Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 1

< 31 January	2 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep Bad faith nom by user who had several insurance articles deleted. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Corporation[edit]

Blantant advertising South Bay (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Blatant advertising can be deleted by speedy deletion, but this doesn't look like blatant advertising and is well-sourced. If you feel it has a promotional tone, that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion, and this company is undoubtedly notable enough to have an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources still need to be improved. I have been slowly working on getting independent sources for the article. I'd tagged it for needing better sources a month or so ago. I can continue working on this. The article has potential to be something actually readable at some point, so I think it's premature to be rid of it. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas karlsson[edit]

This person seems to be a minor professional tennis player and coach. A Google search turns up a few hits, but nothing substantial on the subject. I know next to nothing about tennis, but I imagine there are thousands of minor professional tennis players in the world. He does have his own website, which means very little. (I have my own website too.) If anyone can prove notability, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. •••Life of Riley (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I am unable to find any reliable sources or any evidence of notability. Note that there are a handful of other Tomas Karlssons, including a former coach for the US alpine skiing team. However, if that is the same person as the subject of this article, you would expect that information to be included here. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 00:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage about this individual. I concur with User:N Shar that the skiing Karlsson whom I also ran across in my searches is not the same person. I also checked the ATP player database and there is no record of him as a professional tennis player on the ATP. Note that the database does contain retired players as you can find this rather famous retired Swedish player. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. decltype 17:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Rollercoaster Ride[edit]

Non-notable song, no sources. Seems too obscure to merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant 3rd party notability WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep bad faith nom. WP:SNOW (non admin close)Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Farm Insurance[edit]

violates WP:Spam South Bay (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Plenty of independent sources. If the tone of the article is bad, then feel free to re-write it. But no way in hell is this company not notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Bell[edit]

Sources back up almost none of the info. Album was unreleased and hasn't been written about in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. The only reliable, third-party, source is the Nashville rage one, which is perfect for a mention on the parent article, (of which there already is), but not enough for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party notability WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. [1] (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Depenbusch[edit]

~~Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO by not having at least two albums. No reliable sources in English provided.. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn - taking your collective word for it that notability is established in the non-English sources. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Number of albums is only one of many criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, and two reliable sources are provided in German. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, and that would be 1 of the 12 criteria of WP:Music, WP:MUSIC#C1 is another, which she passes for the references, which were already in the article before it was nominated. Non-English sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esradekan. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article was properly sourced with two references prior to the nomination, and one of those references is actually a very long newspaper piece where the Depenbusch is the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close Clearly notable. WP:SOFIXIT. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GEICO[edit]

Blantant advertising South Bay (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Clearly notable and no more spammy than any article about any corporation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Quest (gaming). Icewedge (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quest chain[edit]

Article was prodded, and prod was deleted, so taking it to AFD. Article appears to have little or no content beyond what could appear (or appears) in other more notable articles. Plastikspork (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Update: I now vote to redirect to Quest (gaming) as suggested. Plastikspork (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictdef of the "[Foo bar] is a [bar] which is [foo]" sort. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism (oh I do love that phrase). Ironholds (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quest (gaming) which already has more information about this subject than is in this article. JulesH (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for finding a suitable place to redirect this article. If I would have found that earlier, I probably would have been WP:BOLD and just done it rather than taking this to AFD. If someone wants to speedy close this article and do it (or I can do it), that would be fine by me. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per suggestion by JulesH. --Beligaronia (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Quest (gaming), especially since nom agrees. — neuro^(talk) 00:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per julesH and beligaronia. Ikip (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G6 (non-controversial cleanup). This was clearly a mistake, and the archive has been created at the correct location: Talk:KPFA/Archive 1. — TKD::Talk 23:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KPFA/Archive 1[edit]

Delete User:Critical Chris has attempted to archive part of the article talk page into article space, rather that talk space, and has removed the PROD Mayalld (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly it is a mistake. I see that an archive has been made in the correct place with identical content so there is no need to keep this. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestral knocking[edit]

This is a charming little dicdef of an article, but it seems completely unverifiable (no Google hits apart from mirrors) and is probably not notable anyway. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sure, a little charming, but not encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an interesting bit of trivia, but there's no coverage about it. I can find lots of wikimirrors though. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bremen (manga)[edit]

No reviews or other third-party reliable sources could be found from which to presume notability. I was only able to find a rather trivial mention at The Comics Reporter. The author, Haruto Umezawa, may be notable for another series, Hareluya II Boy, which was adapted into a television series, but I haven't been able to find any more information on it. Farix (Talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like it got some notice in French, but I can't tell if these are real reviews or user-generated content. Maybe our resident Francophone can help us here. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past midnight in France, you know. It was licensed in France starting from 2001 but no reprint Vol 1 amazon.fr and i found only one short review Manga news (see critique tab). It's rather thin to support notability. KrebMarkt 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BK having no significant coverage in reliabel third party sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the resident francophone say : Even with the 9 vols released in France, only one short review & no reprint. Commercial = Fail & Notability = Fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrebMarkt (talk • contribs) 09:33, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

Delete per above: couldn't find notice in multiple languages, doesn't meet WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sioraf (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porkulus[edit]

Protologism with little to no assertion of notability. Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, no reliable sources found on google web search, so it's non-notable Patton^t/c 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source (Wall Street Journal) is in the references section. Because it is a neologism, it is timely right now. Should it fade from use without historical import, it would be appropriate to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 21:53, February 1, 2009

That's not a reference, the word was used once in a newspaper article, it's not an article about the term.--Patton^t/c 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references establish the usage and definition of the term. —Gustnado (talk contribs) 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, trivial coverage (Ty whoevr fixed the double AfD)--Patton^t/c 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, the precise defining coverage.--Gustnado (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. Other than the fact that someone called the package "porkulus", it does not contribute to our knowledge of the subject. GregorB (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It contributes to our knowledge of political humor and commentary. It is not meant to contribute to our knowledge of the legislation. comment added by Gustnado (talk contribs) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism. --Peephole (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Protologism. Should it become widely used in the future, article may be recreated. . ¨¨ victor falk 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Just because a word is created in an opinion piece doesn't make it notable. Will Beback talk 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that and I created the page. (oops, forget to log in)--Gustnado (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This 'word' has only just been used for the first time, is an expression of one particular point of view on a topic with an existing article, and is treated here by way of a dictionary definition. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable protologism. (WP:NEO) — neuro^(talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SWR Sound Corporation. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the 8x8[edit]

Erm, it's a bass guitar cabinet. No way this is notable enough for inclusion on an encyclopedia. GARDEN 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per (rather lackluster :P) nom statement. GlassCobra 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SWR Sound Corporation as a plausible search term, article lacks reliable, third-party, sources for stand alone notability per WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esradekan (talk • contribs)
Redirect is a decent idea. Just imagine the punch you'd get out of 8 8" speakers... Drmies (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very cool cab, but I agree with Esradekan and Drmies - redirect to the SWR article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't find sources to support an independent article, a merge and redirct to SWR Sound Corporation sounds pretty reasonable. LinguistAtLarge • Msg

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

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

The result was speedy delete G12. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular wine and food pairing[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research Patton^t/c 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Delete, it's pure SPAM. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear OR. WP:OR. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Also ripped directly from [[2]]. By the same person, I assume, particularly considering the byline. - Vianello (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is just OR. I suppose it could be a redirect to Wine and food matching, but even that is iffy.
Delete as spam. Should have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11/G12) as both chopped pork shoulder meat and ham plus copyright infringement. MuZemike 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wish it wasn't too late at night for me to try de-copyvio and source this. I'm sure there are more sources for this subject (Heston Blumenthal must surely have said something). I know this will be deleted but if I get time I'll recreate it in a non-copyvio manner with sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Kingdom[edit]

Non notable band. No tours, no notable label, no reviews etc... Fails WP:MUSIC on all levels. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Canniba loki 04:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn and nominated for speedy deletion (db-web, CSD A7). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 Animated TV Series[edit]

Article about a single webpage (not website, just page—a recent top-100 list) that does nothing but repeat the contents of the list. Therefore, there is no room for development or improvement, and the article itself is nothing but a regurgitation of IGN's own point of view. (Note: prod was contested by article creator.) Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I could have just speedied this. Sorry; withdrawing AfD. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler Reep[edit]

Delete. -- ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navanandi[edit]

A random list of photos and directions to temples without any references or claims to notability. The article was deleted on a PROD because of WP:NOT#IINFO, and then recreated identically, which I'll take as a belated objection to the PROD. As it is, it is a FORK from the identical section in Nandyal#Nava_Nandis (an article with a different set of problems). I am skeptical on the question of whether there is notability or a potential article here (only 111 ghits), but an editor wanting to create a Navanandi article would have to dump this one and start from scratch anyway; there's not even anything to reduce to a stub. THF (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article provides absolutely no context (WP:NOT#IINFO does seem to apply), and as stated above the article in question contains the exact same content as found in the Nandyal article. --Aka042 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no reliable sources... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article appears to be primarily used as an image gallery. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lego Group as per previous AfD, and I have protected the redirect too. Black Kite 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Lego Network[edit]

Non-notable web site...thing. Cited only to the site itself; no indication of third-party coverage. Also stylistically incoherent. --EEMIV (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow missed the previous AfD. I'm happy to withdraw this nom and drop a redirect to Lego Group per the previous AfD -- but, I'd also ask an admin. to (semi-)protect the redirect, since User:Horrifico and his socks seem intent on bugging us with this article. --EEMIV (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Absolutely no coverage in reliable third party sources has been demonstrated; there's virtually unanimous consensus that the subject of the article is not notable enough for inclusion — this has even been admitted by those who said the article shouldn't be deleted. This point can not be ignored, even though some may find this article interesting, useful, nice or whatever. After all, there's a clear consensus that the article does not meet our guidelines for inclusion — nothing else matters in the end. — Aitias // discussion 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double Arts[edit]

Another non-notable manga series that was serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump for just over 5 months. No reviews or other coverage by third-party reliable source could be found. Author appears to be non-notable with only a series of non-notable one-shots to his credits. Farix (Talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening chapters were cute (and generated an impressive amount of fangirl squee-age) but the series went downhill rapidly -- and it looks like the readers of WSJ agreed. Short-lived, unsuccessful series that, if it got any reliable notice, I can't find it. Delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has no importance, no one cares, no one's going to look it up. Most of these articles that are getting deleted are based off scanlations. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, short lived series and fails WP:BK having no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 01:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Having every failed serialization isn't in the scope of WP:Anime. --KrebMarkt 09:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Simply because I do care, and I did look it up. I was coming to look to read about it and look up new information. Though this is probably irrelevant as I do not know the proper procedure... The page said 'share your thoughts' so I am. -Alex, not registered. (first time doing anything on wikipedia so apologies if I mess something up) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.147.253 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Which goes to show that WP:NOTE does restrict the utility of Wikipedia. Whether this is good or bad, is another issue, but current culture generally believes this is good. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete I also care about this series and loved it from start to finish. While most readers of WSJ didn't enjoy it, I know that I and several of my friends greatly enjoyed the series and do not wish for the Wikipedia article to be deleted. Not only that, but I have had some work put into this article and do not wish to see that go to waste. Caterfree10 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google returns 76,400 for "Double Arts" "manga", and its been published in a popular and very notable manga magazine. Don't care if you think that is notable, I do, and so I vote Keep under the wikipedia rules that the policies are just suggestions, to use common sense, and keep anything that makes the encyclopedia better. Dream Focus (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I looked that up...and...the only thing it came up with is scanlation sites and livejournals. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bystander training[edit]

Original research, non-notable subject. Very few ghits (see here). Most of the article is actually about the bystander effect, which already has its own article, the rest is an OR essay. andy (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR and non-WP:Vable -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic WP:OR ¨¨ victor falk 05:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parfact[edit]

I think this article is a hoax. It relies for its notability and verifiability upon the March 2004 edition of Linguist, the periodical of the International Linguistics Association.

