODded, but tag was removed with the summary "Try an AfD instead". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:FRINGE, or merge with Minimum-Shift Keying and redirect Franciscrot (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, being a fringe theory doesn't mitigate the requirement for a subject to be notable in its own right. Quoting from WP:FRINGE: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.".
- As for Minimum-shift keying, putting this info in that article would be doing that article an injustice, as the "techniques" espoused by the creators of VMSK have nothing to do with MSK! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 14:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I did a search again for sources talking about it, but only found the author himself writing about it. I read his description again, and to make sure I understood it, implemented it in Matlab and ran some waveform and spectrum simulations, and verified that his technique is indeed pushing most of the energy into a very narrow band, but unfortunately that's just "carrier" energy, and the signal energy that carries the information, though very small now, still occupies the usual bandwidth. So the theory is very bogus, essentially a variation on small-deviation phase modulation; not completely unworkable, but also not what the author claims it to be, and not a good idea. It there were evidence of notability, it might still rate a mention in wikipedia, but there's none that I can find. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is (or ought to be) well known that VMSK puts virtually all of the energy in the carrier; see e.g. this relatively recent letter. Of course the claims of VMSK are bogus (just like recurrent claims by companies concerning a magic compression algorithm achieving perfect data compression), and the article has been in Category:Pseudoscience for good reasons since 25 November 2005. However, investors keep being deceived by companies making VMSK claims; see e.g. SEC litigation against AlphaComm, Inc. The "promises" of VMSK were touted in an episode of the CNBC TV show The Next Wave with Leonard Nimoy, aired on March 11, 2000. The term gets more than a few hits on Google scholar. 88.234.1.171 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you saying that based on these hits, the topic is notable, and that we should rewrite it from those sources? Keep? Dicklyon (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure if that was an argument for "keep". I think everyone agrees that the theories are bogus. However, if they were bogus and notable, we would expect to find numerous discussions, articles and references on the subject. However, we don't. We have the creator's website, Phil Karn's rebuttals, a small handful of articles in trade publications from years ago, a handful of obscure failed companies that no-one's ever heard of, and a few obscure papers that are largely uncited (the existing cites are just from the other papers in that Google Scholar list!). I didn't know that it was mentioned on TV, though. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not clear to me where the boundary between notable and non-notable is drawn, but the "real" references are, although not numerous, certainly not non-existent, and to require that the sources themselves are also notable ("a few obscure papers") appears to be raising the bar. 88.234.1.171 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that references exist. The point I was making was that anyone can get a paper (or a patent) published, that doesn't in itself make the subject notable. There are thousands of papers published every year; the overwhelming majority on subjects that never see the light of day again; we don't consider those notable unless they've been taken up by the mainstream. I'm not suggesting that citation count is the be-all-and-end-all of notability, merely indicative. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite – I don't object to deleting, but if we keep it, it needs to be based on sources. It is not our job as wikipedia editors to write debunkings of pseudo-science. So I've done a first-cut rewrite, all well sourced. Please take a look and tell us if you agree. I've thrown out most of what was there, even though as was pointed out above by Oli Filth, we agree with what it said. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense. Shannon is rolling over in his grave. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the article clearly states (in the infobox), the VMSK claims are "in direct violation of the mathematical principles of digital communications discovered by Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon". Should Wikipedia refrain from reporting on bogus claims merely because they are nonsense? Should we delete Ponzi scheme because the claims of such schemes are utter nonsense that makes Ricardo roll over in his grave? 88.235.147.36 (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a category error. Ponzi schemes are not nonsense. They simply don't work. If someone wrote an article about a new type of Ponzi scheme that they claimed did work, that would be utter nonsense. This article is equivalent to someone writing about creating a working perpetual motion machine. That would be utter nonsense, and yes, it should be deleted. Just as in this case.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I am not a subject-matter expert in this field, but it looks like it's reliably sourced to sufficiently make the WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You may want to examine them more closely.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see seven references, numbered 1 through 7, and two external links. All appear on topic and relevant to me. Could you be more specific which of these have, according to you, absolutely nothing to do with the topic? 88.235.147.36 (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to explain why these legitimate publications have nothing to do with supporting the claims of the article. This is a classic case of irrelevantly citing a mountain of legitimate scientific publications to lend credibility to a crackpot theory.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – VMSK is nonsense, but the article now represents that in a neutral sourced way. There are enough independent refs to support notability, and some not-independent refs, too. I think they're all "relevant". Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, this isn't going to win me many friends, but this article addresses a highly technical topic. Forgive me for saying this, but it's not clear to me that people other than Hams or PhDs in Physics or Electrical Engineering are in a good position to evaluate the relevance of the cited articles. I don't know how non-specialists would even read many of the sources to evaluate their relevance. As for this being a notable, bogus theory, which anyone can comment on, I don't see how it remotely satisfies that bizarre but valid criterion either. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from original nom) - I agree that the article is now much-improved in structure and content, and I disagree with the premise that the technique being nonsense is grounds for its deletion. I also agree that the refs are all on-topic. However, I still don't believe notability has been established; a couple of throwaway mentions in some trade publications might barely scrape past the letter of WP:N, but not the spirit, in my opinion. I've already commented on the papers. Therefore, I maintain that the article should still be deleted. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, risking a bit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I must say it's a hell of lot more notable than a lot of articles that I've proposed for deletion and lost on. I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted, but on the other hand, it doesn't hurt, if someone wants to look it up and find out whether it's a respectable idea or not, to have a short article on it. It seems clear enough to me that if someone reads about an idea that's going to revolutionize the world, and finds only a few mentions in lawsuits and trade rags, that they'll get the point that there's not much to it. If they want to dig further, they can ask their techie friends to help interpret the technical refs. That's enough. Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is now a well written, neutral article with third party sources that establish notability. No good reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Moore (Irish footballer)[edit]

