Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 17 January 19 >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Balance[edit]

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

Quite unnotable, has no good references, sounds more like an advertisement for the product rather than an encyclopedic article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Beat. QuidProQuo23 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Neilson[edit]

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

No sources. Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found numerous hits on Google for female wrestler Kim Neilson. Proxy User (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS? Simon \\ KSK Yes we can! 01:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a policy, and numerous website verify her existence. The nominator should have taken the liberty to attempt and cite sources in the article. Though she is verifiable, her notability may be in question.--TRUCO 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never did anything notable and was not in any notable feuds during her brief WWE and TNA stints. TJ Spyke 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete it; she's real enough, and although she didn't do anything notable for some people; I bet she did other places. Fiddler96 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The sites i check did indeed show she existed, but there really was little else to indicate notability, or more importanly to write a comprehensive article.Yobmod (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked for some pics on google but 'seems there are quite a few Kim Neilson[2]. Who created her page anyway? Kalajan€·₣ 15:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • see [www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/k/kim-neilson.html here] Kalajan€·₣ 15:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm... Seems a hoax actually (that ref was added here) Kalajan€·₣ 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noap, she isn't [3] Kalajan€·₣ 15:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply to...every one of his comments - online world or wrestling is unreliable, and even though we know she exsits, there is no reliable refs, making her fail WP:N. SimonKSK 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wrong. Just because there are no reliable sources, does not meet she does not exist or that notability is not established. She has had a run in major promotions, which satisfies WP:ATHLETE and because this is pro-wrestling, it satisfies WP:BLP.TRUCO 21:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Aude under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HighRankPlayer[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to plastic explosive. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C-6 (explosive)[edit]

C-6 (explosive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy, nominated by article's original creator. Cannot delete under G7 because of other edits in between. Believed to be original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Unless the content is false, which is not claimed in the nomination, this seems to be a valid subject for a stub article. It needs a reference for verifiability and the trivial bit at the bottom should go. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Found nothing at Google news archive, or at Google Book search, about a specific explosive named "C-6," which goes against notability, but verifiability might be satisfied by [4] which refers to "classes b-2, c-6 and c-7 explosives." On the other hand this could refer to administrative code paragraphs, and not a specific explosive. A Russian source [dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/eng_rus/593645/liquid] appears to refer to it, "C-6 (explosive) — C-6 or Compositio C-6 is a variety of military plastic explosive. It is about 1.4 times as explosive as the much better kow C-4, .." but the reliability is unknown and the text is the same as the Wikipedia article.. "C6" appears to be the beginning of the chemical formula for TNT, so this might have given rise to a mistaken belief it is a particular explosive. So I have to argue for deletion on the basis of lack of notability and verifiability unless reliable sources can be found. Edison (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the article is no good on its own, and editors (thank you Edison) have to do a lot to figure out what exactly is going on. If the thing exists, fine, but notability seems not yet to have been established, given the complete lack of references in the article and the meager results Edison's apparently diligent search. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to plastic explosive as plausible misidentification 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have since marked the article for 'Speedy Delete' as the person I originally spoke to about it apparently has no recollection of this compound. So either delete or redirect to plastic explosive is fine. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was assuming that any genuine, named explosive compound would be notable. It seems that I was wrong so I have withdrawn my weak keep above. A redirect seems the best answer. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to plastic explosive per the IP — if we have a source for the existence of such a thing, I don't see how it would help to get rid of it altogether, even though it doesn't seem worthy of an article as is. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, salted. — Aitias // discussion 11:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Prato[edit]

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

This page was deleted under A7, but overturned at DRV for not fully meeting this criterion. Self-published books do not confer notability, and there is no otherwise "significant coverage by third-party reliable sources". The article did previously exist at Greg prato; there's also potentially a COI. seresin ( ¡? )  22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A couple of things to note. The article has been deleted 5 times already, 6 times counting this time. 2 days before this user made his/her version, Greg tried to create it himself. They both also created the article using a lowercase surname. Quite a coincidence. If nothing else, it would most likely be a case of sock puppetry and vanity. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the one who deleted this as not asserting notability, and I still don't see this as having much of an assertion of notability, but I'm fine with having a full discussion instead of doing this as a speedy. In short: I think two self-published books, one not-yet-published small-press book, some magazine articles, and some web articles aren't really enough for an article. I don't see it as passing WP:CREATIVE or any other of our notability criteria, regardless of what conflicts-of-interest might or might not have occurred in its (re)-creation. By the way, this was tagged for WP:CSD#G4, for which it was not eligible, as it was already speedied under A7 another time before this. If this ends up being a deletion, the closing admin might consider salting it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consider salting: Autobiographical, promotional and written in a matey, unencyclopaedic tone with first name used throughout. This guy has a lot of hits on Google but they all seem to trace back to him or his vanity publishers. Secondary coverage is lacking. Not notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find a lot of writing credits, and also found this brief book review but that's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Considering the notability assertion in the article, one would think that at least one third-party reference would be included in the article, given the number of times it's been deleted already. But since there aren't any, and no one seems to be able to find one... -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only real claim to notability are his articles - he appears to be a journalist rather than an author. The only sources appear to be the articles themselves. Unless any of the publications is important enough to make him notable by default for writing there (and I assume they are not? Music magazines are not my forte), there is no assertion of notability. QED. There has been some promotional activity around Greg Prato: paragraphs advertising his books were added to articles, for instance here. He is also quoted in several music-related WP articles [5], and perhaps somebody with more knowledge within the field should look into whether the quotes are relevant or not. --Bonadea (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt Obvious attempt at self=promotion by self-published author. Edward321 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt WP is tripped up by its own cumbersome procedures, but vanispamcruft by socks is not permissible. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to green building. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecolodge[edit]