I have some problems with the jpeg purporting to show the cover of the magazine:

1. I cannot find an "International Linguistics Association". I can only find an "International Linguistic Assocation" [3]. They seem to get called the "International Linguistics Association" a lot, e.g. [4] and [5]. There are lots of Google hits for "International Linguistics Association" but when you follow any link on them to the actual organisation you end up at the "International Linguistic Assocation" website. But I wouldn't expect them to get the name wrong on their own publication!

2. The International Linguistic Assocation publishes a periodical, but it is called The Word, not Linguist. You can see what the 2004 issues contained here [6] Even this site manages to use the "International Linguistics Assocation" name!

3. There is a magazine called The Linguist. It is the publication of the (British) Chartered Institute of Linguists. You can see the cover here[7] and the contents of previous issues here [8]. I find it hard to believe that an international linguists association would give their magazine the same name as the one published by the official British professional linguists body.

4.If I type the bar code into the GSI database [9] then it complains that there are the wrong number of digits. It tells me that Key GTIN must be 8, 12, 13 or 14 digits long. Scanning the Universal Product Code article (pun intended) I think the bar code on the magazine is missing its first and last digits.

Eliminating the magazine, then all I can see on the web that might support the article is the definiton in the Urban Dictionary [10] (which it appears anyone can edit, although unlike Wikipedia they don't appear to ask for references); and search terms such as "parfact worcestershire" and "parfact cryptolect" on Google only find Wikipedia clones. Jll (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax perpetrated a couple of years ago by two SPAs and noticed by nobody until now - sadly, not even the editors who tidied it. The magazine cover is a fake. andy (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and the image (.jpg) as well. It makes you wonder how many similar hoaxes are out there. The image ("supplied by features editor of 'Linguist' magazine specifically for use on the language-related Wikipedia page entitled 'Parfact'" no less) gave the article a false appearance of legitimacy, and it was artfully constructed, with articles like "Is the Greek alphabet due for an upgrade?". Brilliant hoax, good catch by the nominator. Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some troublesome aspects of this article.
- Article has no external references.
- The EXIF extended details of the magazine cover (see file page) show Adobe Photoshop as the source of the file.
- The magazine cover has the phrase "Clarifying Photentics" as the title of an article in the magazine. As far as I can determine, there is no such word as photentics. Most likely this is someone's botched spelling of phonetics.
- Note the title of the magazine with spurious diacritical marks over all the letters. I find it difficult to believe that any scholarly linguistic periodical would use these types of erroneous marks.
- The two major contributors to this article and the associated images are two single-purpose accounts who have contributed nothing to Wikipedia besides this article and the images. See JamesPR and Andymusgrave. This does not necessarily disparage single-purpose accounts, but it does create some suspicion.

•••Life of Riley (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Additionally to the above, the image of the person on the magazine cover has a highly pixelated edge. This suggests that the cover was photoshopped together at the resolution it is presented here. While I don't find the use of Photoshop itself to be indicative of a hoax (I image many magazine covers are produced in Photoshop), they would be produced at a resolution of 300dpi or more. This cover image would be useless for actually printing a magazine cover. The barcode on the magazine cover features numbers that correspond AFAICT to no standard scheme of barcode numbering. It isn't a UPC code (which have 12 digits), it isn't an EAN code (which have eight 8 or 13 digits), and it isn't an ISSN code (which have 8 digits, plus a separate second block with an issue number). Furthermore, the only "Linguist" magazine I could find a reference to is published by the Chartered Institute of Linguists. JulesH (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. In addition to the above, note that the purported magazine cover image was originally tagged as self-made by the uploader (which of course it was). Also, add this to User:Ashibaka/Hoaxes, perhaps? --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an illustration of why things must be verifiable via reliable sources, so that Wikipedia is not full of clever hoaxes. Edison (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also marked the images as hoaxes. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shmilfke[edit]

Article is a neologism. Did a search and cannot find reliable secondary sources from which an encyclopedic article could be written. Article was previously proposed for deletion in 2008 and deleted then so am bringing it to AFD as the only remaining option Davewild (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly any results come up after a quick internet search, most not even relating to the word as described in the article... there's not even an entry for it on urban dictionary. --Aka042 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this this page was previously deleted on May 15, 2008 [11] as an expired PROD. •••Life of Riley (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs on the Urban Dictionary if anywhere, not here. WP:V -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-verifiable neologism. Seems like someone just smudged two words together like clay. MuZemike 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:neologism, wp:not for things made up one day, wp:reliable sources, wp:verifiability. ¨¨ victor falk 05:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day - an unverifiable protologism. — neuro^(talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Ping Pong[edit]

WP:NFT applies here. Zero gnews hits for the sport or the governing body (and zero non-wiki ghits for the governing body). Thousands of ghits for the "sport", but most are simply using crazy as an adjective to describe a ping pong video (and many of the ghits predate the supposed first date of play.) Prod contested by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, the reason I used for mu initial prod. Ironholds (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Snowball as per nomination. --Triwbe (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously a joke. Invented by "Sir. FiFi Stu and St. Heps of Israel." Ha Ha Ha! Very funny. One suspects this was created solely as a link to the video in the external link. •••Life of Riley (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete and absolute trash. JuJube (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP ¨¨ victor falk 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. — neuro^(talk) 00:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MYX Hit Chart[edit]

Non-notable chart, not covered in any reliable sources, dubious methodology. Hosted by myx which is notable, but notability is by no means inherited. Doesn't seem worth merging as it's almost entirely unverifiable. Regardless of outcome, should be added to WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to split my vote:
- Keep MYX Hit Chart and Pinoy MYX Countdown. While the charts use a bogus methodology that keeps them from being useful, the same is true for TRL and a pile of other similar shows. MYX isn't a major network, but it has a high-enough profile that the basic charts are worth documenting.
- Delete the rest: because SMS messaging isn't a legitimate basis for charts, documenting which songs happened to receive more votes than another isn't necessary.—Kww(talk) 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep argument is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It still needs sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had my doubts about this stuff for a while but I wasn't sure whether this was something with a big local following so I only tagged some of them. My view is that any chart which is not based on sales is on very dubious territory. Such non-sales charts exist in their thousands and nobody takes much notice of them. According to Wikipedia:Record charts, I see that some airplay charts are also considered acceptable. Even so, these charts are based on things like text messages. That is clearly no good. Unless there is RS coverage, these should all be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: non-notable unreliable charts. JamesBurns (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hannah Montana: The Movie. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana: The Movie (soundtrack)[edit]

Deleted PROD - Crystal ball speculation about a probable future album. All details are rumors, speculation or attributed with no documentation. NrDg 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Note: album not listed at http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/index.html, label's list of future albums. --NrDg 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This thing is back? Unsourced speculation the first time, nothing has changed.—Kww(talk) 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no coverage yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect to Hannah Montana: The Movie for now. Amazon shows it as out on March 24 (as listed in the article), but beyond that, there's nothing else out on it for now. Nate • (chatter) 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, protect if necessary. Non-verifiable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more than a release date and guesswork at what the songs will be. Townlake (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect - to Hannah Montana: The Movie. — neuro^(talk) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortigage Tehas[edit]

Band formed just this year; zero non-wiki ghits for the band; zero gnews hits. Borderline G3 speedy. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost speediable as nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete. Actually, I think User:DanielRigal is right; I mean, read this line: a death metal band hailing from an unknown land somewhere below Hell. That's not given as a marketing line, that's text providing ostensible bio info. It's WP:NONSENSE, so someone speedy it out. Unschool 17:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retract the "speedy". I'm reading WP:CSD, and I guess that the fact that it's clearly fiction does not qualify it for NONSENSE. (I'm still learning.) Un school 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised this wasn't speedily deleted. It is about a non-notable band (zero results from an internet search) and contains dubious information, such as in Mortigage Tehas#Legal trouble. As noted above, the description that it hails "from an unknown land somewhere below Hell" does not bode well either. --Aka042 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as silly hoax. I see no evidence that this band even exists, especially given the author's statement that the band comes "from an unknown land somewhere below Hell." In fact this is probably speediable. There is no claim to notability in the article. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article on this subject, and isn't even the start of such an article. Given the claim that some or all of the article is "exaggerated nonsense we're using as a gimmick", it's clear that the authors' intention here was not to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article, and that accuracy and providing the reader with correct information was not the authors' aim. This is clearly an intentional hoax. Without prejudice to any future proper article that actually falls within the remit of an encyclopaedia, delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leathermouth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Declined G4 speedy deletion nomination. Going back in the deletion log and the deleted contributions, articles on this title have been speedily deleted six times, and once through a previous AFD. While the most recent deleted incarnation of this article was clearly speedy material, this current one has some references, and made me think twice about deleting it, and giving it a new AFD, in order to gauge the community's opinion on whether this subject clears notability, considering the repeated attempts at creating it. If it survives, then great. If it dies, then I highly recommend salting the title to prevent future creations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: adding

KEEP both: Notable artist involved, big label, well written articles with lots of references and 3rd party coverage. They do not harm anybody. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Artist meets WP:MUSIC criteria 1, 4, 5 and 6. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both the band article and the one for the album. Both have adequate evidence of coverage. The only thing missing at the previous AFD was evidence of coverage - this version doesn't have such a problem.--Michig (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both: According to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, a band is notable if "it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable," and "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Both of these apply to Leathermouth - the article has several non-trivial sources including one magazine article, and Frank Iero is a member of the notable band My Chemical Romance. The article XO (Leathermouth album) should also not be deleted – according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Fezmar9 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, signed to a notable label, notable coverage, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, both articles now contain more sources than you could shake a stick at, which was the big issue last time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would oppose any move to speedy-keep this article, mainly because, given the history of deletion and recreation on this title, we need to have a discussion about it last the full length of time in order to have a firm record of the community's view on this article. In other words, let's end this with a solid result that all can look at and agree that it's unambiguous, and it appears to be trending that way anyway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Note to nominator: in future it would be a good idea to review the article in question before nominating, the sources are there and the article clearly documents well sourced notability. It's not good practise to nominate an article simply because it has been deleted previously. --neon white talk 00:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said previously, I'm mainly doing this to get a new consensus on the record, considering that I ran into the current nomination by way of a G4 speedy deletion nomination. At this point, I'm comfortable that it will survive, and put an end to the speedy nominations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:MUSIC, signed to notable label, notability established per third-party sources. — neuro^(talk) 00:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digit magazine[edit]

Non-notable magazine, reads more like an advert than anything encyclopaedic Blowdart | ^talk 17:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard (though admitedly, not impossible) to establish notability in less than 24 hours. Un school 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gamos Technology Solutions#Local projects though I am doubtful about the notability of the target page. TerriersFan (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, been pondering what to do about GTS. There's a slight claim to notability in their game in a local language, but not much else. It doesn't help it was created by the company founder either. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I expect the magazine will achieve notability, but I can't see any way that it is there yet. Tim Ross (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete {{db-web}}. Web content with no indication nor assertion of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ad for new magazine, clearly not (yet) notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HM Advocate v Ross[edit]