No professional appearances, played for Bohemians, which is an amateur team in a non professional league, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Sunderland06 (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone has evidence that the League of Ireland was fully pro in those days. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While more sources would be useful to judge the extent of Moore's contributions, Bohemians were arguably the preeminent Irish club at that time, and Moore played in a title winning side. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully concur with Oldelpaso - At the time he was playing, Bohemians were the top team in Irish football. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oldelpaso. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oldelpaso. WikiGull (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — if the player was notable back then, chances are that he is still notable now. MuZemike (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would concur with the above, if he was notable back then, he would just about pass. Could do with a cleanup know. Maybe some Irish peeps could find some more info. Govvy (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oldelpaso. Giant Snowman 12:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Goldilockpick and Little Red Riding Hoodlum[edit]

The article contains no assertion of notability, no references of any kind, appears to be completely original research; perhaps a hoax, absolutely nothing on google. Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is extremely long on plot and extremely short on production and venues. No notability is asserted. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to assert WP:N. (And the article is really, really bad.) Un school 06:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or userfy if creator can verify that it is not a hoax.~~ Keep or userfy A few google hits, it is a real theater performance,[47] in Townsville, Queensland (QLD), Australia travb (talk) 22:10, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Network[edit]

Was an expired WP:PROD. After deletion User:Dsp13 came to my talk page and asked me to restore it. — Aitias // discussion 01:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I initiated the article, & added some refs when it was tagged WP:PROD, because I thought Cambridge Network was notable. But I live locally to Cambridge, & businesses etc. aren't the bit of wikipedia I know best, so I may well be biased in this regard. Dsp13 (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability seems to be established. If I am incorrect in my observation, than possibly merge to Silicon Fen. MuZemike (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYG'z[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:MUSIC, NN group. roux 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — There is some good independent coverage here, but that's all I can find. Article needs multiple secondary sources providing significant coverage to fulfill WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks multiple 3rd party verification WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HushPuppies[edit]

Borderline notability, tending towards delete. This is not about the popular brand of slippers, but rather about a little known French garage band. This article has been listed on the cleanup section of WP:PNT since August. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, add sources and clean up. The band appears to have two albums out (one of which is sold on Amazon and a bunch of other sites [48][49]), and while they're not well-known, a quick Google search got me a couple sites that appear to be possible sources for the article (no guarantee about how good these sites are or whether or not they satisfy WP:RS, as I haven't really looked closely): [50] [51][52] —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone knows German better than I do, you can take a look at this to see if it's a reliable source. LinguistAtLarge 16:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It qualifies as a "trivial" source: it mentions HushPuppies only in passing. It is about an event in which HushPuppies was just a side act. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a (tiny) bit more than that--the article says that the German band Auletta has just signed with EMI and has been on tour with French band HushPuppies. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline notability, but not enough to have both feet on the keep side. -Yupik (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hush Puppies. The band is not notable, and this is a plausible search term for the shoes. TJ Spyke 03:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Per User:Blanchardb's comment, it does not appear to be notable. Un school 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hush Puppies as a plausible search term. Otherwise, the research done above shows a lack of established notability. MuZemike (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purely for the reason of the link from the popular and featured article/list List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour. The band are probably not notable, but iam sure people will still search for them from the link mentioned. Aylesburyape (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. A few minutes searching brought back this Allmusic bio, this review from PopMatters, and several Google News results including this, this, this, and this. According to Allmusic, the band's debut album sold over 20,000 copies and was a hit in France.--Michig (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Michig. Schuym1 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Michig. I have now added some additional references. I'd have thought that Guitar Hero World Tour alone would be enough to meet notability requirements.Tafkam (talk) 21:01, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Academy of Bishkek[edit]

Non-notable foreigners' school in Kyrgyzstan. No non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources, so no hope of writing a proper article which is anything other than a summary of the school's brochures. cab (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its a secondary school. It is one of the few schools in the country with articles in the english wiki. When more information becomes avaiable this article will grow. See here for reliable third party source. Victuallers (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "it is one of the few schools in the country with articles in the English wiki" demonstrates perfectly the real systemic bias in our coverage of Asia:

We have so much coverage on topics which only a few thousand Anglophone expatriates might care about: international schools they send their kids to, bars they go to, and marginal anti-foreigner political groups which piss them off. All of which reliable sources in both English and local languages mostly-to-entirely ignore because they're so unworthy of attention, while people associated with them create Wikipedia articles for them precisely in an attempt to draw more attention.
We have so little coverage on topics which matter to millions of local people: the schools they aspire to send their kids to, their members of parliament, the pop idols who sing in their languages, etc., which Wikipedians ignore because they're not in English
When we try to delete worthless articles in category #1, people claim that retaining them would help us fight "bias" against topics in the country in question