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

Non notable essay. How to guide, and/or OR Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to green building. -- Whpq (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect may be the best idea--there's nothing here to merge, and it's not a bad search term. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kandis Blakely[edit]

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

Healer, author and teacher. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the article is promotional in nature although not outright spam. A search for articles written about her turn up none. Worldcat indciates her book is published by Atherika Productions which is coincidentally founded by none other than Kandis Blakely, the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--not notable, though that clinic in the Caribbean, nice work if you can get it. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete--Try doing a google search for each of these three search terms: "New Decision Therapy", NDT, and "Kandis Blakely". In particular, have a look at the following links:

[6] [7] [8]

Also, please have a look at the "Dominica Prison Rehabilitation Program" page on her website. She both designed and is overseeing this very important program to rehabilitate young offenders before than become long term habitual criminals: [9]

Finally, please checkout the short video on YouTube of Kandis Blakely using New Decision Therapy to treat a patient: [10]

Wrpittman

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrpittman (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC) — Wrpittman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reply - Tholse aren't reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And that one possibly reliable source is actually the site of a travel agency, which I suspect has some interest in promoting this as part of their travel packages. -- Whpq (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources on google (inc. news, scholar). I'm sure she exists, but has done nothing of note.Yobmod (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Christian School[edit]

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

Non-notable school with no claims of notability. AnyPerson (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Gracie Legacy[edit]

Renzo Gracie Legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:FILM - only claim to notability is that the subject of the documentary is notable. Admittedly self-distributed and released with "little or no marketing" on a web site. No third-party sources. Graymornings(talk) 21:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to User:MichaelQSchmidt for digging up sources. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some of the "keep" !votes are based on the argument of "wait and see, maybe it'll be OK in a few months"; remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Other "keep" arguments included other stuff exists, etc. However, it looks like a suitable redirect for Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009[edit]

List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating together with:

List of rocket, mortar, bombing and infantry attacks by Israel in 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

for deletion/merging into Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. These are essentially POV forks where partisans of each side mostly own the respective articles, and try to maximize coverage of their respective grievances, whereas the timeline is a unified treatment. If there's something wrong with the timeline's current treatment, it can be improved; or if it's too large for one timeline, it can be split into separate articles, but in some way that's more useful to our readers e.g. by date or phases of the conflict. Splitting into "attacks by Palestinians" and "attacks by Israelis" is a particularly bad way to split it from an NPOV perspective. Note that these are part of a multiplying set of POV forks of this conflict's timeline/list articles; see also another recent nomination. --Delirium (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are similarly two articles for 2008 (one 'by Israel', one 'on Israel'). So it seems sensible to have one for 2009. (Of course the info is in other articles, but not in a timeline manner such as this one.) I recommend "KEEP" -Johnbibby (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In what sense is Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict "not in a timeline manner"? --Delirium (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "in Israel" article was probably created in the anticipation of further attacks in 2009 happening after the end of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Since there were thousands of such attacks before the conflict, the anticipation is not at all far-fetched. And since the conflict is over, I don't see the harm in waiting a few weeks to see whether the anticipation proves true. The "in Israel" article should not have been nominated with the "by Israel" article, as the cases are different. Besides, the "by Israel" article is badly titled and is derivative from the former. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend "KEEP". I have contributed the two pages that are suggested to merge. I think that I did it in a balanced way mentioning always the source. The reason to keep two pages are:

-I see much more clearly the whole subject scaning in two documents with already the splitted information than having to concentrate in one and separate both contributions.
-The two documents can be linked to any time-line document wihtout the need to erase them.
-The subject of rocket firing is previous and can last longer than just this last Gaza Strip episode and it is not exactly the same.
-The page Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict as well as the other two proposed for delection are still to be developed as the conflict is too recent for the information to be acurate (remember the death toll claims in the 2008 South Ossetia war where 228 deaths became 69 and 1400 became ~350). Splited information can help future definition of real numbers for the merged paper and even then I would keep the 3 pages inter-linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevoyftp (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a simple merge (see my full comments below). This article is filled with excessive details that overwhelms the reader. Summary statistics should be used in any consolidated timeline. I think the related 2008 lists should be deleted as well and there should be a single consolidated article that has a table of summary statistics. That type of article will have long-term value, where as these excessively detailed articles are more "make work" projects because someone thinks they serve a useful propaganda purpose. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the point about merging. The major points of this should be merged to the timeline and this article be deleted/redirected. Themfromspace (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The list is necessary assuming further attacks. There is no harm in adding the attacks from either side into Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict while maintaining them in this article. Keeping this format makes reference to specific information much easier and more accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.240.90 (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the same reason that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 should be deleted, a classic example of WP:COATRACK. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong "Take decision after 4 months" This is a piece of information that can be usefull for future, more settled, articles. Is there any hurry to erase it? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevoyftp (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge together. This is a trivial level of detail, and shouldn't water down the conflict timeline. But if it must be kept, then merge the two lists of attacks into one. —Michael Z. 2009-01-21 15:39 z
  • In relation to the previous comentary: To me "spliting" is remarking and "merging" is diluting or watering down. The meaning of the comment could be that it highlihgts excesively some facts but that could be a misevaluation of the inteligence of the reader. I would like some more comment on how does the splitted information water down the timeline.
Thanks in advance.
  • delete or merge. There is no reason that any useful info couldn't be merged into the combined article and these 2 are complete content forks and WP:coatracks. Any impartial reader would prefer the iformation together for comparison. Isolating them just gives a reader a skewed view. Wikipedia is for the readers, not the POV-warriors.Yobmod (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Flayer (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that this is not a useful article as it is a highly detailed list when really a single article on rocket fire with a table of statistics (per year or a chart of per month) would be more valuable to readers. I have a feeling that someone thinks it is a better form of propaganda to have a long list rather than an informative article -- that might be the case, but it serves Wikipedia readers to have a single proper article as it is easier to maintain and it has better long term value. I can't image these highly detailed and excessively long lists having any real value to readers a few years down the road, only an overview with proper content and summary statistics (per year or a chart of per month) is going to have that long-term value that aids understanding -- the type of article we should be driving towards. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is a great resource for people to have access to. It is in a timeline fashion and covers both sides so no one can claim that this is biased or is propaganda. those seeking to delete this article are guilty of wanting to censure information they feel hurts there cause. This is public information important for the public to know. This is a great reference and should be kept and updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.123.149 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Akerman[edit]