Non-notable. No reliable sources in Google, no real sources. Lay Lady Lay (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I realize that, if there are no real sources, that this may be a moot point for this particular case, but what are the normal standards for notability in case law? Can someone point me to the page with the guideline? Un school 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guideline specific to case law, so we fall back on the general guideline, WP:N. JulesH (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This case is regularly cited as an important case in Scots criminal law (although it is more regularly referred to as "Ross v HM Advocate", as the important decision was at an appeal not the original case). The case is described in most books on the subject, including Christie Introduction to Scots Criminal Law Pearson 2003, McManus & Thompson Mental Health and Scots Law in Practice Sweet & Maxwell 2005, Dingwall Alcohol and Crime Willan 2006. There are no end of references to this case, and I'm surprised that any real investigation into it didn't turn them up. JulesH (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm loathe to delete good case law articles, especially cases which sent an important precedent within a particular jurisdiction. Having said that, this article does need to be improved and expanded, and should have an external link to the text of the decision, if possible. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 19:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it would be nice to have some sources to support the interpretation given of the precedent set and its notability. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A quick Google Books search shows this case to be referenced in numerous textbooks on Scottish/English criminal law. bd2412 T 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is clear from the face of the article: This case set a key precedent in Scots law for automatism... If it set a key precedent, it's notable. If there is an issue with reliable sources, that's a matter for editing or a challenge for sources, not a deletion. TJRC (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Duke University. WP:NOT is pretty good to stick to in this instance. Rankings are important in some way, but a list is not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Duke University rankings[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of statistics in addition to a host of verifiability problems. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article also conveniently omits rankings in which programs are not ranked in the Top X. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As creator of this page I disagree. I will respond to each of the individual responses below. I have modified some of my responses to make it more readable. To see what I said previously, please view the history. Hopefully this works without changing the content of my previous statements.Tinlash (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: This list seems to meet the general notability guidelines. Rankings of a university are extremely useful pieces of information. In fact, when I apply to business school, grad school, or any program, I would like to see all of the rankings of that university aggregated in one page. Wikipedia, as a source of so much information, is a great location for that.Tinlash (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost. Nor is the criteria for encyclopedic notability "useful source when I apply to school". If you want lists of historical rankings there are far more authoritative sources like Duke itself and Chronicle of Higher Education. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: I think that if this article is called in to questions, then articles such as List of Institute Professors and List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty may also be questioned for many of the same reasons under WP:IINFO. Madcoverboy, I chose these because you started this discussion and I know you worked on these articles. It is simply to prove a point. I know that this discussion is not to question those articles. In fact, I feel that they are legitimate and notable articles that should stay on Wikipedia, just like this article. Though I may disagree with Madcoverboy on this article, I thank you for questioning it and creating a discussion. Users like you make this site as good as it is.Tinlash (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the nomination of this list can be extended to impugn the notability or appropriateness of every list associated with colleges and universities. The two lists you mentioned convey encyclopedic information about the notable relationships among notable component topics: each member of the list has his/her own Wikipedia article, but to the extent that they have common and notable relationships (being awarded a title, being a member of an organization), these relationships can be effectively represented as a list. However, the members of the information/content that constitutes this list are not notable on their own - they're just statistics published by an organization - and the only relationship they have in common is that they apply to Duke University. This isn't to say that statistical information has no place on Wikipedia; clearly they have a role in articles about demographics, economics, etc. Rather, I would argue that such purely statistical information never has a standalone list. Of course, one might demonstrate that this view is wrong in practice, but I think that it should nevertheless be the general case. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More authoritative sources I think by definition for almost every article in an encyclopedia, there are more authoritative sources, whether they be textbooks, original research, etc. One cannot say that an article should not be on Wikipedia because there are "far more authoritative sources".Tinlash (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct to point out that clearly Wikipedia does and should cite and emulate authoritative and reliable sources. However, an important caveat: Wikipedia should not be in the business of wholesale replication of existing data, especially statistical data, as this article does. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I would have added this list to the main Duke University page, but it would get too lengthy there. This page is incomplete as there are a lot of historical rankings that have not been included, which when filled in will make it even lengthier. Additionally, the rankings are not just for the entire university, but are also for all of the individual schools.Tinlash (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too would caution against attempting to merge this into the Duke University article. It is a FA and also a very fine article (there isn't always perfect correlation between the two!) and it surely would be unduly upset by unceremoniously dumping all this statistical information there. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias: Additionally, I disagree that this article "conveniently omits rankings in which the program are not in the Top X". If you can give me those rankings, I will put them in. The Shanghai rankings are all in the 30s for the university. The Times Higher Education rankings shows Duke as 52. The MBA rankings are comprehensive and include every major ranking. The only Medical Center ranking that I know of is the US News one.Tinlash (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an issue of granularity. You appear to break out the rankings for departments or sub-departmental programs (medical center, graduate programs) but not for other parts of the university (e.g., constitutional law, entrepreneurship, ARWU life sciences, etc.) There are a ton of rankings in any one year and then attempting to compile all these across years quickly becomes unwieldy as well as introducing issues of verifiability. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selectivity: I do not think that omitting rankings outside of the top X is a good idea. The article would no longer be neutral as only the better rankings would be shown. That would be doing a disservice to the reader.Tinlash (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that omitting rankings outside of the Top X is a canonical violation of NPOV. One can debate the merits and notability of the rankings themselves, but the individual rankings of an institution do not vary in notability given their position. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I would say that leaving out those rankings which aren't high eliminates those that aren't notable instead of pushing a POV. If the rankings included are important enough to be listed, those reading should be able to infer that when one is missing, that means it wasn't ranked highly. I do see what you are saying, though. SMSpivey (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete others: Perhaps we should wait till this discussion is complete before starting discussion on whether or not we should delete the rankings pages created for other schools. However, by starting that process, it may create more discussion.Tinlash (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of over-reaching versus efficiency. Soliciting more input from other editors who are likely to have similar complaints would seem to be most efficient. However, if different editors have different motivations, the conversation could become complex. Perhaps let's just limit it to Duke for now and then use the outcome as a discussion at WT:UNI or some other forum? Madcoverboy (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no idea yet what position I will take on this, but looking at the article, I cannot help but think that, if this is allowed to stand, that we naturally open the door to having every college in the US or the world creating a similar list. Is this the place to make that decision, and if it is affirmed, should not a standard page design be implemented? Un school 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Omitting rankings outside the top X might not be a bad idea, that way it could be shrunk. Also there seems to be a lot of duplication which might be avoidable. But perhaps a university with sufficient numbers of very high ratings from notable sources could be granted a page without setting a precedent for every other university and secondary school in the world. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is, how do you pick the "top x"? I mean, with all these listings, one school can be in the "top X" for some things, but not others, and so you'll have to decide which of the lists themselves are most important. I see chaos on the horizon. Un school 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge into the Duke University article. Since Wikipedia isn't just an indiscriminate collection of information, there is no reason to include more non-notable rankings (say, those under top-10 or top-15). Trim it down to those rankings which are significant (i.e., the list/rankings system itself is notable and Duke is highly ranked on said list), merge the list over, and put in a few sentences about the other rankings. SMSpivey (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article for the university. At least he principle ones are generally considered basic content for the main article. I am not sure about rankings below the top 10,for this might be thought of as mandating a positive POV: If Duke is only 20th in something one would ordinarily think it very important for, it could be considered a negative criticism. DGG (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge The information about ranking may be summarized and integrated in the university article, if editors so wish ¨¨ victor falk 06:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I contributed to this article fairly significantly, so don't really want my effort to be deleted, but I understand why the proposal for deletion is taking place. I said on User_talk:Tinlash a while ago, "I also wouldn't be shocked if this article was nominated for deletion." I think there are arguments for and against it. Certainly, it's nice and convenient to have a collection of all the rankings in one place for people to see, but as far as I understand it, Wikipedia isn't really intended to host such lists. There are other university-specific rankings lists in existence though. If this article is deleted, so should List of University of Texas at Austin rankings, Purdue University academic rankings, Pennsylvania State University rankings among others. Due to these other articles' existence, I thought that perhaps this article also would be deemed appropriate. Also, if this article is seen as an "indiscriminate collection of statistics," it would certainly seem that Law school rankings in the United States and List of United States graduate business school rankings are also under this umbrella. I don't think that argument holds water for this reason. One could instead use WP:N, arguing that university-specific rankings lists are too specific, but country-wide lists are appropriate, I suppose. All I'm saying is one could easily argue that if WP:IINFO is the reason for deleting this article, other broader based random ranking lists on wikipedia should be deleted (which I personally don't think they should be deleted). -Bluedog423^Talk 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with Bluedog that national-level lists would be appropriate and perhaps more notable than per-university lists, so I don't feel the need to address their notability at this juncture. Also a point of order, would it be appropriate to also co-nominate the other lists Bluedog mentioned since similar arguments can be made? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - This is just a POV content fork that should be covered in the main Duke article or academics article. Go Duke! 16x9 (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN and WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a question. How is this anymore an "indiscriminate collection of statistics" than List of countries by forest area, List of countries by GDP sector composition, List of Bionicle toys, List of minimum wages by country, List of commercial games released as freeware, List of cricket batting averages, List of thinkers and authors associated with existentialism, List of companies in Dallas/Ft.Worth, etc? Those seem pretty random to me, although they aren't don't all have "statistics" since they don't have all numbers. I'm not saying these should be deleted. I'm just asking how you know when it makes sense to have a wikipedia article dedicated to a list with a bunch of numbers, facts, words, and when it doesn't make sense. It's somewhat subjective to evaluate when a collection of statistics is "indiscriminate." I could continually expand the companies in Dallas article, existential figures, etc... There's practically an infinite number. I guess some of these examples I chose do make more sense since there's a limited number and perhaps the figures are given by one source. Thanks, -Bluedog423^Talk 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed this notability concern under Tinlash's Notability paragraph above. Basically, the constituent entries as well as the relationship among them (which the list describes) must have some evidence of notability. A list of rankings fulfills neither, in my view. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back as a basic part of the contents for the main university article. Not all the rankings, necessarily, but selected ones as a appropriate for the article.DGG (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boku no Watashi no Yūsha Gaku[edit]

Another non-notable Weekly Shōnen Jump manga with no reviews from reliable sources or any other other third-party reliable sources found. Author also appears to be non-notable. Simply being serialized in a manga magazine doesn't make a work notable. Farix (Talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As usual with these sorts of titles, all the search results are illegal scanlation sites or blogs. Absolutely no ANN reference which says it all, a lot of non-notable titles at least have some small mention on ANN. If this has none then it has very little chance of being notable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the proposed reasons and for the lack of formality. It's an article about a magazine issue for Pete's sake!Spencer Divonn'io the Glorious 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhydrobiosis (talk • contribs)
- Comment The article's subject is a comic book series, not an issue of a magazine. Edward321 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, plus scanlation level close to 0.(not notable even for scanlation readers) KrebMarkt 16:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To put salt in the wound, its scanlation halted after 3 chapters and nothing new since +500 days. That show how notable it is in the english manga/anime fandom. KrebMarkt 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK having no significant coverage in reliable third party sources and not even an ANN listing, which is the epitome of unnotable series (anyone else think that darn template should also go to stop this insanity?) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because its featured in the most popular and influential manga magazine, and because Google returns 188,000 hits for "Boku no Watashi no Yūsha Gaku". That's notable enough for me. Dream Focus (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google hits do not establish notability. Because it ran in Jump doesn't make it notable. As Dandy Sephy mentioned above, it doesn't even have an ANN reference (ANN Search); whereas some manga that haven't even run in this magazine have a passing mention. (Best example I have on hand) ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up on google and I got mostly scanlation sites, forums, and blogs. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mack[edit]

Contains an assertion of importance, so this isn't speediable under A7. Still, mayoral candidates don't warrant articles without exceptional news coverage and discussion, and this day-old campaign hasn't got it. —Kww(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a soapbox, billboard, etc. I did cut the article down to size, since in many ways it was not reflective of the standard of WP articles. Please look at the history for the earlier version. I promise you I didn't cut anything substantial. (By WP standards, that is.) Oh, I also restored the AfD tag that the author/subject had removed; that's bad manners. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, your blog, or your web host. This article is a load of crap. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With all respect to the others who have commented, while mayoral candidates may not automatically acquire notability, if, in fact, this person is real, and if it turned out that he were to win the GOP nomination, then I would argue that that would confer notability on him, for the reasons stated in the article, even though he is only a candidate. But right now it doesn't matter; I do agree that what we have here is not enough to meet WP:N. Un school 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any reliable sources through internet searches, and the text on the article provides no references to claims such as that his 'candidacy is historic', or even that the subject is running for the position. Therefore, I would object on the grounds of WP:V, WP:N (especially that Wikipedia is not the place to establish notability), and WP:SOAP as well. --Aka042 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Folks, let's not pile it on. Admin, please let it snow? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he is elected, he can and will come back. However, the idea is for him to become notable so he can be added to Wikipedia, not the other way around. Rklear (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, I have never heard of this young man nor have I seen him on our local news or covered in our The Clarion-Ledger newspaper. If he's a candidate, he's but 1 of about 15 different people now running for the Jackson mayoral job, many some pretty top dogs in local politics so he doesn't even stand an Obama's chance of winning this election. But if he does, then he's notable for an article - at that time, not now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. SNOW closing due to BLP concerns. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Phillip Freeman[edit]

I have number of problems with this article

It is substantially a current news report, and WP:NOTNEWS
It is an article about someone famous only for an alleged crime WP:BLP1E
It is far too early to claim this has any enduring significance see WP:RECENT.
Do we really want to record a biography on someone who has been "charged" (but not convicted or even tried) with "allegedly" doing something, and is apparently in an "acute psychiatric state"?? Is that what we do?