And by the way, the directory listing you linked to is for the Bishkek International School, not this school. They are two separate schools. That one is a secular school founded in 1994. This one is a Christian school founded in 1998, as their own website states [53]. Regards, cab (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - let's get this straight - someone is arguing that the only English Language secondary school in Kyrgyzstan is not notable? Lets move on ... TerriersFan (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Acually there are two. Scaldi (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, unless a non-trivial third-party source can be found (I was unable to find anything myself). --Delirium (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All secondary schools are notable. There may not be any online references for this school online because people in Kyrgyzstan do not have as much Internet access as the Americans, the British, the Canadians, etc. There are probably many offline newspaper articles — third-party, reliable sources — written in Kyrgyz about this English-language school. There is simply no need to delete one of only two English language schools in Kyrgyzstan. This school and all other secondary schools are notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't myself disagree that the school may be notable, but this article is nonetheless inherently unverifiable due to the low likelihood of reliable sources appearing in the forseeable future. I would of course be amenable to recreation if someone did find such sources, perhaps some Kyrgyz newspaper articles as you suggest. --Delirium (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The argument that Kyrgyz newspapers (either in Russian or Kyrgyz languages) would be scrambling to write articles about an evangelical Protestant school which none of their Muslim or Orthodox readers can either afford or would be interested in enrolling their children, strains credulity. Foreigners' schools, if they get coverage anywhere at all, get it in their home country newspapers, or in local newspapers aimed at foreigners. Rich Anglophone foreigners in Kyrgyzstan are quite enthusiastic users of the Internet, and the newspapers aimed at them all have a good online presence [54][55][56]. None of them have bothered to mention this school.

In the .kg domain, "school" gets 13.5k GHits, Russian "школа" gets 30k, and Kyrgyz "мектеп" gets 1.5k (a relatively deflated number because Google search knows how to do stemming for Russian and English, but not for Kyrgyz). Among these hits you can find much discussion of the actually notable schools of Kyrgyzstan: the ones which Kyrgyz people are likely to send their children to, and as a result which newspapers find it worthwhile to write about because it will interest their readers. cab (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not a single reliable source mentioned that validates this school as notable. Alan.ca (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, we are allowing articles on every secondary school in the United States, regardless of notability (I have even seen articles on American junior high schools). So the fact that it's a secondary school should mean it is inherently notable (though I must add that I actually disagree with what we're doing with normal secondary schools, but what's done is done). But even if that were not the case, this school would be notable for exactly the reason that User:TerriersFan points out. It's a school in Kyrgyzstan using an all-English curriculum! As far as I can see, the only objection would be if someone doubted its existence, which one must always consider in this day and age and what all can be done with the internet. I've looked it up, and I found a bounty of references to it, and not ones mirroring this page. (Though really, the source that User:Victuallers added should have been enough to begin with, IMO). I've added some sources to the article, and I think this should clearly be kept. Un school 05:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All secondary schools are probably notable, but an english language secondary school in that country certainly is.Evidence of the existence and the nature of its program is sufficient to show notability in this case. DGG (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A school for foreigners which operates in a language which the foreigners actually speak is hardly unusual enough to warrant bold italics, let alone an automatic presumption of notability based on "gee isn't that so exotic". Every country on earth—even Turkmenistan and North Korea—has expatriate foreigners of various nationalities living in their capital. Some of these foreigner have kids. Neither the foreigners nor their kids bother to learn the local language to any real degree. English is far and away the most likely common language of any group of expatriate foreigners of various nationalities. So guess what language a school for foreigners is likely to use as their medium of instruction? cab (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, on the over-fontinization, I appreciate the correction. (I've been fighting a delayed onset of maturity for over three decades, and well, that's the occasional result.) Look, I understand what you're saying about the ubiquity of English as the lingua franca (would it have been okay to italicize that?) of, well, of the world today. So you're right, this isn't a bizzare, freak occurence. But it still strikes me as no less notable than Delphi Community High School or Natchez High School or Greybull High School, and the existence of it is certainly to me a lot more interesting (not that that's our criterion). Un school 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all secondary schools are probably notable, this one doesn't look like it is. I couldn't find anything to establish notability on this school. MuZemike (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, your comment makes me realize that there may be something of a subjective element to notability. I don't have the answer; I am largely inexperienced at this AfD stuff. But let me ask you: Could you find something to establish notability on the three schools I listed in my comment to cab above? And if not, would you be willing to start the AfD on them? Un school 07:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia's guideline on notability is subjective and is open to interpretation (that's why we have so many of these arguments at AFDs - lots of them boil down to notability issues). I interpret WP:SCHOOL differently as a guideline and not more transparent to the general guideline. With that said, there is no inherent notability; sources must exist out there to establish it. More likely than not, the three American high schools you have mentioned have likely received plenty of coverage in many papers, whether it be local, regional, or even national in some cases; those three are probably notable. Non-American schools, particularly those in countries without a high presence from other English-speaking-countries like Kyrgyzstan are much harder to find sources for notability than, say, those with a high presence like Germany or Korea or some smaller Arab states. That's how I see notability as far as schools are concerned, but then again, I do not really focus on schools that much. MuZemike (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the guideline is subjective, sure, but there are some established patterns--its not a pure argument from first principles every time. Schools devoted to education in a non native language have often been held especially notable--schools teaching in French or Chinese in NYC, schools teaching in English in France or China. In this case, schools in a country somewhat out of the general mainstream, that teach in a world language, especially when they are the only or first ones in a country, are reasonable considered notable. DGG (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is "reasonably considered notable" only if you can demonstrate that whatever heuristic you're using to decide "reasonably" is a decent proxy for "having actual non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources if you just look a bit harder". "Gee whiz, that's neat-o!" asserted by a bunch of technically literate internet users from high-immigration societies reading an English-language debate about a school is sometimes a decent proxy for "American newspapers have covered this school". It's far less likely to be as reasonable a proxy for "Kyrgyz newspapers might have covered this school", for reasons I mentioned above.