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

Ghits reflect her work, but not the notability of same. She has done some columns and reviews, but no evidence she's notable for her work. Also, the fact that her child is notable does not ensure that she is. StarM 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —StarM 21:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article says she is best known as the mother of someone. No notability asserted for herself. Redddogg (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--practically qualifies for a speedy. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although with a heavy heart. I suspect that the subject is clearly notable and copious (offline) sources could be found to support this, if anyone was interested. The claim to be best known as someone's mother has the ring of being written by a man! I strongly suspect there is plenty more to say about the subject. However, I do not have the time and interest to perform a rescue job and I suspect nor will anyone else. Given that suspicion, rather than proof, is all I have to support my claim to the subject's notability plus the fact that the article is little more than two unreferenced sentences, deletion (as original research if nothing else) is probably the best course of action at this stage. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per Mattinbgn I suspect that she is sufficiently notable but there is little online beyond this biography. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Devoid of references, no notability evident. WWGB (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlawn Academy=[edit]

Woodlawn Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete non-notable elementary school (and promotional to boot) Mayalld (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- Not only all that, but it's copied directly from the school's website http://www.woodlawnacademy.net/ -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - If I am not mistaken not only is it a copyright vio, this article was already deleted a couple of days ago. I believe it was also an AfD. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kururu's inventions[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Kururu's inventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of unnotable "devices of the week", many of which are created purely for one joke. Fails Wp:N, completely unreferenced and is almost entirely in-universe. Article is tagged for merging, although I'm not seeing how it will integrate with existing related articles Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy/snow whatever. StarM 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norhead[edit]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Lifestyle Magazine[edit]