If anyone can think of grounds to speedy here, I'd be even happier. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunately, I can't see any scope for speedy deletion but I agree that we have to get rid of this. Events of this type are tragic but they are not uncommon. They get RS coverage as news but they are not encyclopaedic topics. We no more need an article about this than we need an article about every individual crime or accident of other types. Even more problematic, the case has not gone to trial and we don't know the true facts. This sort of speculative coverage could even be seen as prejudicial to a future trial. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:WP:NOT#NEWS clearly applies.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can find it in a speedy deletion criteria. As an attack article which was like that from the start and doesn't cite any sources, it fits under {{db-attack}}.Spencer Divonn'io the Glorious 16:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24982142-661,00.html is listed in the article as a source, and clearly backs the essence of the story. That takes it out of "attack" land.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the excellent reasons provided both by the nom and by DanielRigal. I'm not even sure that this should get a single sentence in West Gate Bridge, but as of this writing, this incident is getting a whole paragraph over there. Let's be an encyclopedia, folks. Un school 17:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per WP:BLP1E. If there must be an article on the subject, let it be about the incident not the alleged perpetrator, although I'm not convinced of that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)
Delete in accordance with the excellent summary provided by the nominator. WWGB (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this should in future become a significant controversy. I do not apply NOT NEWS broadly, but this It is the sort of momentary news item that NOT NEWS was properly intended to eliminate. An article that gives the time of the event to the minute, but not the day or the month or the year, is hardly encyclopedic.DGG (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the page and I think it deserves a page but in view of almost everyone else view, I think a good solution would be to delete it now and see if it does become a significant controversy to reinstate it. Note the following person in the wiki for far less reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall Reargun (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canice Doran[edit]

Not sure if this is a hoax or a misspelling, but there is something odd at work here. If the claims are true, notability is not in question per WP:ATHLETE, but I couldn't verify them via Google, nor is the subject listed in the current squad of his purported team. Skomorokh 14:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy Deleted twice and PROD all on 24th Jan. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons listed and for the opinion making up a substantial part of the article stating him to be a good forward. That comment is non-encyclopedic as well. The two sentence article is less than a stub. The page should probably be transwikied into Wiktionary. Spencer Divonn'io the Glorious 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete My reason for PROD on January 24th still stands: "Non-notable footballer. 21 non-wiki ghits, none of which show a professional career, 0 non-wiki gnews hits."--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on his club's official website and every single other hit bar one forum posting is Bebo. This must be a new all-time low for internet coverage of an alleged professional sportsman..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Per ChrisTheDude, no such person on Cork City website, nor is there such a person on the Football Association of Ireland website, unusual for an alleged under-21 international... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I had to take a guess (which I don't, but I will anyway), I'd say Canice is a boy who is a big Derry City F.C. fan, and one of his mates has made this article with the rival team's name as a joke. I say this because a Canice Doran has been active in Derry City forums, and this seems to be his myspace. FlyingToaster 16:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suspected hoax, certainly has not notable for football achievements, fails all counts of notability per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN and WP:BIO--ClubOranje^Talk 09:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to headache. MBisanz ^talk 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic headache[edit]

This article makes a confused OR case for a condition that does not, in fact, exist. Headaches may indeed occur in poisoning as well as systemic inflammation, but not under this name and not due to the causes listed. No supportive sources, unverifiable. JFW | T@lk 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and that this article does not meet WP:MEDRS, and never will seeing as the term is not used in the medical profession. PubMed reveals no real results for this term, and Scholar reveals that the term is only used colloquially. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is original research. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. As stated, the article is original research and contains massive amounts of jargon. Spencer Divonn'io the Glorious 16:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhydrobiosis (talk • contribs)

~~Delete~~, toxic headache is not a recognised term. All this article seems to be saying is some environmental causes for headaches which the credible ones could have been mentioned briefly in the headache article rather than create a new article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, WP:V. Not verifiable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, a quick look at the history confirms my feeling that this is another long-standing hoax article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys sure about this? It's not in ICD-10 as some separate entity, but here are are some sources that mention it:
- NINDS "After migraine, the most common type of vascular headache is the toxic headache produced by fever." (same text appears at Med. College of Wisconsin)
- Uni. of Maryland: "The second most common type of vascular headache is toxic headache."
- Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Healthcare Consumers "toxic headache — a type caused by systemic poisoning or certain illnesses."
- Bernard Swerdlow (1999). Whiplash and Related Headaches. CRC Press. p. 8. ISBN 1574442325. lists as a separate type, synonymous with rebound headache. (Line L in table 2.1).
- Robert Alan Lewis (1998). Lewis' Dictionary of Toxicology. CRC Press. p. 547. ISBN 1566702232." lists it under headeach as subtype: "toxic headeache that due to systemic poisoning. Such may be exogenous (e.g., due to poisonous gases, four or polluted air, fumes from solvents or furnaces; various drugs such as as atropine, histamine, morphine, quinine, tobacco) or endogenous in origin (due e.g., to absorption of bacterial toxins; fever; bacteremia)
I could go on, but this appears to be sufficient evidence to at least make this article a redirect to Rebound headache, although a dab would probably be better. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, the term is used rather widely but non-specifically to apply to many subjects. We could redirect to rebound headache, but then it wouldn't be related to vascular headaches or tension headaches. It's essentially a general term for a headache related to external causes. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles on headaches are a mess! See my comment on WT:MED. Serious clean-up is needed in this area, but I don't think that deleting them is good idea right now. This article corresponds to the 1962 NIH classification system. In ICD-10 it would roughly be G44.820, and in ICHD-2 7.1.2 (see [12]) Xasodfuih (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xas has got me reconsidering my vote somewhat now. I do not think that the article should be merged with rebound headache as toxic headache is not the same as rebound and most of the content is not about rebound effect but a toxic effect whilst exposed to a triggering agent, eg allergen exposure, environmental toxins and so forth. I think now that some references have been found and added that if the article is deleted that the data should be moved to a subsection of the headache article. I now am of the opinion that this article should either be kept or merged.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lean more towards merging into the headache article. The headache article does not even have a defined causes section, so I reckon Merge.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 source calls headaches due to toxins, headaches of organic origins. http://books.google.com/books?id=MaDJ6nlaQKYC&pg=PA213&dq=toxic+headaches&lr=&ei=piiHSfDiMKOMkQTRqe2pBg I think the whole collection of headache articles needs to be rearranged around accepted current diagnostic system. This looks like a term commonly used in the 1920s. Should we use the ICD 10 and change the name of this page? http://216.25.100.131/ihscommon/guidelines/pdfs/ihc_II_main_no_print.pdf --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that this article is not about "toxic headache", it is headache attributed to intoxication. That's not the same thing. It needs a rewrite. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete (plus possible selective merger of material to headache). entity is an artificial and hetertogenous construct, which should not be reified by an article in this way. Misleading Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. As all of the delete !voters seem to agree, the pre-nomination versions of this article are hopeless. Wikipedia should have information on the actual condition (although, as Casliber notes, it's not really a unitary condition, and is therefore less precise than several other descriptive terms), not on someone's etymology-based misunderstanding of it. Meeting this goal could be achieved by deleting the existing article and then creating a good version, or by redirecting it and moving the tiny bit of salvageable information to Headache. I'm personally inclined to the merge, but I wouldn't actually object to deletion if a separate article were really wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have decided to be bold. Moved what the page was trying to describe to the ICHD name. Removed the references as the previous refs didn't support the content. The previous page referenced a type of headache one get with a fever and then talk about headaches due to toxins. Two very different thing. Still a work in progress.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think I have fixed enough so that it no longer needs deletion. Therefore removed tags.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, good compromise, problem has been addressed now. I would be tempted to close this discussion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind-based learning[edit]

Unreferenced original research about a neologism. Google search returns about 200 hits which do not appear to refer to any specific theory or practice. A news search returns all of two ghits, both a bout a single school which uses a program of the same name. Tagged (not by author) with "underconstruction", but unlikely to improve based on the existing material. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a notable technique of instruction, in use in schools throughout (at least) the UK. See Times Educational Supplement and Guardian articles. JulesH (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Burton, D Psycho-Pedagogy and Personalised Learning Journal of Education and Teaching (2007) appears to be at least partially about the technique, although I ain't paying £16 to read it to find out. JulesH (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are the same articles I found from the news search. They do not provide enough information to tie that program of the same name to the material in the article. I may have misunderstood the scope of the program from my initial readings, but it appears confined to a single district. Regardless, it is a neologism and two articles do not make it notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it a stretch of the word "neologism" to apply it to a subject described in two articles in respectable publications, published 3 years apart from each other. The fact that these articles both talk about the same district does not imply that it is the only one using the approach; a google search shows a large number of schools claiming to offer it (although unfortunately these are not reliable sources). I think the key to fixing this article is if somebody who has access to the journal described above could get hold of that source, which is probably more detailed than the two news articles which we do have free access to, and could be used to expand the article substantially. JulesH (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources specified whatsoever, no justification of content. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can get some proper sources. The news stories cited do not expand on the subject at all, and certainly not enough to connect it to what is being described in the article. WP:V -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The TES article mentioned above says what was called a "mind-based learning" programme" , and goes on with It is that kind of buzzy language ... I thinl that explicit acknowledgment from a good source that the term was not yet considered established, at least in 2007. DGG (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirattal[edit]

Apparently fails WP:NFF; I am unable to find any sources which can confirm that principal photography has commenced. Prod removed without explanation. PC78 (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, as this source seems to indicate that the film has been dropped due to creative differences with hoped for star Ajith. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Ghajini (2005 film), an early title for that project. Block the user also, who keeps re-creating the artcle. Universal Hero (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was RESULT Nomination withdrawn. Triwbe (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger avon[edit]

When I saw this article I was sure it was an advert, so I proposed it for speedy deletion. This was declined, so I and others tagged it for various things. The originator appears to be ~~either~~ a bloke who's built one ~~or "Jim" who is part of the company (contact details on its website)~~, but doesn't seem to be enthusiastic enough to come back and build a good article, nor even to get the capitalisation right. So I'm concerned that this is ~~a COI article that is~~ a thinly disguised advert. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The parent company article already got speedied. This has no independent RS references. Googling shows quite a bit of social networking between builders/owners/sellers of these things and there is a company offering a specialist insurance policy on them. It isn't spammy in tone but if it was notable, I would expect something like this to turn up in reviews/articles in car magazines or in TV shows about cars. If anybody can dig up some references to that then that would change my mind. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unless someone can save it. --Triwbe (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it:I wrote the article, and have no involvement with tiger racing what so ever, i will delete the reference to tiger racings website as it is easy enough to find on google anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamrogers (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually what would be most helpful is if you cna dig up some sources for it. Artw (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added: I have added sources and catagorised the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamrogers (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination on the basis of the TV show. One source looks ok, though it is a local paper. The youtube one will have to go, I'm afraid, but citing the show and episode itself is highly valid (and should be done) and does establish the notability for me. I do know that withdrawal does not mean "keep", and the article does need more citations for me to be 100% comfortable. But the sources as they stand would have prevented my nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "TV Show" doesn't (AFAIK) reference the Avon, but only the Z100. I see the TV show and speed record as justification for Tiger Racing or even the Z100, but not a stand-alone article on a different model. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article has ben improved and nomination has ben withdrawn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major improvement on article. thanks Timtrent for closing the AfD. Ikip (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as promised. --Triwbe (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or rename, as the parent seems to have been deleted already) to Tiger Racing. The manufacturer, particularly as the manufacturers of the notable Z100, its unusual powertrain and its speed record, is notable. I can't see justification for per-model articles on everything they make. The Tiger avon in isolation is no more significant or notable than any of the many other similar UK kitcars and less notable than a Caterham or the Dutton Phaeton (NB - Kitcars in the UK are a more significant topic than they are in other countries, owing to the still-sizable interest in them stemming from obscure tax rules 50 years ago). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Tiger Racing. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has improved and the nomination has been withdrawn. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevín Henríquez[edit]