Not every country focuses the same amount of academic or journalistic attention to foreigners/minorities living in their midst. (Which is precisely the factor you're relying on when you assert without evidence that an English-medium school in Kyrgyzstan is "especially notable" as compared to a regular old Kyrgyz/Russian-medium school). Chileans, for example, write papers and even whole books on minute groups like the 250 Russians or 1,800 Koreans they have living there. Thais, less so --- I've been trying for years to gather up enough sources to write an article about the ~30,000 Koreans in Thailand, but there's simply not enough material out there. cab (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the school listed on several databases for international schools. They're also a member of the Association of Christian Schools International, an organization you'll quickly recognize if you've attended a (protestant) Christian school. I added a couple of refs to this effect. More third-party sources would be nice, but that warrants an "expand" tag, not a delete. There's certainly enough here to meet notability standards. Otebig (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the consensus is quite clear to me here; we plan to keep this "article" on the basis of:

A directory entry which quotes from school publicity materials
A single-sentence mention about a staff member in the newsletter of a parent organisation
A blog entry
The school's own website
Extremely hypothetical Kyrgyz newspaper articles

If we're going to ignore WP:N by this wide a margin, maybe I should change my last name to "Academy" so I can get a Wikipedia article about me too. cab (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Mazarakis[edit]

Delete. At 101st in the world, and no titles, I don't believe he meets WP:ATHLETE. ... discospinster _talk 21:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC) ...[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k. To make things worse, he's not even 101st anymore, and has dropped a long way since his peak in 2006. If I read the link correctly, he's currently ranked 524th in the world. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Timneu22 (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per all previous comments. Un school 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Mandsford. Schuym1 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I cannot find anything that can establish notability of this athlete. MuZemike (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos made in the 1960s[edit]

Orphan article since 2006. Contents would be better suited as a category. Also it's debatable whether some of the entries were made as music videos or simply film clips taken from a television performance/movie A-Kartoffel (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the historical idea that music videos were not conceptualized until the 70s. JuJube (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment correct, even if this article is saved, the name of it is misleading. The idea of a "music video" as opposed to a television performance or film excerpt didn't appear til the 1970s. The list doesn't appear to make a distinction. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I wouldn't go anywhere past the 1970s (a similar 1980s or after list would be virtually unmaintainable, unless you possibly go by year and not decade). Otherwise, music videos from the 1960s do exist and can be verified, such as Pink Floyd's Arnold Layne and Point Me at the Sky. MuZemike (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were to be sourced, it would become clear that these were not filmed to be "music videos". Since it's not sourced, it appears to be just a list of songs that someone has seen performances of on a tape or a DVD that was compiled later. The closest thing that I can think of to a "music video" in the 1960s was the musical sequence in each episode of The Monkees. There was no equivalent of MTV prior to 1981. Mandsford (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could go either way on this. Music videos per se did exist in Britain at last a few years before 1981; when MTV started up most of their videos were from British acts; synthpop became popular in the US for the next couple years as a result of this. But I agree that films of bands performing don't belong here, even if they were later recast as "music videos". Something like Yellow Submarine, on the other hand, is different. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: listcruft, ambiguous entries. JamesBurns (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per James Burns. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - spurious list. TheClashFan (talk) 00:31, 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 WP:SNOW Delete. Clearly fails all applicable policies and guidelines from WP:V on down. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moulin Rouge 2[edit]

Contested prod. No sources. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Google returns nothing. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No entry in IMDB either. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NFF. Rnb (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable coverage of this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I can't find anything on it. Majoreditor (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfounded rumour. Maybe the author got the idea from this search? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a crystal ball. VX!^~~~ 20:43, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie and Robert Patterson[edit]

New Zealand's first IVF twins. The references at present are inadequate, but there is no reason why decent references couldn't be found. However, I think this is an invasion of the privacy of the people concerned, per WP:ONEEVENT. Compare with Louise Brown, the world's first IVF baby, who probably should continue to have her article, and Elizabeth Jordan Carr and Candice Reed, the first American and Australian IVF babies, where the articles might have the same problem. gadfium 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This not only isn't Louise Brown, it's almost ten years afterwards. Look, if this is notable, then in theory we would have to include the first IVF baby born in each country, right? Maybe this would be sufficiently notable for nz.wikipedia, if it existed, but not here. Un school 06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, first baby or first twins? Fertility Associates says "doctors ... who introduced in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to New Zealand in the early 1980s". A search of local newspaper headlines for "twins" returned nothing to substantiate, results from before and after 1986 but not that year. No results from Google or NZ Herald. ~~Thought it could be a hoax.~~ XLerate (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any online references to this either, and I'm rather suspicious of the house price given for Palmerston North at the time too. ~~A hoax is a possibility~~. On the other hand, the same editor's contributions to Palmerston North on gangs, while unsourced, looks to be correct.-gadfium 08:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back, just first impression, the Palmerston North gang section was spot on, the car loaned was a Saab. XLerate (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly per WP:BLP1E and lack of established notability in general. Over half the article is also unreferenced - a BLP no-no (just noting, not really an argument for deletion). MuZemike (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the editor of the article so that probably means I'm biased but the truth is this is my first article so the lack of references is probably an oversight on my behalf. I added the article because I recently met Jamie Patterson and I remember myself when this happened, it was at the time a very significant story in New Zealand and for several years the twins continued to feature in womans magazines etc. Having lived in Palmerston North myself i also remember the public reaction to the event and when I met Jamie recently he was able to produce for me several newspaper articles photo-copied from the Parliamentary archives, one of which I quoted from in the article. I added the page as I have never attempted to look for something on wiki and not found it before, maybe thats just co-incidence but it was an opportunity to contribute. I can tell you from my own research that there was one test tube child born in New Zealand prior to this at St Georges hospital in Christchurch but the child died within 10 minutes of birth so when the twins were born it was considered the first successful use of the procedure. I think the event was not only significant in the history of New Zealand but also in the history of IVF as it shows how widespread the procedure had become by the mid eighties. Also in response to the comment above about the Palmerston North Gang problems yes it was a Saab, I am impressed with your research. I believe actually if my memory serves me well that it was the mayoral Saab (eg it was owned by the mayors office, not Mr Bell-Booth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremevehiclesltd (talk • contribs) 13:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being famous in Palmerston North does not qualify anyone for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Helenalex (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the article to be kept I think two items are needed:

1. per WP:ONEEVENT the article focuses on the event rather than the people, Chris and Cru Kahui murders for example.

2. notability is established per WP:NOTE, for example a date, page and article name from The Press or NZ Herald would be a solid argument to keep. I looked on the Palmerston North City Library newspaper headlines catalogue but results appeared to only go back to 1992. The local search mentioned above was the ODT/DPL. XLerate (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. It seems like an invasion of privacy; and the topic doesn't seem notable enough to justify that. The lack of sources compounds the problem, and judging by the comment from the article's creator it contains original research as well. The bit about house prices is well out in left field. I appreciate that Xtremevehiclesltd wanted to contribute but perhaps a less sensitive topic might be a better starting point. NZ forever (talk) 02:13, 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 all. Icewedge (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Hilton[edit]

Main article in a series of articles about a non-notable singer (gets a grand total of 10 ghits).

Also nominating

Delete all. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not notable. --Non-dropframe (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--vanity (everyone in NZ thinks he's number one?) and no notability. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all': Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — none of them can establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only person in history to move from Montana to New Zealand. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Also delete the newly created Face To Face Tour(seth hilton). In addition, Seth Hilton discography even denotes an album to be released in 2010, which, among other things, violates WP:CRYSTAL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me update the list of related articles here:

Also watch for My Only Wish This Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been tagged for speedy A1 (lack of context) (not by me) and is about a song by Britney Spears of which Hilton performed a remake. I just took care of this one. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - not notable. Ward3001 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More: You may wish to add User:DrVince/Face_To_Face and User:DrVince/Seth Hilton to the list. They're copies of the articles that the creator of all these articles put into someone else's user space. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, these two pages have been created by DrVince himself but were later edited by third parties. To get an idea of what's going on, you might also want to see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Seth hilton, where DrVince (talk · contribs) now appears to be an unwilling pawn who just woke up realizing that he's been used. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Holy cow. The more I learn about Wikipedia, the more bizarre it gets! :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:25, 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 Withdrawn due to a complete rewrite of the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf animals[edit]

Contested prod. Original research, and no indication that it will turn into anything else. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Contains Original Research and has no sources. allanlw (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Based on the rework of the page, it is quite a viable stub page. Allanlw 12:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's simply no content here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy! because really, this is something that does not have much sense. I'm trying to be diplomatic, but calling it 'original research' is really not kind toward the concept of research. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Sharpbrood (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong KEEP - Article reworked. Removed WP:OR and added 2 Cites. very viable topic. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - How can you, in good faith, come to the conclusion that there is "no indication that this article will develop into anything else" within 1 minute of its creation? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not as funny as the first version. Juzhong (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about thise who cast delete votes so far? Do we have a consensus that this AfD can be withdrawn? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:14, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despair (Omar Rodriguez-Lopez album)[edit]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. The article is not written in a neutral point of view, nor does it contain any sources/references. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed npov material, the album has been announced by the record label on their myspace. Zopwx2 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I looks alright now. It's legit.Hadar Svan (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Omar Rodríguez-López, at least until the album can be reliably sourced via secondary sources to establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference to label's Online Music Store was actually to a hardcoded IP address. Can't possibly verify as a reliable source with that.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Liquid Sex[edit]

Not Notable per: WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND. Not sourced, and limited depth for the band on g-search. [57] Also, redirect page: Hot liquid sex. NOT recommending Ange Kohler for deletion. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to not pass WP:MUSIC. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band and EP, no reliable sources for either. (Also delete Ange Kohler per below.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per WP:MUSIC. Poss add in Ange Kohler too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ange Kohler: Ange Kohler was the confirmed drummer for the song Like Only A Woman Can, which reached number 1 in Ireland, #13 in Australia and #39 in New Zealand: [58], and also appeared in the music video [59]. This meets notability as per WP:MUSIC. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. All she did was play drums on the song. If the song were charted by her, then yes, she would meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The exact wording of WP:MUSIC states: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 2) Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. In this case, the guidelines do not seem to prohibit musicians who perform on the single, or exclude notability by assuming only the lead singer would be notable. As a number 1 single in Ireland, some notability has been asserted. I don't feel comfortable including this in the separate notability issue for the band Hot Liquid Sex, especially as I was the nominating editor and this was added to the discussion afHter my initial posting. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the later split personality of OliverTwisted. A number one single is enough to meet verifiability guidelines. travb (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: as per Esradekan. No reliable sources. JamesBurns (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify, I nominated this article for deletion. Later, Ange Kohler and Unexpect the Expected were added, without my approval. I still support the deletion of Hot Liquid Sex and Unexpect the Expected, but I do not support the deletion of Ange Kohler. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 01:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As currently written, the articles fail to meet WP:RS, thus fail WP:N. Un school 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — none of them can display sufficent notability for inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. They can be rewritten for notability. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:33, 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. StarM 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony CMS[edit]