American Lifestyle Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A google search is challenge due to the quantity of [insert ethnicity here] lifestyle magazines but when qualifying for real estate, there's nothing that establishes notability of this magazine. Ghits aren't the definition of notability, but the hits that exist don't provide evidence of notability or material to add to establish it. Thoughts? StarM 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorien Bryant[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Article does not make any assertion of notability. Athlete went undrafted, and has never played in the NFL. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wow, didn't notice he was a 3x all big ten, definetely passes WP:ATHLETE, WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I declined the speedy since I think being signed by the Steelers asserts some notability. Since any articles about athletes seem to turn into a debate, I felt discussion was warranted. StarM 23:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Being signed by the Steelers is sort of notable but look at the debate over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Arline, same kind of situation (except that Arline wasn't released).--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't disagree. I actually think there ought to be stricter notability guidelines for athletes, but I know others disagree. I don't think it was a speedy, but rather it needed discussion. I think being signed is more notable than college athletes who never go anywhere near the pros getting 8gajillion ghits in their local paper, but it's rarely clear-cit so it's here. I'm neutral as I don't feel like doing the research to prove or disprove notability. I'm too busy watching the game ;) StarM 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the creator of the article, even I wouldn't have a problem with its deletion. I think being a three-time all-conference selection in college and being signed by the Steelers could make him notable enough, but it seems he's not going to be a professional so I wouldn't really argue if people didn't find him notable enough.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I don't care that he was 3x Big Ten. He's a free agent professional football player. So am I. So are you. All-Americans are usually notable, but not always. All-Conference and no professional career? No way. Timneu22 (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Comment I'd say his notability was established while in college as a major player in the big ten. That said, he doesn't all of a sudden "lose" notability just because he got cut from a pro team. College football players can indeed be notable, and I believe that this one is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETEDELETEDELETE ALL THE STEELERS NEED TO BE DELETED...okay being serious here :-) Keep despite my dislike of the team: being multitime all-conference is a major step toward notability, and Google provides several sites (with only a couple of minutes of searching) with detailed coverage — see [18] [19] [20] as three examples. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd accept an All-American or a college skill player who was a Heisman or other national trophy finalist who never played pro, but All-Big-Ten doesn't cut it for WP:ATHLETE, which is already a pretty low bar. THF (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:Athlete. Playing for a professional team (or highest level) is required of all sports, this includes sports popular at US colleges.Yobmod (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect and userfy quick-like - per TonyTheTiger's request, and general consensus as it stands and is likely to progress. Things that can be merged should be merged into the main article proper, of course. Since the article writer is collecting information on the first 100 days for this article, it's just as well that his userspace contains a repository of sources and material for general use. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's first 100 days[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Barack Obama's first 100 days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is not encyclopaedic but lies purely within journalism and speculation. No information of historical value is cited and therefore should be Deleted per: WP:ENC and WP:NOT#INFO, if not merged with Obama Presidency or presidency transition. Get over Obamamania and stay encyclopedic.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama, at least for now. Right now, this article can only be recentism or crystalballism. If, in a few months or a year, the first 100 days of his Presidency are of lasting, identifiable historical significance, a suitable separate article can be written then. No need for it now. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 20:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. There's enough verifiable information there that deleting it outright would be a mistake. But there really isn't enough there (yet) to warrant a full article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and encourage the authors to contribute to other WP articles on the Obama presidency. The problem with this one is that it's a prediction of the future, in violation of WP:Crystal ball. Only people to whom history gives the label "Hundred Days" for a period of their lives should get a 100 days article. Redddogg (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not a prediction that he will have a first 100 days. It is a fact. This article is for greater detail than will be permissible in the Presidency article. Each president should have an article about his first hundred days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even William Henry Harrison? Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 22:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Says a prayer of protection for President Obama and his family.) I hate to have to say this but there is no certainty that he will have 100 days in office. A larger point is that there is no reason to think that history will find his 100 days significant.Redddogg (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. There is reason to think that his first 100 days will be talked about with that label. But not enough reason to write an article about it here before it happens. I could also mention that people are watching WP's coverage of this and if we write an article before something happens it could be used to hold us up to ridicule. Redddogg (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. First, it hasn't happened yet, so it doesn't even exist; talk about unverifiability. It's nearly certain that his first hundred days will be historical, but let's not say they are until at least part of them happen. Second—and I hate even talking about this—Redddog is right. I'm just now leaving for the inauguration, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that nothing happens. I'm an atheist, and even I'm praying here. Graymornings(talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge/Redirect, etc. (basically non-keep as it is): I would think this might have a chance if the 100 days becomes symbolic on hindsight but right now its just non-notable/not yet historic/has not happened. Remember he has to actually be successfully sworn in first and then make it beyond day one, day two, etc. bit by bit and nobody can be certain of going beyond Tuesday. Also I have concerns about the title. From a long-term point of view it is extremely vague and, looking at it here as I type, the first of many possibilities that enter my mind is that the article could quite easily be describing the finer moments of the early months of his life. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Delete this article and start The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency in late April, early May, whenever. Redddogg (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sensible. Although again there is no certainty of that happening yet. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 22:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW there doesn't seem to be an article on the general concept of a "first hundred days" of a United States presidency. Certainly notable. Redddogg (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? Especially more than the President of France or the President of Ireland? --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closest appears to be New Deal#The First Hundred Days, which originated the meme. Emurphy42 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems close enough to me. An extremely detailed section oughtn't to require its own article surely? --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Don't fall asleep and Candlewicke. twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There should be a provisional status applied to this article during the 100 day period in question. Once the 100 day period ends, we can vote on whether the article can stand on its own or be merged into another more general heading. Gaurra (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That can be done just fine in the Presidency of Barack Obama article. Hell, there's even a "First 100 days" section already (it just has a {{mainarticle}} link to this one). Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. so what happens when I add details about the first 100 days and someone says that is too much detail for an article on his presidency.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have this discussion again. Consensus can change, and that's even assuming we have a consensus for delete/merge here. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that's why I didn't come down strongly for one side or the other. I think it's important, however, that if the discussion does come up again, we don't take the result of the present discussion as determining what we might do in the future. This discussion only relates to the article under the current circumstances. Lampman (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess we could merge it, but I've got a feeling we might have to recreate it – or something similar – later on, per WP:SS. Articles of this kind tend to get excessively large; the Barack Obama article is 136k and even the transition article is almost 80k. Lampman (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the presidency article. The "special status" given to the first 100 days of a presidency is something that has been applied in journalism, but I see no need to do so here. First, while I agree that (barring disaster) it's not crysal balling to say Obama's presidency will have 100 days. It is crystal balling to assume that the first 100 days will be any more notable than the second 100 days. Or the third 100 days. In fact, if you look at the presidency of GW Bush his first 100 days were rather NN; it was his second (or third) 100 days -- the period that included 9/11 -- that were considered the notable section. I have no objection to recreating this article after a period of time elapses (and not 102 days) if the first 100 days of his presidency do indeed take on a notability independent from the second 100, the first year, the second year, etc etc. But there will need to be third party accounting to indicate that the first 100 days stood out in some form from a comparative period of time within his presidency. 23skidoo (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's really the issue. The article as it exists now is not so much about the notability of the 100 days themselves, as it is about the expectations of that period, in the press and even according to the president-elect himself. And a lot has been written, in reliable sources, about the first 100 days. Lampman (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Other stuff exists. The difference between the present subject and that of Bush's first hundred days was that Wikipedia then, likewise to Bush's presidency, was only in its first months of breathing oxygen (in fact Bush's first inauguration occured when Wikipedia's umbilical cord was still attached to Nupedia) whereas now the lenght of Wikipedia's beard is -- um, to the tune of a dozen million articles! ↜Just me, here, now … 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any relevant info is already in Presidential transition of Barack Obama. The rest is WP:SYNTH. Graymornings(talk) 00:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Presidency of Barack Obama. Happyme22 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama. Information will likely overlap greatly. Jason (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, it is going to overlap. It will just be greater detail.