Completely unsourced since 2007, probable hoax as there is no evidence the player actually exists. Request on talk page February 2008 for evidence player exists has gone unanswered since then. Davewild (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any references to him currently being at Toronto, or ever having played for Danubio, and he is therefore probably a hoax. Giant Snowman 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. There was a Kevin Hernández from Honduras who played in Uruguay recently (but not for Danubio). No evidence of the player in this article whatsoever. Jogurney (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above - no evidence to back up any claim made in the article - not that there was much of anything actually in the article--ClubOranje^Talk 09:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on president we don't have articles for players on trial. However to say it's a hoax is a bit far, there is no evidence to suggest it's not a hoax either! On another president I would point out that if he does play first team football Henríquez article should be then recreated. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that anyone who played for Danubio F.C. over the past 4-5 years would be mentioned on various websites that cover Uruguayan football or Danubio itself. Same for Toronto F.C. trialists. None of them mention this person. Jogurney (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday night 2008[edit]

Non-notable album. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This article is clearly the target. I have no idea why this should even be on Afd. The parent is notable, as is the subject. This is an obvious redirect and I'm curious why someone didn't already do it. I won't, out of respect for the already placed Afd, but someone, esp. the nominator, should. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Saldanha[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Interwiki are really absent. I have doubts, that professional gamers can be notable at all. LexArt (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verifiable sources. Also, at least one other person believes it to be fiction: [13] -Running On Brains 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only two references are an XFire account and a blog. Either non-notable or an outright hoax. Orbital Delegate (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam. --Peephole (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've just removed sections of heavy POV and the citation to a self-published source. This leaves unverified material, and no assertion of notability. Web search returns a ream of unrelated hits. Delete per WP:V and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to verify any claims; would perhaps fail WP:BIO even if claims were verified. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Boy (The Concretes song)[edit]

Non-notable album (though band appears it may be notable). SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless author can establish notability. Sorry. §FreeRangeFrog 09:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very few sources mention the single and sv:Hey Trouble doesn't (red)link to it. Ottre 20:25, 2 February 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 (Non-Admin Closure). FunPika 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NoFrag[edit]

Borderline case, appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — plenty of stuff. That it's not in English is not a problem. --Izno (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point out which of those news articles have to do with the subject of the article? Most of the ones on the first page of the results are unrelated. SharkD (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevermind. This should be a little more helpful. SharkD (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I know I am the one who created this article at first. What makes this article important is the fact that NoFrag is the only French-speaking news and reviews site focusing exclusively in First-person shooter (FPS). Of course all sources are primarily in French because of that, but it should not be a reason to delete it I think (factornews.com, clubic.com, pc-boost.com, xbox-mag.net, pc-facile.com (Italian), scifi-universe.com, matbe.com, lesnumeriques.com, etc... Hervegirod (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I am not a French speaker and can't tell you with certainty which of the sites mentioning NoFrag are reliable, there seem to be a lot of mentions of NoFrag in the media per the Google News link above, and Google News tends to be pretty reliable in my experience. SharkD (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kincaid complex[edit]

Declined speedy nomination. Original nominator stated "blatant hoax/vandalism". SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original nominator here. I can't find any ghits indicating that a "Kincaid complex" (or Kincaidian Complex) exists. Certainly not what the original editor claims. This may just be WP:MADEUP, of course. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This presents a possible BLP issue, since the alleged complex is (without explanation or sources) named for author James Kincaid, who would doubtfully endorse the term himself. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Kincaid didn't originate this concept, it's original research. If he did, WP:FRINGE applies because the theory has no reliable source coverage outside his book. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author did originate the concept. Here is the book which has a central theme expressing the idea:[14]

Here is a short summation of the central idea expressed in the book in a statement made by the author:[15]

The idea does have reliable source coverage outside the book: (I am getting these links now.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwalkernine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: It has been three days since this user, the page creator, offered to add independent reliable sources verifying the notability of the theory. The user has made no such additions either here or in the article; barring further change, I think this can be viewed as confirmation of the theory's FRINGE status. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting the WP:SPAs, the only remaining argument to keep is "Will probably become more notable" which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Notability first, Wikipedia article second. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geddon Gear[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}}.

Declined speedy. Appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear what suggestion of notability on the article makes it ineligible for speedy. No assertion of notability in the article. Doing work for the editor through google reveals no additional notability. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Seems to fail WP:WEB as stated above as well as being an advertisement(?). —Subverted (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This article makes reference to retailer in the same fashion as other sites referenced here like ThinkGeek (which by the way is written like an advertisement rather than a factual narrative) or Woot. I would agree with your assertions about notability if this type of site was a dime a dozen, but it is not. If your criteria for inclusion into wiki is the amont of money a site spends on advertising with Google, thus increasing the chances of being linked, then I would question the integretiy of your vetting process. Roypereira (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

If the site is not 'a dime a dozen' then please provide refs from WP:secondary sources to show it. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- — Roypereira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEP - I agree with the previous statement to keep the site listed for reference under Wikipedia. The criteria for notability seems a bit ambiguous at this point. Regardless of this single criteria, the site appears to be unique in its regard for a humorous angle to the 2012 craze, which is a quickly growing subject all over the internet, including a large article referenced by Wikipedia itself - which to me makes this sort of information all the more relevant. Furthermore, as an example of the implementation of disparet services ranging from Microsoft Offlice Live to CafePress makes the implementation itself quite notable. Tweak2020 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Tweak2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Weak~~ keep Will probably become more notable. I'm spreading the word about them now. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; even if they will become notable, what indication is there that they are currently? It's yet another website whose owners are trying to use Wikipedia to bolster popularity. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I believe precedent for this type of entry already exists, but not as the previous author suggests in reference to established franchises like thinkgeek and woot. There are a number of factual articles already in wikipedia referencing niche retailers that have similar noteability. Take for instance Jjbuckley.com, Bidtopia, Alibris, Backcountry.com, Gafy.com, AtomicPark.com, Fredflare.com, Gottaplay. It does lead to a very interesting questions about what the exclusion criteria is.KurtVan (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — KurtVan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment There's a lot of very serious discussion here. Hands up - who hasn't actually read the website of Geddon Gear? If you haven't, I'd suggest doing so. Not if you're accessing in a public library, though. (No, it's not THAT sort of site...) Peridon (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:WEB. WP policies such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTAL contradict the arguments of KurtVan, Tweak2020 and Roypereira. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will not discount the points made by those who wish to the remove the site. But I also do not think that the examples cited as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and CRYSTAL are of themselves cause for omition. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS article makes it clear that such decisions are ultimately subjective for both sides of the discussion. To wit: "In an article's deletion debate, an editor unfamiliar with guidelines may vote to keep an article solely because articles similar to it exist. Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article. In such a case, both arguments should likely be discounted by the closing administrator.". Furthermore, the article specifies the notion of "Inherent Notability" - which MAY be stretching it a bit, but in some cursory research on the internet I see NO EXAMPLES of an apocolyptic site using parody for the 2012 End of the world, while I found a din of sites desperately trying convince people such end of the world is emminent. Doesn't being the first to provide a unique viewpoint on a subject merit some sort of notability....or nobility :). <br\>

As for CRYSTAL BALL, I don't see anywhere in the Geddon Gear article where it is stating that the 2012 "event" is indeed coming.....that information is left justifiably to the 2012 section in wikipedia itself. And while a statement suggesting FUTURE notability is indeed weak, I would argue again that in this case there is cause to at least seek further opinion.<br\>

Finally, while I do agree the entry may indeed be its owners attempting to bloviate about their site, that is generally just conjecture, and there is no way to prove or disprove they are the owners or major contributors. So far I have only seen basic statements of fact, and honest attempts at updating the article to be more in line with the quality and expectations of Wikipedia.<br\>

Enjoying the debate!Tweak2020 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloviate?? Peridon (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked up Bloviate it seems to be a legit word :) I also discovered thje site is listed under various categories in wiki web directory http://www.wikidweb.com/wiki/Geddongear.com . This site is also mentioned in this article discussing the upcomming Sony Pictures movie 2012 - http://www.thefreesnowball.com/are-you-prepared-for-2012/ as well as this blog http://oxylife.blogspot.com/2009/02/roland-emmerichs-2012-viral-institute.html 24.248.74.254 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow - So this must be what started the rivalry. I have seen a bunch of references on their site putting down wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.74.254 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I don't see anything on the site or here that suggests there was some sort of rivalry. I did find one link on their site referring to Wikipedia here http://geddongear.com/wackapedia.aspx, but it hardly strikes me as overt critisism. If we cannot laugh at ourselves, then we cannot truly laugh. Inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.23.0.93 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Football Association(planned)[edit]

A new "football league" that has a blog (on blogspot) and a website (on a webhost) and a contact (a yahoo email address.) This seems to fall under WP:MADEUP as I can't find any news articles about a new American football league forming, much less recruiting NFL-caliber players and starting up a new version of the Super Bowl. DB rejected, now proposing this as an AfD. Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. The website states that "There is no intent for this organization to begin play anytime soon, but to hear fan input on if this new league would be a viable venture to pursue." They haven't even started organizing yet. It's nothing more than a website with a blog and an email address. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I declined the speedy. this is probably made up, but I couldn't tell from searching. It obviously wasn't the AFA of the 1890's. :) Is it some poor attempt to make an article about This AFA? I don't know. Protonk (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You gotta wonder when the "Commissioner" of the league is known only by his screen name, "American Football Association" [16]. Yeah, I'd be embarrassed too. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. AnyPerson (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had requested speedy deletion on this. I think WP:MADEUP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HOAX, and WP:WEBHOST all apply. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. MBisanz ^talk 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Beshti medical university[edit]

Notability is a major issue. A direct quote from the article: "Presently there are no websites representing this Shahid Beheshti Optometry program on the internet [...]" which means no notability/verifiability. flaming lawyer 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge or something. The proper article for the university is at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. This article has a similar title, but is talking purely about the optometry program. If there is anything notable about the optometry program, it should either be merged into the mother article, or renamed and reworded to fit better as a secondary article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Consumed Crustcean¨¨ victor falk 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Not only would this be a useful addition to a page badly in need of content but it is an entirely plausible search term. TerriersFan (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rouge speedy delete per WP:NFT. Kusma (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church Of Jeezus[edit]

Unfortunately, this doesn't fit neatly into any CSD criteria, so it's here now... It's a religion made up by some kid in the past month, so it has no current notability and definitely never will. flaming lawyer 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MADEUP. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete WP:BOLLOCKS. Only 9 ghits for this exact phrase (a surprisingly low number, even for total bollocks). siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obvious hoax. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those ghits discuss this kid's religion; they are references to "The Church of Jeezus Christ of Latter-Day Saints!" and other unrelated ideas. Delete as WP:MADEUP. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gennoe[edit]

The sources here are not about the subject, they are either directories which list the subject or media with the subject's byline. The article is the work of a single-purpose account and was recreated by said SPA immediately after speedy deletion. Google returns 228 unique hits of which all appear to be his own sites / myspace / blog or his byline. I did not find a single independent biographical source; I regard this as a pressing problem per WP:BLP. The number of hits on Google is a particular indication of lack of notability in that he is claimed to be an "author, journalist and logger" - that is a very small Google footprint for such occupations in this day and age. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references list articles and sleeve-notes he wrote, but notability would require evidence of somebody independent of him thinking him interesting enough to write about. The first and last refs are the same (his agency biog); the Harper Collins reference doesn't mention him. The notability standard for authors and journalists is WP:CREATIVE and he comes nowhere near that. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The lack of secondary sources nails this one. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brothel Art Museum[edit]