No references to third-party coverage of this product despite tags for more than three months. Non-notable product. Delete. Bongo matic 04:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the original developer of Symphony. I'm currently looking into rewriting this article to conform to the wikipedia's standards.Chaoticpattern (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated. Please review. Chaoticpattern (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update to nomination. The rewrite of the article still does nothing to demonstrate thenotability of the subject. There continues to be no significant coverage in reliable indepenent sources. Bongo matic 20:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I have followed other examples of content management pages and I believe I have provided more than adequate references, at least based on what I've seen: Radiant (software), ExpressionEngine, Textpattern. Either the aforementioned articles are also inadequate, in which case should also be nominated for deletion or there is a particular bias toward this particular article. Please advise. Chaoticpattern (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party reliable sources. To address Chaoticpattern's specific concerns, I'd say all of those other articles could and probably should be nominated for deletion also, at least as far as the information in the article shows. Radiant has a single third party review linked, but I'm not convinced it is a reliable source. JulesH (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find the notion that systems such as Textpattern and ExpressionEngine should be nominated for deletion a little alarming. I don't know the specific numbers but sites powered by these systems should range in the hundreds of thousands if not more. I feel that their user-base might not appreciate it. However, giving them leniency would prove that there is a bias against this article. I think these should be under review too: Django (web framework), Typo (software), Frog CMS, TYPO3 and MODx. Perhaps the very definition of CMS should also be under review: Content management system Chaoticpattern (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias has nothing to do with it. I tagged this article approximately one month after its creation while patrolling new pages. Three months later, I nominated it for deletion. I don't read articles on related topics just because one comes up on new page patrol (though I would encourage JulesH or anyone else who finds articles that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines to nominate or propose them for deletion or speedy deletion). Wikipedia is not meant to be a competition of who can get articels on non-notable topics included without being nominated for deletion--the fact that some have not been deleted yet (or have survived AfD discussions) is not grounds for inclusion of others. You may wish to read WP:AADD and WP:OSE. Bongo matic 16:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I could not find any reliable secondary sources establishing any notability. Note that "other stuff exists" is not a valid keep argument. If other articles have similar problems, then they will be dealt with in due time. MuZemike (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dano Sulik[edit]

The subject appears to fail both WP:N and WP:PORNBIO Sharveet (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--No awards, and no sources, fail WP:PORNBIO.--Jmundo (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Not Notable, fails all of WP:PORNBIO (no awards, no sources, nothing groundbreaking). allanlw (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. Un school 06:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another unreferenced BLP. MuZemike (talk) 19:49, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Prada[edit]

The subject appears to fail both WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. Sharveet (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--No sources to verify notability.--Jmundo (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:RS,  fails WP:N. Un school 06:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — just as with Sebastian Bonnet, completely unreferenced BLP. MuZemike (talk) 19:48, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Bonnet[edit]

The subject appears to fail WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. Sharveet (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. David in DC (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Where are the sources?--Jmundo (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a completely unreferenced BLP. No prejudice for recreation provided the article can be reliably sourced. MuZemike (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references.--Iamawesome800 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The recently added "references" are not reliable sources.David in DC (talk) 22:12, 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. Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synamed[edit]

non-notable advert orphan Careful Cowboy (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. You just threw a few jargon terms together without explaining how they apply. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no third party evidence that the company is notable. There are only links to press releases, and a google search just shows more press releases. The article serves as an advertisement for a company--it's not an encyclopedic article of general interest. It's an orphan in the sense that no one links to it. All of these issues were brought up in March 2008. Careful Cowboy (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent refs to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no obvious advertising language and there are references available contrary to what Aymatth2 says in his comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is an advertisement for a company. The references are all to press releases from the company--no third party evidence of notability. Careful Cowboy (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, unless someone can find a non-trivial third-party source. --Delirium (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this suggests there is such coverage (I hope the URL works for you: "Synamed" on Google News, Archives: All dates selected). Drmies (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all respect, Drmies, that link just leads me to believe that they have a PR department that regularly issues press releases. Un school 06:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm--OK, after looking at all the entries (I only glanced at the list before), I see your point. The only thing that stands up, as far as I can tell, is this award. Mind you, I wasn't going to vote 'keep' based on that search alone. Thanks for checking, Drmies (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found it useful to re-read WP:CORP. Press releases, even those reprinted in other sources, don't establish notability. I wonder if the TETHIC award is notable? Careful Cowboy (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cowboy, don't get me wrong: I am a cynic and never believe press releases. I just wasn't prepared for this search to give me nothing but press releases: I thought there was some wheat among the chaff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article not only fails to meet WP:N, it really doesn't even try. The closest thing is a vague reference to "esttablishing a national presence". But the story here is their software, and their software is apparently only for use in-house, so it just doesn't affect anyone else. Maybe there's more to it than that, but you can't guess that from the article as currently written. Un school 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Notability cannot be established through reliable secondary sources; that is, press releases cannot solely establish notability of a company per WP:SPS. MuZemike (talk) 19:43, 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 redirect to Annuals. to Annuals. Could possibly be a search term and re-directs are cheap. Content under the re-direct if someone wants to merge. StarM 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frelen Mas[edit]