      • No advantage to it being seperate. Jason (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: wait until his first 100 days are over, if anything extremely notable happens, then we keep.  Marlith (Talk)  04:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The concept of the "first 100 days" is basically a journalistic construct, not an actual aspect of a presidency. There is no particular significance to a president's first "100 days" except as a peg for reporters to write unusually boring articles about. No doubt some of Obama's initiatives will begin during the first 100 days but not be completed until afterwards. The article also states that "During the first hundred days in office, presidents are highly scrutinized...." Judging from all the presidencies I can remember, presidents are also highly scrutinized for the rest of their terms as well, which takes most of the significance out of that statement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What is significant about this specific time frame? We could agree on a system in the future, like an article for each year of the presidency, but this seems too arbitrary. Grandmasterka 08:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Creating it before it happens is silly, and after it happens we won't be measuring it by some arbitrary 100-day boundary. Delete. ciphergoth (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could any closing administrator userfy this upon deletion so that the history is saved at User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's first 100 days. I suspect the argument will be a little bit different in about 100 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There really isn't any precedent for this in terms of when Wikipedia was created. The first 100 days is encyclopedic within an U.S. political context (I am unaware of it in other countries). Tomorrow the 100 days have begun, and executive orders will start coming, no crystal ball there, KEEP. Epson291 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a major WP:CRYSTAL violation. Grsz11 19:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt until April 30th at the very earliest Physchim62 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - talk about crystal ball over-splitting. The Presidency of Barack Obama is barely established beyond stub level, there is no possible reason to split out from something that hasn't even started yet. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Jehorn (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama. No need to delete, as it's well-sourced and the sources will only improve beginning tomorrow, but there's a better target article for it. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 22:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Agree with several of the editors above that the subject of the article hasn't occurred yet, and as it is purely speculation at this point, it shouldn't exist until the first hundred days have passed. Wikipedia is not a record of opinions. The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Presidency of Barack Obama. The article's content can only be considered relevant within the context of Obama's transition and inauguration as president. Imagine yourself 10 years ahead from now - would one really consider Obama's mere 100 first days in office as being noteworthy enough to deserve their own article? I doubt it. --m3taphysical (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any appropriate verfiable information to Presidency of Barack Obama as appropriate. I don't think it's really a "crystal ball" violation as the content as presented is generally reporting on speculation rather than being speculative itself. However I'm not convinced that at this stage the topic warrents a seperate page or that it can even be definded as a seperate topic given the somewhat mishmash nature of how it is sourced and put together. Guest9999 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until such time as something happens to make the first 100 days significant. We won't know until at least 102 days from now whether or not there should be an article about this topic. --B (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for three reasons. First, Obama's first hundred days took place in 1961; if the article means to refer to his Presidency, the title should reflect that. Second, will we have articles for the other 14.5 hundred-day periods in his term? Third, we're crystallballing at this point: yes, he'll almost certainly serve 100+ days in office, but we really don't know if they'll be notable as a stand-alone article yet, as they might well be for FDR (or the 100-Hour Plan). At this point, there's plenty of space in the Presidency of Barack Obama article (5.4 kb as opposed to 47 kb for GW Bush), so a second-best option is to merge any useful content there. - Biruitorul Talk 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a placeholder until something significant occurs during the first 100 days of Obama's administration. No need to make other articles huge in size until after the first 100 days. Acps110 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we create Barack Obama Star Trek XIV scandal as a placeholder just in case there is a scandal involving Barack Obama and someone dressed as a Borg at the premier of Star Trek XIV? Creating an article when nothing significant has actually happened isn't a great idea. --B (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but there is a distinct difference between something that has a very high probability of happening (Obama's first 100 days) versus something that has a very low chance of happening. Being proactive is not a bad thing when dealing with near certainties. — Deckiller 04:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you assess the probability that something significant and article-worthy will happen? I'll give you a better example. We have an article Movement to impeach George W. Bush. It's a dead certainty that at some point over the next four or eight years, someone is going to bring a resolution of impeachment. Should we go on and create Movement to impeach Barack Obama for when that happens? No, of course not. Nor should we create this article when nothing significant has happened yet. --B (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is completely different, and a stretch example at best. Obama is to be sworn in as the next president of the United States. There are far more tangibles with this concept than, say, whether he gets a significant and notable impeachment movement against him. I'm sure there are plenty of roadmaps in reliable sources of what his first hundred days will bring (much like many articles on future topics on Wikipedia) — perhaps someone should look into that. Either way, I think it's inefficient to keep this in a standalone article in its current state. Until more reliably cited information is found, the article should be merged. — Deckiller 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article is well sourced with references, I don't see how its a press release. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent article — there is not enough information or sources based specifically on the first 100 days to convince me that a standalone article is needed right now. Turn it into a section of a main article; when it gets too long, split it into a subarticle. As an aside, I find the comment at the end of Dimorsitanos' statement extremely questionable; please leave such comments to yourself, as they can be considered condescending and are simply unrelated to the debate at hand. — Deckiller 05:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a useful topic; we should cover things that happen, not pointless groupings of things that happen. --NE2 09:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama for now; perhaps allocate separate article later. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/100-days
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/100days/main503723.shtml
--Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Since the Presidency of Barack Obama is still in the future, the significance of any part of the Presidency's length is still speculative and should be put into an article if and when that length of time becomes significant. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and redirect per request by User:TonyTheTiger above. Certainly a nice article could be made, but it would have to be written from an historical perspective. There is no reason to yet have this article.-RunningOnBrains 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful topic. Will further grow. Historical significance demends the article be kept. --EfferAKS 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not stand alone as separate article; not encyclopedic by itself. Would an article under this title be found in a printed encylopedia? Information under a title of this nature should be added in Presidency of Barack Obama. Benjamin Dominic (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now. Currently /anything/ about Obama's presidency falls under the first 100 days, and so we have two articles about the same exact subject. 100 days from now, we can look back and decide if it makes sense to split out into a separate article. --bd_ (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while I see the benefits of merging into a new article, I think it's important that updates can be placed on a separate page: Presidency of Barack Obama and Barack Obama's page itself will both become too large. MarkRobbins (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Indiscriminate criterion, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per you guys are sad. Plasmatics (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - As of yet, there is nothing in this article (and it is too short) to justify a separate article. Merge into Presidency of Barack Obama Scapler (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete: Looking at this debate, it's clear the decision of whether or not to include this topic is a controversial one.