Non-notable bar. JaGa^talk 07:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches don't find any notable references that any other bar in the world wouldn't have. Sleepy2222 (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the bar doesn't seem to be well substantiated by a single link from a not very notable publication.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - seems to be a number of news hits. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find these sufficient to make notability.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Jlg4104's link to the news hits for the subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would invite participants in this discussion to consider what they would do with such an article based on a few local press reports in, for example, Bolivia or Mali. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A brothel isn't particularly interesting, anywhere in the world. A brothel art museum is, anywhere in the world. One that meets minimum standards of notability on WP, anywhere in the world, could be covered in WP. Not sure what the quibble is. If it's that you're suggesting a U.S.A.-centric bias, then toward what? American brothels? American brothel art museums? Or American coverage of American brothel art museums? Personally, I find the concept of a sex museum more interesting, in any event. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The number of news results seems to cover quite a time period and from all different sources... Sounds notable to me, though, the article definitely needs to be expanded... Subverted (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After viewing several references, it seems that this 'museum' is nothing more than a lackluster wall, adjacent to the Cherry Patch Ranch. ^Law_shoot! 14:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? It's a wall, in a bar. If any article should exist here it would be one for the mother bar, if that's notable enough. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hintz[edit]

Notability, fails WP:ATH Guy0307 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable high school athlete who finished first in one state track event. Fails WP:ATHLETE -- has not competed at the highest level of his sport, hasn't even signed with a college yet. Only media coverage is one article with a passing mention of one non-notable act of sportsmanship. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school athletes rarely reach the WP:BIO notability bar and this is no exception. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G12. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project on option trading strategies[edit]

Sounds like a high school report on options trading... WP:OR is the applicable guideline here. flaming lawyer 07:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Also Copyvio of http://www.optionsclearing.com/publications/uso/usointro.jsp -Running On Brains 08:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georges St-Pierre vs. B.J. Penn[edit]

Basically no content and no assertion of being a notable rivalry. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No special notability for this fight, even it was highly promoted as a super-fight between two UFC champions. Special fights can be described in the respective fighters' articles. Article is also currently badly constructed. Sleepy2222 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As much as i would love to see this expanded, i dont think its going to happen. The main problem is that this fight isnt a trilogy, and until then i dont think it will be worthy of an article. Portillo (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dharam Pal Kirar[edit]

Non-notable; article is unsourced and no third-party references found on Google on the subject, nor the organizations over which he presides. User has opened a host of non-notable biographical articles, all of which have been speedily deleted. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 07:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Guy0307 (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO/WP:POLITICIAN. Article is unsourced and no sources seem to be available on Google web and news search, except for his personal website from which the article seems to have been copied. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A shortened demo[edit]

Non-notable demo that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also per WP:MUSIC §FreeRangeFrog 08:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable release WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"N:" (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"N:" (album)

Album that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N in every way that I can see. No major news coverage, and nothing on the album charted. ArcAngel (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete band isn't notable, and so album isn't as well. Guy0307 (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable release WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serenaide of sorrow[edit]

Band that I can find no major coverage on. Has had no singles or albums chart, so based on that fails WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSIC, no question. §FreeRangeFrog 07:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Guy0307 (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karui Shosetsu Magazine[edit]

Self-published amateur anthology, page created by the guy running the anthology; does not meet notability requirements. Doceirias (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Doceirias (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it started well under a year ago, and the number of issue(s) so far is one, and actually it's just something from a website, and Wikipedia is not a web directory, and--perhaps that's all that needs to be said. Morenoodles (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia may not be a web directory, however, the magazine is legitamate. It's the first of its kind in english, and has recieved NOTABLE coverage, such as from Anime News Network. The first issue has been downloaded almost 1,000 times and many blogs, forums, and websites across the world (including Japan) are discussing it. An argument made was that the article does not meet the notability requirements, however, after reading through them, I see nothing that the article does not meet. Just because its obscure and new, does not exempt it from being listed on wikipedia. And since LightNovel.org is not a company, and the magazine is not commerical, I see no reason why it should matter that I created the wiki page. If the article is unbiased and subjective, I see no reason why it should matter in any way. And just because it's only had one issue released (would have been more by now, had not some things come up) does not mean its not notable. I've seen manga before that only having a couple chapters serialzied in a manga magazine already had an established (small, but still existant) wiki page. I do not see in any way how the Karui Shosetsu Magazine should not be allowed to exist on wikipedia. Matt122004 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) — Matt122004 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Where to begin.... Well I'll start with the beginning, the creation of the page (whatever it's content) fails Wp:CONFLICT. The ANN coverage is precisely one short news item (didn't check the forum, it doesn't affect notability) and 1000 downloads while not a small achivement, is hardly an arguement to prove notability - 1000 downloads is a very small number for downloads. It's irrelevant to wikipedia if people are talking about it on blogs and forums, neither have any impact on notability. Other stuff existing does not automatically mean this page should, wikipedia doensn't work like that and it doesn't strengthen your case (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - quite the opposite really as several pages like you describe have been deleted this week. All the references are either 1st party, blogs or an illegal scanlation site, I can't find a single compelling reason to keep. Dandy Sephy (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A thousand people isn't a lot. Webcomics with more hits than that don't get their own article. And you can't make an article for no other reason than to advertise yourself. Dream Focus (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT, which is essentially the reason the article exists. The coverage and sources is entirely by blogs, which fail the reliable sources and verifiability guidelines. And there is also the issue of WP:CONFLICT. We're already finishing up the last instance of a group or company using Wikipedia as an advertising platform and the project is already working on the Weekly Shōnen Jump related manga articles. --Farix (Talk) 13:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, all have been told. You don't come to wikipedia to get notability, you are notable then you have your place in wikipedia. KrebMarkt 16:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ You keep trying to argue that I am advertising, that I am spamming, that I am in a conflict of interest. But I completely dissagree. Sure, I maybe the one the runs it, but does that even matter? Instead of deleting, how about you make sure the article is UNBIASED and if it currently isn't, than tell me what to do to make it. As far as I know, it is currently. And honestly, how is it advertising? Cause seriously, the only people that will ever discover it are those who are SEARCHING for info about the magazine. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for information. People, when they hear about it, will google for it. And most, would like it if there was a wiki page where they could read a reliable unbiased assesment of what the magazine is without having to download it to see. Instead of arguing over whether this article should be deleted, I believe it should be decided on what needs to be changed within it to make it acceptable. Matt122004 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does matter, Wikipedia is not for placing your advert and its impossible to be unbiased and offer a neutral viewpoint. However its not just the conflict of interest, it's NOT notable, no matter how much you think it is. Google hits, blog sites and forums do not have any relevance here. Changing the article won't stop it failing other guidelines and policy. Having a wiki page won't make any difference to people searching for it, if people somehow stumble upon the magazine it will be on the official site and random google links, which will tell them all they need to know. When one of the biggest Anime + Manga sites going (and a reliable source in its own right) only mentions the magazine in passing, you are going to have a hard time proving notability. I'd be surprised if there are any truely notable OEL's full stop. I'm not sure why you are voting twice either... Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't know you weren't supposed to. Matt122004 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unnotable spam by fansite creator attempting to claim his site is a "magazine" and claiming that somehow makes it notable (it doesn't). There is also, to my knowledge, no such think as a OEL light novel at all. Impossible, really, considering what a light novel is. Those are basically just fan created novels, or graphic novel at best. Fails WP:N and obvious WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your post is full of flaws. The site is NOT the magazine, if you had cared to investigate, the magazine is in a PDF file which you DOWNLOAD from the site. That is why we call it a Magazine, because we are trying to make the PDF as much like a magazine as we can. Your second point about there being no such thing possible as an OEL light novel makes ABSOLUTELY no sense whatsoever. A light novel is a novel which can be read in a single day (50,000 words or so or less) and which contains at least one anime/manga illustration (I reference the light novel WELCOME TO THE NHK) and has a storyline that COULD be turned into an anime or manga. How in the world is that IMPOSSIBLE for someone who speaks english to do?! Your comment makes no sense. All you got to do is get a writer and a anime artist, team them together, have a good story, and you have a light novel if it can be read all within a day. FAN CREATED NOVELS? Excuse me, that would be called FANFICTION, and again, you obviously cared not to investigate, or else you'd realize all the stories are completely ORIGINAL and have no ties to existing entities. Graphic novels? That would be comic books, which at the moment, we have not yet published. So, you might want to know what the heck you're talking about, before you decide to write the stuff like you just did. Matt122004 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the "potential" for becoming an anime or manga has little to do with anything, especially when you are talking about non-japanese publications. However Collectonian does have a point, an "OEL light novel" is a silly name. A light Novel is a Light Novel. Light Novel is just a term for short storys (or a series of short stories), the only difference is that not all english language novels contain illustrations (but many do, especially for younger audiences) which typical japanese light novels tend to. Calling something an "original english language light novel" is absurd. The term works for Manga because the "manga style" differs from traditional western comics, it doesn't work for light novels because they are just short storys. As such it's indeed impossible, and no random blog or forum post will convince me that this ridiculous labelling of such content is in any way sensible or justified Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A light novel is NOT a short story or series of short stories. A light novel series, such as Shakugan no Shana which has reached over 20 volumes is just as long, if it were put all together into large books, as the Harry Potter series I'm sure. And you're right, a Light Novel is a light novel no matter what. HOWEVER, you referenced that there ARE book in english with illustrations. However, what you failed to mention is that a LIGHT NOVEL is a novel with Anime/Manga illustrations, and there are currently NO original english novels with such. And guess what, light novels have different storylines than american readers are used to, even the style of writing is different. So just the same, I have to say your wrong. Matt122004 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A light novel series, is still a series of short storys. They may be one plotline, but they are still broken up into smaller storys (perhaps not universally, but certainly enough to be woth noting). The length of the series is irrelevant, especially if it's taking that many more "volumes" to reach that size. You are also deliberately ignoring a point I've already made (after agreeing with me on the more important point!), the fact that illustrations are done manga style make ZERO difference and the same goes for storyline style. Shakespeare writes in a very different style to Stephen King, but they both wrote fiction. Also, there is a world of English speakers outside of America, so bear that in mind. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm sorry, but it actually DOES make a difference. Or have you never read the wikipedia entry for a light novel? It defines it as having anime/manga illustrations. That is exactly one of the most defining characteristics of these novels that distinguishes them from other short novels. And actually, your comparison fails. Shakespeare wrote PLAYS, while Stephen King wrote NOVELS. They are completely different, in writing style, and in format. Which is why Shakespeare is called a Playwright, and not a novelist. LIGHT NOVELS are very different format, style, and artwork wise then anything available in american or even english print. And guess what, does that mean then that Eragon is a series of 3 short stories? Does that mean Harry Potter is also a series of short stories? To call light novels short stories is a wrong use of the word. In order to be called a short story, you typically have a story lower than 35,000 words, which is usually lower than the average light novel word count. And I know that there is a world of english writers outside of America, many writers on the magazine and the artists coming in for the second issue don't live in america. Matt122004 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, bad analogy. I can admit to that because they were the first two names that popped into my head. However you may want to read the light novel page yourself, it doesn't even mention illustrations, so maybe you should check your own claims too. Naturally a light novel created in japan for the Japanese market will have a manga illustration, it's unlikely to have a Stan Lee style illustration now isn't it? Thats just common sense. Using a manga style illustration in a original english story doesn't suddenly make it something new. If you want to continue the "debate" over our opposing viewpoints on the medium itself, lets take it elsewhere, but we've drifted away from the AFD and theres a feeling in my bones this may be speedy closed. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, someone got rid of it. But originally wikipedia listed that it needed to have manga illustrations. Even websites have quoted wikipedia on it. Guess someone decided it wasn't needed. Anyways, lets end this debate with the feeling of "Lets agree to disagree" lol. Matt122004 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of confusion here, largely resulting from confusion over the term light novel in Japan. Illustrations are a big part of light novels, but there are any number of them without illustrations. Other people define them based on which publishing label the books are released from. But the one thing that is universally agreed upon is that they are the Japanese version of young adult novels. I would argue that a light novel written in English is simple a young adult novel - albeit one influenced by Japanese fiction. But like OEL manga, the term is a bit of a misnomer. Manga just means comics from Japan; fans with narrow reading tastes started treating it like an art style, which was a shame. It meant they ruled out lots of great manga as not looking enough like manga. I'd hate to see the same happen with light novels just because fans decided they had to have illustrations in that same narrowly defined style, or because the stories didn't fit the convential genres - even though the biggest light novel authors made a big splash upturning typical genres. Not to get wildly off topic or anything. Doceirias (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Welcome to the NHK is not a light novel. Never has been. Published for an adult audience by a mainstream publishing label. Doceirias (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may never have meant to have been, but it is a novel you can read in a day, has an anime cover, and most light novel fans consider it a light novel. Matt122004 (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, light novel is a demographic term. Length has nothing to do with it, illustrated covers have nothing to do with it, and the opinions of fans who don't know better have nothing to do with it. They are light novels by virtue of the target audience. Just like Love Hina is never going to be shojo manga, no matter how romantic it is. Welcome to the NHK is an adult work of fiction, aimed at adults, that happens to deal with otaku subculture. Doceirias (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not-notable, all sources are either from the website itself or blog posts. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Silvers[edit]