per WP:MUSIC, not a notable album. roux 05:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Annuals per WP:MUSIC#Albums; "articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable EP WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make a brief mention in the Annuals article. It's already listed in their discography section. While WP:MUSIC#Albums calls for a merge, the Annuals article is not lengthy enough to absorb a merge. Band's EP Wet Zoo is also in AfD. Chuckiesdad (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Annuals. There's nothing here that is not already mentioned in the band's article. MuZemike (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Three Mile Pilot. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Desert, Another Sea[edit]

NN album by marginally (if that) notable band. roux 05:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Three Mile Pilot per WP:MUSIC#Albums; "articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable album WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:49, 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 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per User:Esradekan Un school 06:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Three Mile Pilot; it fits much better with the band article. MuZemike (talk) 19:37, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop's University Economics Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bishop's University Economics Society

Contested PROD. Non-notable organisation. A google search yields unpromising results. role^player 20:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bishop's University. Worth a very brief mention. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a smerge to Bishop's University is fine. I don't see any likelihood of independent reliable sources appearing soon however. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organisation.DonaldDuck (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even see a merge; this looks to me like it would be a wart on Bishop's University as well. Un school 06:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — aside from not passing for notability, this also seems to be written like someone's web page. A merge would not make much sense in this case, either. MuZemike (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Bishop's University. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:03, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class of '05 problem[edit]

Non-notable problem. At most, deserves 2-3 lines of text in Iraqi insurgency. DonaldDuck (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Delete/Merge. Buckshot06(prof) 17:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is nothing more than a thesis from an article in a journal of opinion. Why should I delete thee? Let me count the ways. Un school 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to A Gamut of Games. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Solitaire[edit]

A non-notable game that appeared as one game in a book of games. Step hen 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Splitting game from a bundled discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with A Gamut of Games —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire3131 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. Un school 06:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam is an independent source, and I cannot see a reason to question xyr reliability for information about what this game is and how it is played. This is a borderline case for the PNC, given what sources I could find. (I'd prefer the existence of another source.) So the answer is either keeping or merger somewhere. Whatever the case, deletion isn't the answer. Uncle G (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Solitaire as a variant of the card game. MuZemike (talk) 19:33, 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 merge to A Gamut of Games. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poke (game)[edit]

A non-notable game that appeared as one game in a book of games. Step hen 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Splitting game from a bundled discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with A Gamut of Games —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empire3131 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truncate first, then merge to A Gamut of Games. My gosh, let's have all the rules for every game that everyone has ever thought about playing, eh? Un school 06:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A Gamut of Games per above. MuZemike (talk) 19:29, 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 delete. Icewedge (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prototypes[edit]

This band from Leeds does not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. According to the talk page, the article's subject has at times been confused with a different UK band (a London band who had a song, "Kaleidescope", that was used on the soundtrack of video game FIFA 07), and a French band who had a song, "Who's Gonna Sing?", used in an iPod commercial. The French band is potentially notable. But as for the current subject of this article, I was able to find any sources to help establish WP:N notability, either with Google News searching, or in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. The listing on a band directory at BBC Leeds is not sufficient. An inquiry on the talk page regarding sources has gone unanswered. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to meet notability, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails BAND. Un school 06:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — could not find any reliable secondary sources establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreliable and confusing --dannycas (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BBC Leeds entry is indeed not sufficient as it is user submitted. Icewedge (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, redirect and delete!. Keep Allied Business Schools, redirect Allied American University to Allied Business Schools and delete Allied American University (AAU) in line with conclusion by Urbanrenewal, which appears to have consensus and is a sensible solution. SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Business Schools[edit]

The article's history shows that the author's interest has been in enhancing the linkage to the school's websites rather than in resolving the problems noted in the article (notability, reliable sources), and he removed the issue tags without remedying the problems. Now I see that on his user page, User:Estrva, he identifies himself as Sean Lee. At http://www.linkedin.com/in/seanlee77 we find that Sean Lee is the Search Engine Optimization Specialist at the school, so it becomes clear that this article has been placed here purely for promotional purposes. WP:Advertising applies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it refers to the same institution and because its history shows that it was created by an author named User:Allieduniversity and that it was then picked up by user Estrva:

I am also nominating the following page that redirects to the previously mentioned one and that was also created by user Allieduniversity:

Delete per well researched nom, the copyright info for the logo on the article has User:Estrva claiming ownership, raising COI issues, and the article has existed for a while, with no efforts to fix problems in maintenance templates. --Terrillja _talk 20:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 26 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 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles very clearly have majorWP:Advertising issues but the remedy is not deletion of the articles. I think notability can likely be established which leaves the WP:COI issues to be resolved in the articles themselves. I would recommend a major cut of the articles' offensive materials and a deeper dive for some third party sources. On quick inspection I have seen a variety of sources discussing the schools (most of it not particularly positive). If the articles cannot be salvaged, I would then agree that deletion is warranted. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion unarguable is a remedy for advertising since advertising is expressly grounds for speedy deletion, though I chose to put this article through AfD. And so it should be: you can hardly prevent people from using Wikipedia to advertise if the only penalty is that the language gets toned down a little, and if it gives them the satisfaction of knowing that all they have to do is post, and someone will jump to rewrite their article for them. Should they have that kind of control? "Dance, puppets, dance!"? We have all these guidelines that stress over and over again that writing about topics involving a conflict of interest is "highly discouraged". There isn't any point saying that unless the activity of concern is highly discouraged.
As has been told to advertisers and self-promoters many times, "If you are notable, someone else will write about you". We're serious about that, aren't we? I'd hate to think it's a hollow slogan. There is no benefit to having an article on a topic, even a notable one, before someone chooses, voluntarily, on his own schedule (i.e., not out of an urgent need to squelch an advertisement without resorting to deletion), to write something about it that isn't a violation. In the meantime, the advertising shouldn't be on Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been at it for just a few minutes and already am coming up with some interesting glimpses on this company. I would rather end up having an objective article about this scam of a "school" rather than just delete it. I like the fact that you can point out that they try to pass of a second rate accreditation as legitimate. If they put it up on Wikipedia they don't have control over it and probably it ends up as an advertiser's worst nightmare. Maybe adding some content from the consumer complaints about the company. I think when 60 minutes goes knocking on these guys' doors it would be good if there was already an article here. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine overall that you were interested in doing something about it, and if the article becomes legit, then the grounds for deletion goes away. My remarks above were directed more at the idea of leaving a spam article around until someone gets around to doing something about it, or, worse, feels obligated to do something about it. And while I still mean what I said about not rewarding the advertisers by snapping to attention, I fully endorse adding any warts that can be found (as long as the whole is presented in a balanced manner, of course). I had a field day last month when a loan company in Australia wrote an article about a particular loan product it was selling—a low documentation loan, just the sort of loan that wreaks all kinds of financial havoc. I located a couple of commentaries by the Australian tax authority on the negative aspects of these loans and on the authority's drive to audit a large percentage of taxpayers taking them out. I rounded out the article with this information. Then I found that the author, who had previously put links on his own website leading to his Wikipedia article, removed those links shortly after my I'd accomplished my deed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I made some pretty significant edits. It still needs work but I will give it another go when I have some more time. I would strongly suggest merging the articles if this survives AfD as the Allied American University is just one brand of online school operated by the company. I have this one on my watchlist so I will do my best to keep it from getting re-spammed. Just for the record on initially reading this I agreed with you for nominating it but thought this was one that could be saved. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the school is notable, we deal with problems by editing, not deletion. DGG (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. It has been suggested that Allied Business Schools and Allied American University should be merged. Reading the articles, that seems like a maybe a good idea. And the resultant product could be viewed very different here than this stand-alone. Can we delay this decision until someone implements this suggestion, and then bring it back for another look? Un school 06:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the following:

Keep Allied American University as notability is independently established, and the spam issues have already been corrected, apparently.
Merge Allied Business Schools to Allied American University as this is a better fit for this article as opposed to keeping or deleting.
Delete Allied American University (AAU) as an implausible search term. (Normally, this should be discussed at redirects for discussion, but that would just get in the way of the process.) MuZemike (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the above suggestion, however disagreed with the direction of the merger. As I originally proposed, this is an article about a for profit education company not one of its particular brands (in this case Allied American University). Therefore I have gone ahead and completed the merger of Allied American University into Allied Business Schools. I would be in favor of deletion of Allied American University (AAU) as proposed. If people are satisfied on notability then I think this is a pretty good result for the moment for the main Allied Business Schools article|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Notability not proved. SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CxQL[edit]

COI self promotion for a non-notable software tool. Independent WP:reliable sources neither cited nor found in search, failing WP:PRODUCT • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about these:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortify_Software, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverity, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klocwork, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ounce_Labs

We're legitimately talking about our technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CxQL (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about article x? falls under arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. However since you asked, a quick check shows that 3 of the articles cite at least some references from reliable published media. Two are tagged for {{advert}} cleanup. Those articles will be fixed or weeded out in due course. The CxQL article is blatant (and now acknowledged) self promotion without any reliable references to support its claims. Your repeated removal of cleanup tags to fix problems clinched it for me. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes time to add info and references to the article. Please allow time to do so. CxQL talk, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable software. Once it becomes notable per Wikipedia standards, the article can be started. LinguistAtLarge 06:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can establish notability for this software. MuZemike (talk) 19:14, 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 Marasmusine (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mirror Games[edit]

Article does not cite secondary sources and company does not meet WP:CORP notability guidelines. Switzpaw (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 23:20, 26 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 00:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my (halfhearted) google search turned up no independent coverage in reliable sources. Juzhong (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CORP. When I opened this article I actually assumed that it had been tagged for AfD within moments of its creation, given its appearance. I was surprised to find from the history that it is nearly three months old. Un school 06:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to establish notability through reliable secondary sources; I could not find any. MuZemike (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 19:52, 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. NrDg 01:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy bros[edit]

The first sentence says it all: coming soon in 2010. Textbook violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no signs of notability. However, you added the AFD 1 minute after the article was created. TJ Spyke 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I sent it to AfD because it was a recreation of a previously speedied article. Check the deletion log. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed. I have added a CSD tag to the article, it was created 10 minutes after being deleted. TJ Spyke 00:23, 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.