Looking at the current state of the article, it quite clearly violates our policy regarding synthesis of published material. The references have been chosen based on their use of the phrase "black president," there is an entire section about rumors of black ancestry (all of which would be better off in the individuals' articles), a section on the phrase itself (which belongs on Wiktionary), and a "in popular culture" section.

There is little redeeming about the current state of the article. That, combined with the debate leaning somewhat toward a 'delete' decision moves me to close as delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black president (United States)[edit]

Black president (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless POV fork, original research. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE - Agree. Totally unreferenced essay, not an article. It seems to have been created solely to get the author a link in Obama's WP:LEDE. Dayewalker (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
author does not get a link, article does. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - This article does nothing but express one person's point of view. The creator's excuse for creating the page is: "oh yeah- wanted to emphasize- the news media SEEM TO BE UNABLE TO SHUT UP about the historical significance of obama's being the first black person elected president. this should be in the article. especially today on the news. it's all they can talk about. Sure- people are genuinely excited about that, so it's a valid news topic, but wow. so, I'll put it in soon, if on one else does. k, later." This page should not be included in Wikipedia. manadude2 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Lower case delete I don't this article is quite the abomination that the two above me seem to, but in its current state it's not much of a contribution to Wikipedia. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 21:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC) It's much better now. I'm still not positive it's an article we need, so I'm neutral. I would suggest that most of these !votes need to be discounted, since the article is drastically different now. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, no notability, highly POV, and edited by one who is acting just as his username suggests. PhGustaf (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's a whole new article now, and I'm leaning towards Keep. PhGustaf (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's still flawed, certainly, but it has enough potential to not be thrown away. PhGustaf (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's "whole" in my name. in case you- k, later. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been improved drastically from what I originally voted delete on. I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook
  • Delete I declined the CSD since it was not a G6 and would have been a mess that I didn't want on my talk. There may be an article to be written about black presidents, but this isn't it. I highly recommend nothing be created until after the hullabaloo around the inauguration settles down and there's the potential for something even moderately neutral. StarM 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of African-American firsts - WP is a global project, article is presumably only about the United States though (which as of Tuesday, will only have had 1 (half-)black president. You could add into this article all of the other black presidents around Africa, the Caribbean, etc., but what would be the point of having an article about various presidents from Africa/Americas/etc. of a certain ethnicity. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a first black president would be/has been a big-deal moment in other countries besides the US. I didn't have time to put in the whole international angle that relates to the idea of black president. I figured someone could add it if it wasn't deleted right away. when I create an article, I imagine it living for a while and people improving it if it's got flaws- flaws that aren't fundamental. thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That article is just a line-by-line-by-year list that will no doubt be updated at noon EST Tuesday. There's nothing in this article to merge. PhGustaf (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I think there's potentially something here. The notion of "Will there be a black President in my lifetime?" was something certainly existent in popular thinking before Obama's rise to prominence, just as "Will there be a female/atheist/gay/insertminorityhere President in my lifetime?" still is. Not sure, though, and not too willing to stick my neck out for it :P Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 23:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not relevant to this discussion. PhGustaf (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. It's what the article's first sentence refers to. But like I said, I'm not sure in any case that that's fodder for a suitable article. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 23:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about one particularly bad article. It's not relevant that a good article could be written on the same topic. PhGustaf (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How....in the world is it not? If the content of President of the United States was nothing but a mishmash of meaningless letters, like kjlfdwgfewqotf8wu4eg[0ojgeq[0wehryh0jgwh0e00qg9j0j9 or something, it would be incorrect to write a suitable article about that (say, the one we currently have), and the only correct course of action would be to delete it? Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that most of the article should hit the shredder, but am hesitant to endorse deletion of a good-faith submission when maybe 2-3 lines could be saved in a merge. (possibly into a lede about the significance of "firsts" of a particular group, like in List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender firsts, addressing the cultural implications) The apparent intent of the article creator was the cultural significance of a first black president of the US, which the Obama articles will already cover in a better context than this could. The only other alternative I can think of would be to convert it into a List of African American first officeholders of the United States (mayors, congress members (during Reconstruction and since), governors, etc. (a similar article also exists for lesbian/gay persons - this way the article wouldn't only be about Barack Obama), but the List of African American firsts already serves that purpose. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: (EC) NoSleep, that's not really a valid analogy, as one is an inherently notable position and the other is just a vague description. In any case, this AfD is about the article that is written. Since it seems to have been written just to link to the Obama article, the question for me was if the article is good enough to provide a link in one of our highest-traffic articles. That's why I voted to delete above. If someone wanted to create an actual article on this subject with proper sources later, that article can be judged on its own merit. As for good faith, it seems as if this editor has created several articles that were speedily deleted. Dayewalker (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. When I said "suitable article," I didn't simply mean a well-written article, I meant one suitable, in all respects, for inclusion in Wikipedia. It seems that wasn't clear to Gustaf. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This topic has been covered to death in numerous other articles. I don't see anything here to suggest why a standalone is necessary. 23skidoo (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is so true. There should not be a stand alone article for something that has already been covered.manadude2 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, where has it been covered in other articles? cuz, that's basically what I'm looking for if it can't stay alive as it's own article. I think it's a legit topic. maybe a stand-alone article won't do for now- so where deos wikipedia cover this ground? thanks. in good faith, Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since its current state makes this a worthwhile article, in need of some more work perhaps. Delete. As far as I'm concerned, the title is nonsensical (since it applies only to the US) and the content is verbose and lacking substance--it's really a rant. I don't see how any decent encyclopedic article could be written with this title or by someone in the state of mind that the current writer must have been in (total spleen--and look at the very first edit summary in the history). Drmies (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only wrote the US angle. sure, the international aspect of the idea of black president should be included. it's a wiki! it's not a final draft! no one wants to step up to fix it? would it really matter if I put the stub tag back? Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I de-speedied this article because it didn't meet any of the CSD criteria. The article in its current state is, as the above voters put it, a POV, US-centric essay that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of content. Whatever vision the author had for this article, he got bogged down in vague generalities, and so all we have is "Obama became the first black president. People talked about it." WillOakland (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Freechild's rewrite makes the prior discussion irrelevant. WillOakland (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no potential for this article to be encyclopedic. Timneu22 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um- I'm thinkin' Keep. yeah. any criticism that does not use the knee jerk terms "pointless" or "worthless" would be preferred. if enough people want to delete, then you'll always be able to. it will never be difficult to delete if that's what you;r determined to do. just don't pretend like you've articulated some solid reason with the most standard deletion adjectives that are on every perfunctory deletion discussion. oh yeah- I think "POV" is getting a bit overused, too. I understand POV concerns. I understand this wiki. has anyone looked at my contribs? what would a less POV version of what I'm talking about look like? does anyone dare draft it? if you could refute what irks you in my tone or content- set the record striaght- in a wikipedia article or anywhere- what would you say? any of you?
last thing regarding deletion criteria- the link from the obama article's LEDE is already removed. so let's not freak about that. it's not a deal breaker for me. I'm sure people will keep that page under control no matter what. I want backlinks to this page, of course, but the community decides what they will be.
you guys really hate when edit sums lack decorum. hehe. mental note.
to the rest of you that put some meat into the expression of your concerns, thanks. keep it gangster. I appreciate feedback into my discourse style from many of you. soldier on. keep the wiki strong. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll catch you all later when this shit doesn't even seem historic any more. and wolf blitzer and jon king and chuck todd are like "wow, member how historic that shit was? And member how we didn't let that historicity slip by without mentioning it a few times?"