Delete Not a notable actress, only related to an actor (father). Ipromise (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Here's the possible criteria for actresses, either regular or porn.[reply]

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. NO
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. NO
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. NO
Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in ~~Category:Adult movie awards~~ or Category:Film awards ~~or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres~~. NO
~~Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. NO~~
Ipromise (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. First of all, I have no idea why the nominator started bringing up issues relating to pornographic actresses in the AfD, when the subject was a mainstream actress and had never been involved with pornography. That itself verges on libel. Second, the subject spent four years as a cast member on Happy Days, a very well known television series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the criteria for notability for all kinds of actresses, one of them being porn. She is not a porn actress so I've striken these out.

I think part of the problem is the article is not very well written and short even for a stub. The question then becomes if notability is achieved by being on one TV series as a minor character? According to WP guidelines, it seems that a minor character is not notable enough for WP. WP calls for multiple roles or a large cult following, neither of which she has. Maybe merge with her father's article? Ipromise (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a non-insignificant role in a notable television series. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burr (rapper)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Possible WP:COI issues as well, prod declined. Ray (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: myspace artist. Insufficient 3rd party notability WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Oh, nice picture too Brent. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did the research and totally fails WP:Music. Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion perhaps? Tavix (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anni Krueger[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: relies heavily on myspace and blogs for references, insufficient 3rd party notability WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4Main[edit]

Appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at present there is no "non-trivial published work whose source is independent of the site itself", much less multiple ones. The only citations are to (1) the site itself, (2) the trivial company information at alexa.com and (3) one blog entry which could be by the founders of the site. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The blog entry I used as a reference wrote by someone who wrote other reviews about other social networks too and the entry date is October 2008 and it's obvious if it was from one of site founders, they would update the old screen shots. 4Main does not looks like those screen shots any more. --Vafarin (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but you see, blogs are still generally not reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hands up, this site is less than 1 year old and really I couldn't find any other references, but there are some other sites in social network list of wiki without these reliable sources. how do they get listed!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.182.154.202 (talk • contribs)
  - Wikipedia has certain notability criteria that determines what is worthy of inclusion and what isn't. In this case, WP:WEB applies. If they don't meet the criteria, they have no article on Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched through google and only found blogs and forums discussing 4Main. Could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominatorWWGB (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (n-a closure)[reply]

Insanity Streak[edit]

Non-notable comic, no claims of notability, no sources, but there is no speedy deletion tag for comics. AnyPerson (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gnews reveals multiple hits, including evidence of wide circulation (20 newspapers), and some evidence of award-winning. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Ray (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw this. My apologies for not doing a better investigation first. AnyPerson (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi no Catoblepas[edit]

A very short lived series serialized for only 4 months before it was pulled do to lack of popularity. No third-party reliable sources found covering the series. Author also appears to be non-notable. Farix (Talk) 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Has no notability, has no sources, short lived and barely even got a cult following, no official English translation, yet only scanlations. I'm a Weekly Shōnen Jump fan and even I forgot about this series, should definatly be deleted. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It is not the vocation of WP:Anime to host every failed manga serialization. KrebMarkt 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If a Jump fan forgot about it, forget it. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any notice, in English at any rate, nor hints of other notablity. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action Palestine[edit]

Reasons for deletion: Cannot meet sourcing standards per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, content is not suitable for an encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:NOT, articles fails to meet notability guidelines per Wikipedia:NOT, POV is obviously a major issue here. Also fails Wikipedia:CORP. I'm more then willing to edit this article and create a balance, but I can't seem to find anything online to support such edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion page for Action Palestine

Weak Delete Big POV problem. Seems some parts are little more than propoganda. The article is made solely from cut and paste from the Action Palestine website. I think given some work it could be better, but as it stands it is not encyclopaedic. Beligaronia (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has so many problems I don't know where to start - WP:ORG - does not appear to pass thresholds on notability looking at third party resources (This is a fundamental problem). Other issues that need to be addressed include: WP:COPYVIO from the organization's website, WP:SPAM this article is really just a promotional piece for this organization and WP:POV - clearly written by someone affiliated with the organization and the article would require a complete rewrite to get to neutrality.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was written by the organisation. The text is completely cut and paste from the official website.--Beligaronia (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Kids Gallery[edit]

This article is about an on-line art gallery. I originally tagged it for speedy deletion but the author added references so I decided it send it for AfD instead. The problem is that it is a purely on-line gallery and there are no RS references. The gallery has some publications but it seems that they are self-published. Each reference is either the gallery itself or a blog. Googling for the artist (Adam Gillespie) or the gallery produces a lot of social networking but nothing RS on the first few pages. Google News and Scholar are no better. The author has made a statement about why he thinks the article should be kept on Talk:Beat Kids Gallery. While I appreciate that he has done his best to meet the requirements I simply can't see notability or full verifiability. DanielRigal (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now). The article just got started, give it time to be fleshed out. Granted, it probably should have been sandboxed on the users pages, but more eyes may help too. Looks like some publication will be coming out shortly. If it's not improved in 3 months - then AfD again. Wikipedia has no timelimit. There is an essay here that talks about this. Yes I know it's not policy or even guidelines, but it's a suggestion. — Ched (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has potential but there aren't any reliable sources to reference the article. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I would have liked to rescue this article, this art gallery is non-notable. A Google search and a Google News Archive search returns few reliable sources which can be used to source the article. Thus, this gallery fails the general notable guidelines and WP:V. The artist, Adam Gillsepie, doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. Perhaps the author can move this information to his/her website or blog. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mansel Close[edit]

I nominated this page for a speedy deletion under A7 however I was notified that it did not fall under this category because it was a place. I was further advised to nominate it for AfD if I still believe it should go, which I am doing. I believe that not only does this article provide no context, however I also believe that it is not notable. Aka042 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence (or assertion) of notability for this road. JJL (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wexham, the road's city. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need redirects for 40-house roads.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have already reverted the gang nonsense this page was originally created with from the Wexham article, and as S Marshall says we have no need for redirects of minor roads for relatively small places. -- role^player 00:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ~~-- Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

What does this discussion have to do with Hinduism? -- role^player 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... I have no idea either :) Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article or found via Google that indicates notability. Merge not needed as there is lack of substantial, verifiable content, and unlikely term for linking or searching (also not a unique name, at least four other streets with this name in the UK, assuming none are trap streets). —Snigbrook 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brent gette[edit]

Biography written in a self-promotional style. Athletic achievements not notable (the Atlantic Coast Hockey League was a small regional league), the words about him being "known for his thunderous hits" and "ineffective in college as fighting in (sic) not allowed" read like - bragging? This person doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines in WP:BIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The bragging seems to have been removed but what remains is a non-notable bio. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kokanes[edit]

Delete unsourced article about nn name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't make a decision on this without hearing from the creator about sources—It's hard for me to google it on my own since there appears to be a lot of unrelated stuff called Kokane (people's Myspace pages, etc.). If there are sources, then it might be possible to write an article on this (there are articles on most Chinese surnames, for example). If sources are not forthcoming within a couple days, I would say delete. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that's a delete then. Punkmorten (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in its current form it has no place here. Punkmorten (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Needs expanding and references Ijanderson (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hutchinson[edit]

Actress with no defensible claim to notability. Fails to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : Besides, numeros Porno awards,Hitchinson also has acted in several tv shows. Keep and Expand --Connortt9 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to back up your claim of "numerous [...] awards" ? Valrith (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable awards, only triial acting roles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources verifying awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). FunPika 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Edwards (geographer)[edit]

The subject of this article is quoted frequently but isn't given significant coverage in reliable sources. The focus of articles that mention the subject tend to be Microsoft Encarta, leading to a conclusion of semi-notability for one event to the (limited) extent that he could be demonstrated to be notable at all. Bongo matic 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable accomplishments:the SIG, his company, hisrole at Microsoft. Hardly oneevent.DGG (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not being a geographer, I cannot evaluate his achievements. But I can say that the AAG is a major geographical organization of a nation that's of some academic importance; if the AAG chooses to profile Edwards among just twenty-odd people, this suggests to me that he has some significance. However, the article does need work. Morenoodles (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of Feb, 2011, I recommend deleting this article in favor of its replacement, Kate Edwards (geographer). As a transgender individual Tom became Kate as of 2010.

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicity (software)[edit]

I cna't find any reliable sources that show notability. This article was posted on the talk page, but the article needs multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per article above & others listed on google news @ heise (and mentions in multiple unix/linux books). FWIW, duplicity is included in multiple linux/BSD distros (which was a suggested criteria for the software notability guideline, which has failed to garner consensus) & the rank on popcon isn't all that low. This seems to be a case where we just need to add citations to the article to improve it. --Karnesky (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the maintainer of duplicity. I did not put the article up on the page, however, it is accurate, if a bit incomplete. The project is active and has been for the last couple of years. I took over from the original author, Ben Escoto. What do you guys need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwloafman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Show where identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy have independently published works talking about this subject in depth. Show where someone other than the creator/inventor has discussed/documented it, proving that knowledge of it has escaped its creator/inventor and become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. Readers must be able to check all Wikipedia articles against sources, and they must be sources that readers can trust. All that you need to do is point to such sources, for best results by citing them in the article, in a further reading section or some such. Mention it here when you have. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Karnesky above. The program has a long history, and it was recommended for Debian administration even when described by its creator as unstable and abandoned by him. More recently it has got (approving) coverage in places such as this article in Linux Journal. Morenoodles (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, low to moderate notability as far as OSS software projects go, but that's still more than naught. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo CMS[edit]

Product is not notable software. 16x9 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm seeing some sources, which is better than most of these CMS articles get. [17] [18] [19]. Nothing I'd consider particularly great though, so I'm tending towards delete. Could be very easily convinced to keep it, though. We're deleting a lot of stuff out of this category, which I'm starting to worry about now. JulesH (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many (if not the majority) of the articles in the category are ads for the product write by single purpose, likely CIO accounts. I do look into each before nominating, so not to go to crazy. 16x9 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rice4ever[edit]

Only notable for one event; fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ONEEVENT Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no hits in gnews, no evidence of notability; ghits include many false positives for lovers of the food and overall don't demonstrate notability for the subject of the article. JJL (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->

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

The result was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone3[edit]

Software product that is not notable. 16x9 (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —16x9 (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Thunder (truck)[edit]

Individual monster trucks generally aren't notable. There is no substantial coverage of reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N. Tavix (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to believe that someone made a Category:Defunct monster trucks (it's got three items), but nothing to indicate that this was ever notable. Maybe someone can make a list of defunct monster trucks and park this there. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even a List of monster trucks. Why would we create a fork of defunct ones when there isn't a parent article? Tavix (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor I would create such a page, to be sure. I wouldn't put it past someone else to attempt it however. Mandsford (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a List of monster trucks but it was deleted on January 19. •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Flyingcandyman (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this is notable enough to have an article of its own. Does Michael Schumacher's car have an article btw? ;) Chamal ^talk 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to his F1 car(s), then yes they are notable enough for articles due to Formula One being internationally notable. The problem for the Miami Thunder is that it receives virtually no media coverage to gain notability, so it doesn't meet WP's criteria. Flyingcandyman (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion result was vacated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 2. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Altringer[edit]

Not notable; fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Article about this subject, which was also written by the subject, was previously speedy deleted (G11). See Becky Altringer (private investigator). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Mild notability Ijanderson (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom, this one fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Clearly not notable enough. -- 128.97.244.12 (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- 128.97.245.99 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's some notability, but it all relates to this production. I would suggest merging it there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ENTERTAINER. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Magioladitis (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Fašínová[edit]

Non-notable. According to Fashion Model Directory, since competing in (and not placing in) the Elite contest over a decade ago, she has managed one magazine cover (not even a solo cover), two ads, and only a handful of runway appearances, mostly for non-notable designers. This is basically the fashion equivalent of an actor with a one-word role or two. Performed a brief search for good sources, but found mention in just a pair of blogs. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google news turns up a photo credit, but the article isn't about her. It's just an incidental mention. Web results are directory entries and forum posts. No reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable model with magazine cover credit. Stub will be expanded. Esasus (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to establish notability? -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - It already looks like a consensus to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of passengers on the Mayflower. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Allerton[edit]

Article on a person which the only source provided specifically says "Almost nothing is known about John Allerton". Not an historically notable or important person in the colonization of New England. TM 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a librarian in the hosue who can investigate this? Bearian (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Merge to List of passengers on the Mayflower per Esasus, infra. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not inherited from being on the Mayflower or being a Pilgrim. Tavix (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of passengers on the Mayflower. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Almanzo Babcock[edit]

Article on a person with little notability, fails WP:BIO TM 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds notable to me. For example, take a look at Armitage, Kevin C. (2007) "Bird Day for Kids: Progressive Conservation in Theory and Practice" Environmental History 12(3): pp. 528–551 and "Bird Day for Children: Eight States Have One and New York Educators Want It" New York Times 21 April 1901. It may be that it will be appropriate to merge this article into a future Bird Day article, but he does seem notable. --Bejnar (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep i must strenuously objec tot htis nomination., i too have learned the shame of a misguided nominatino and i understand the temptation to pus the issue but Mr Charles Alammanzo Babcock is clearly notable. according htis article, he was influential in the construction of the Bird Day holiday, a prominent and well-respected holiday celebrated around the world. to delete Mr Babcocks article as nondemonstrative of notability, you would also have to delete Santa eastern Bunny, and other holiday-related figures since they do not necessarily automatically emt wp:bio either unless you rad it more closely. I also think that this article shoudl be kept on the grounds of WP:N WP:V Smith Jones (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable educator and creator of the United States' first national bird holiday. Multiple, substantial independent reliable source coverage satisfies the notability requirements of WP:BIO. No need to merge into Bird Day, this article can focus on Babcock and his educational perspective rather than on the holiday itself. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mizuki Kawashita. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akane-chan Overdrive[edit]

WP:Non-notable manga with no evidence that it has received any reviews or coverage by reliable sources. The article is nothing more then a plot summary. Normally I prefer to redirect this article to the author's page, but two attempts at redirecting the article was met with resistance be an obstinate editor who threatened admin action over the redirect.[20] Farix (Talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mizuki Kawashita; no evidence of independent notability. JJL (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per original attempts. Searches on the japanese title only return bookstores and a couple of blogs, and searches in english only reveal scanlation sites. Neither assert notability, and the scanlation sites are just plain illegal Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Mizuki Kawashita. I'm coming up bupkis on anything supporting notability of this one. (Who on earth thinks this has any shoujo elements at all? Well, apparently an original researcher with different googles on than I do.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was serialized in Margaret, which is a shōjo magazine. --03:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Way to make my head hurt.... —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge content, not just redirect and I resent farix' bad faith personal attacks on me just because I won't let him have his way against proper Wikipedia procedure. You know how Wikipedia works, shame on you. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk)

Proper procedure actually suppports Farix's WP:Bold redirect, and his reasons for redirecting in the first place are quite valid. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. This article and AFD is clearly one such snowball. Yet your stubborn instances to ran through the process anyway is just a stall tactic. And your threats to call an admin if "process wasn't followed" is down right shameful. --Farix (Talk) 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Snow bit is rather arrogant. Don't make such assumptions. Sure, it doesn't have a lot of active editors to notice and defend it, but doesn't mean your little gang is going to automatically have your way. I see this series listed on Amazon and it gets 205,000 hits when I Google, plus it was published in the most popular and influencial manga magazine there is. Notable enough to me, so I vote Keep. Dream Focus (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with this nonsense about having active editors to defend articles, people just aren't going to take you seriously with rubbish like this. The gang comment just shows you up even more then most of your questionable reasons for keeping articles. Google hits are irrelevant. Being on Amazon does not indicate notability, and Amazon should be used to demonstrate something exists, not as a reason for an article to exist (very big difference). Again, as has been demonstrated several times across several AfD's, although Shonen Jump is a very notable magazine, it's content is not automatically notable because of it. Naruto, Bleach and One Piece all proved their notability, they weren't suddenly notable because they were in Jump. The same goes for any other manga anthology magazine. Do us all a favor and actually learn how policy and guidelines affect how Wikipedia works and stop dismissing them just because you see yourself as some campaigner against established Wikipedia processes and experienced editors. It's all very tiresome. If you have a reason for keeping something that's your perogative, but you'll be taken more seriously if you drop some of this sillyness. You just appear to be defending lost causes most of the time with no attempt to seriously address the common issues. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Japanese wikipedia, being in Jump comic automatically makes something notable. It should be the same way here. Dream Focus (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a pretty bold claim to be making! Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each language Wikipedia sets its own standards of inclusion. But the standards for one language doesn't transfer over to any of the other languages. --Farix (Talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will be surprised how lax is the French Wikipedia but this is the English Wikipedia so we stick with it rules and guidelines. KrebMarkt 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mizuki Kawashita, with merge of basic publication info. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dandy Sephy, I posted on the Japanese wikipedia using Google translator not long ago, asking about a series nominated for deletion here. I was told since its in Jump, its automatically notable. And I have a reason for keeping something I believe should be in the encyclopedia, while a gang/group of people seem determined to erase them. And the same type of articles nominated for deletion, sometimes get deleted, sometimes do not, depending on who is around at the time to defend them. Wikipedia states its policies are a guideline, and use common sense. Its be great if we had a set rule of law for everything, but unfortunately that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. You know plenty of articles exist that don't have notable third party references, but if you have a lot people there to protest, you don't nominate it for deletion. And when certain people seem to stick together and vote to delete something, and are all members of a task force, it seems like a gang to me. There is no possible reason to delete this article. You don't make the encyclopedia a better place by doing so, and the information here could be useful or interesting to someone. Dream Focus (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see my comment that the standards for inclusion differ from one language Wikipedia to another? And the English Wikipedia has a much stricter standard then most of the other Wikipedias. --Farix (Talk) 12:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the policies differently, or do they just have less deletionists around? Just as no one bothers any of the articles related to Marvel or DC comics in the English speaking wikipedia, even those without any references at all, even for the most obscure insignificant of characters, no one bother the manga pages in the Japanese wikipedia. If you have a lot of fans around to defend it, it stays. Remember, things are done by consensus of whoever is around at the time, not by any set rules. Dream Focus (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how is this in process when process (WP:BEFORE) clearly states that AFD is not to be used for discussing redirects? So, there was a disagreement over whether the article should be redirected or not – it should be settled on the talk page or other places; but not at AFD. Neier (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. (Non-admin closure). --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vine Hall, Oxford[edit]

this page lacks WP:RS reliable sources, WP:N demonstratove notebility, or anything and google yields only wikipedia sarticles and mirrors that mention this place at all Smith Jones (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

results of preliminary notability investigation and why i decided to nom for WP:AFD[edit]

i conducted a search for "Vine Hall Oxford". of th e first 10 links, most of them were either wikipedia . a mirror or something esle not demonstrative of a WP:RS criteria such as laid out here here in this link.
i then tried to google "Vine Hall" by itself and i found that it was a moderative prominently surname here here and elspeth. While these people may or may not be notable, there is no tenuous conduction between Vine Hall, Oxford (article) and anyone so theretofore listed.
just to over the arse, i decided to go back to Oxford the overlal concept of this university and work backwards to see if ic ould find a link to Vine Hall, Oxford theretofore. the originative website for which oxford has established, here, yielded nothing for vine hall, indicating to therefore me that not necessarily present is any mention of the term Vine Hall, Oxford as an adjunct to this university of Oxford.

counterpoint -- a more extensive search yielded 204 matches however my rudimant analysis yielded no sign that these results were directly or even tangentialy on point to the point to which i was initially attempting to refer of.

- conclusion -- i am forced t conclude, that, despite the good fiath efforts of this article creator and all the toehrs who have worked on this article in the past, i am forced to conclude that this article does not apear to meet the demonstrative criteria for inclusion whtin the pages of Wikipedia (figuratively). The policies of WP:RS, WP:V, *& WP:N are not met therein; this article fails to include ANY sources, and my investigation had conlucded that there are not likely to be any sources heretofore discoverable in the near or approachable future. Further to the point, there is no assertion of notabiltiy; the article fails to allege that this place is notable in the history of Oxford University due to the lack of source.s and finally, no verifiable location can be found for the discovery of the aforemtnioned sources wherein the article rests entirely on no such link to an external site no such written or documented source that falls within the reliable sources guideline set outide within the Wikipedia code.
- the above constitutes m y decision to go against my principles and nominate this article for dletion. of course, if anyone can do a better job and find a source that would subatnatiate the charges put forth by this article (ie that Vine Hall existed and was part of Oxford) i would be only good willing to withdraw this nomination and extned my sincere apologies to the article creator Smith Jones (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not sure about wether this should be merged to Alfred Street, but just wanted to say that SJ's searches are incorrect/not as useful as google book search which finds WP:RS far more easily. For Vine Hall, Alfred Street it yields [21][22] about 171 mentions in WP:RS. The building gave its name to the previous name for Alfred Street, which was Vine Hall Lane. It is irrelevant whether it is currently on the Oxford Uni website- it's unlikely to be, as it no longer exists, but they are not trying to be and encyclopedia.:) As a rule, it edifies Wikipedia to include historical/cultural artefacts and subjects, which obviously often will not have as many mentions on the internet as things contemporary to the internet. Sticky Parkin 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thats a very good point Sticky Parkin. i tried to look at Googlebooks but i wasnt sure how to use that website to find Vine Hall, Oxford. thank you for your point.

do you know how i could go about withdrawing a WP:AFD?? Smith Jones (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding several sources. It seems to be a part of current Peckwater Quadrangle and either an other name for, or was situated next to Peckwater's Inn. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you too fore your help Apoc2400. i feel like i jumped the gun a bit aith tiw WP:AFD and while i have ben advised to leave it open for others to communicate in the future i would go to the talkpage first insteadof coming directly here. again, thank you for your time and the effort you are taking out to put sources in this aritcle. Smith Jones (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We are a bit stingy because some people try to delete a lot of articles that shouldn't be. No need to withdraw the AfD I think, it will be closed eventually. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ya i know what your talking about. i almost never do something like this (this is the first AFD i started, as i remember) and the only reason is ecause of the fact that it didnt have any sources and that weird, jokey line "it later disappeared" atthaced to it. obviously thats not a good reason to jump the gun like that. BTW, i think that non-admins can close these thigns but i couldnt find exactly how it should be dine on the WP:AFD page. Smith Jones (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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