P.P.S. historicity is a word. and it has an article. k, later. Headlikeawhole (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The term "black president" has long had a notable presence. The term has been used in movies, music and politics. It has a meaning beyond a dictionary definition and has cultural significance. I didn't look to see what was here in the past as far as this article is concerned, but it just needs some work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as US-centric fork essay. Not to mention already covered in full in other articles. Hobartimus (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As revised, renamed, and sourced, this page treats an interesting and long-lived concept in American culture and literature. This is about the idea of the "first black president", not a biography of Obama. The evolution of the idea has, over decades, had a distinct influence on American attitudes. This weekend there is an interesting essay on the topic (as reflected in film history) by two respected film critics in The New York Times:

    The presidencies of James Earl Jones in “The Man,” Morgan Freeman in “Deep Impact,” Chris Rock in “Head of State” and Dennis Haysbert in “24” helped us imagine Mr. Obama’s transformative breakthrough before it occurred. In a modest way, they also hastened its arrival.

Manohla Dargis and A. O. Scott, "How the Movies Made a President", New York Times, January 16, 2009. I don't find the complaints of "US-centric" to be convincing at all, now that the essay has been renamed. Some of the commenters are calling this a "fork" (by the way, I assume they are referring to WP:CFORK not WP:FORK) but it is not clear to me, at least, what it belongs at--certainly not a list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the focus were changed to the idea of and representations of the first black US president it could fly, but as it is now - an amalgamation of fictional references (which I think is the best part) and extremely dubious "scholarship" (which can't remain) - I can't support it. Another rewrite might convince me otherwise, along these lines, but not as it is now. Tvoz/talk 19:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this is significantly improved. I agree with many of the "keep" !voters above that this basic topic is worthy of an encyclopedia article. However, I also agree with all the "delete" !voters who note that the current article, even improved as much as it has been, is not what we want to have on Wikipedia. In particular, the overreliance on one scholar with an obvious bias makes the current version run far afoul of NPOV. I don't oppose having an article on the subject - just not this one. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :::Do we have a "First Catholic President" article? "First Scotch-Irish President" article? "First Quaker President" article? "First Dutch-American President" article? And so forth. 21:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Catholics, Scotch-Irish, Quakers, Dutch weren't brought to North America in chains on slave ships, served generations as slaves, then generations under Jim Crow. The reason a first African American president is so significant is this specific context that African Americans have had in US history, since colonial times. If the tables were turned, and whites were brought to America to serve under black masters, and were finally having a president that looked like them(us, in my case), it would be as big of a deal to whites as it is to blacks now. Outsider80(User0529) (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha, it's a big deal to me too, and I'm lily-white--almost pasty. As for PhGustaf's comment below, those two headings, while big in their times, don't generate that much social or cultural buzz as our current subject does. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if we were doing this in 1960 or 1980, we ight well be talking about "First Catholic President" or "First Divorced President". They were big issues in their times. PhGustaf (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Drmies, its not about "buzz," its about notability. Both of this topics PhGustaf mentioned could have their own articles by way of their social and cultural significance, and on their notability. • Freechild'sup? 23:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buzz leads to notability. Maybe you misunderstood me--I'm saying that IMO Obama, the black president now, is a bigger deal than Kennedy, the Catholic president, then. Still, in a way the article isn't about Obama, but about an American cultural hang-up, a very notable one. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind Drmies, he's European. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, renaming to Black President of the United States or something. I'm surprised we don't seem to have even a list of fictional ones, and the anticipation of one is a notable topic. No need to restrict it to "the first". Obviously this still needs improving, but now it's worth keeping. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until such time as we have an article on Golf ball (neon orange).Unschool 03:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename it's definitely a decent-looking article now, and the idea of having a black president of the USA is surely significant. However, the way it's named makes it sound as if "black president" is a type of president, just as "village (Vermont)" is a type of village. Perhaps African-American presidents of the United States (with or without the hyphen; I can't remember when we're supposed to use it) would be best? Good points to those who note about other countries; Sir Seretse Khama was the first black president of Botswana, and he and his presidency were highly significant, but not because he was the first black man to be the president. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree on the renaming idea. Once this vastly improved and expanded article is kept, we can engage that discussion in full, but the concept of "black president" has always been relatively clear and distinct. The internationalists objected to this shorter title, so it's been narrowed to the (United States). I would like to see it return to "black president" and I welcome the inclusion of black presidents from other countries. The concept is international and clearly the U.S. is a leading nation for presidents and for the concept of a "black president". I think there will be a separate article on the first black president or on first black presidents, but as I see it this article is really about this unique and special category and its cultural and historic significance. I think adding a long worded title isn't appropriate. When people talk about the subject they don't talk about "of the United States" they talk about a "black president". That's what they sing about in rap songs and parody in comedy routines. It's potent and short. The more broad historical topic is a separate article I think and as this expands I wouldn't be surprised to see them split in two. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten It is a whole new article now. Deletion must be based on notability and verifiability. The term is certainly notable based on a simple Google search. All other issues involve editing the article and trimming the essay-like prose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a referenced essay, not an encyclopedic topic any more than is the portrayals of any position by people of a particular race/ethnicity/sex/sexual orientation. Asian medical examiners (United States) could include the guy from Quincy; German POW camp guards could have lots of pointers from Hogan's Heroes; etc. Purely a COATRACK that we like, but still a COATRACK. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coatracks have hidden agendas and hidden bias, what is the secret agenda of this article? I am sure an article about "Woman president" could also be written. There already is Women in medicine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not an essay. It's far less coherent than an essay. The version I am looking at now should be deleted because it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What do we have here? We have references to the first black American president, references to comedic parodies and fictional presidents, references to spurious claims that other presidents before Obama were perhaps partly black, music performances about black presidents, discussions of other men (i.e. WJC) who were "designated" as the black president, and the completely OR statement that is supposed to tie all this together, "Given the nation's history of slavery, segregation, racism and discrimination, the idea has had a potent resonance." Please, people, I'm as excited as anyone about the history that's going to be made in nine hours, but this is just an unbelievable collection of disparate information that all fits, appropriately, in other articles. The only thing that maybe should tie these together is (perhaps) a new category. But not this psuedo-article. Unschool 08:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept of "black president" is not indiscriminate at all, the article shows the evolution of the concept in fiction and in political history. I have deleted the unreferenced essay portion, and added or formatted the references. The concept was in place long before Obama. It is now an historical overview, but may still need some cleaning up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no doubt that a short, focused article could be written on the subject of African American presidents of the United States in fiction but this is an unfocused essay plus a random collection of trivia ("In the post apocalyptic world of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, Tina Turner is a head of state.") much of it irrelevant, unreferenced, or both. - Dravecky (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article that properly addresses the subject using ample reliable and verifiable sources. It's amazing what a small handful of editors with the goal of improving this encyclopedia can do to create properly sourced and through articles, in the face of the still-festering forces of knee-jerk deletionism. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move, per FREECHILD, who deserves our thanks for turning a no-brainer delete article into an article within our policies and worth keeping. David in DC (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The anticipation the first black president and argument about who qualifies and what it represents is a distinct, notable topic. It can be focused and written better, but it is not an opinionated essay. I would also support a move to "First African American President of the United States" or something similar. Revelian (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Move and Expand Sociological Impact. I'm going to insert here my comment from Talk:Barack Obama: Simesa (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[21] I was married to a Black woman for over a decade, and had a daughter with her. But it was always there - there was always a part of her that was reserved, as if I or my friends might suddenly withdraw our acceptance of her at any second. There was a shield that when around me was always up, that only came down when we were safely in her family's homes. And, to be honest, whenever we were out in public there were always the subtle slights, the implications by both men and women that she was not good enough to be a first-class citizen. This inauguration radically changes all of that - permanently. For her and my daughter this is as of noon today a very different world. Simesa (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: Renaming. Per the different opinions about renaming the article, here's my thought: This article is not about the general issue of a "black president"; it is about the specific phenomenon of the first black president. Regarding the usage of the term "black", that word is used to describe people everywhere; in the U.S. there is a specific requirement that the president be an American; therefore, it is only logical that we use the phrase African American. That would mean that adding "of the United States" may be redundant, but is differentiates the topic of the article from any of the multitude African American presidents of different organizations around the country. Therefore, the article should be moved to "First African American president of the United States". (Should "president" be capitalized because its a title?) • Freechild'sup? 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree that the "first" is the subject - how many of the fictional depictions specified that they were dealing with the "first"? The job is "President of the United States" - why not just this unambiguous name (and yes it should be capitalized)? Personally I prefer "black", since that seems to me the term most often used in most contexts, but "African American" is fine. So Black President of the United States, or African American President of the United States. But this should be a different discussion on the talk page I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree - it's the First, the Watershed Moment, that's the real justification for this article. History just changed, and Obama's being the first such African-American President is the reason it changed. Simesa (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP, RETITLE AND CLEAN UP. Consider retitling this article "History Leading to the First African American President" or something more descriptive. I found the article very interesting, I learned about Shirley Chisholm and John Hanson. I found the references to comedians (humor often being a way to introduce tough issues) a great way to show how the subject has evolved over time. In its improved state, it is well referenced. Suggestions for further improvement: clean-up the article (tag it with clean-up, cite, and expand), decide if "Black" vs African American should be used consistently in the article, edit it to read with a neutral POV. Add a section on the importance of diversity in our leadership. Because some of the history here refers to a time before we used the term "African American" perhaps "Black" should remain be used in historical context and referenced quotations. Overall though an incredible relevant history on how perspectives have changed and evolved. This article will be so useful to students and scholars in future years when we forget how hard it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMcCJ (talk • contribs) 16:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but a renaming might be better. On one hand it can refer to Obama--a Black himself, on the other hand it could be of cultural perceptions--such as Bill Clinton. Define terminology. Mr Tan (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE this lame essay is not needed. there is List of African-American firsts for these kind of subjects. --Maestro25 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE. C'mon, it's embarrassing. I cringed while I read it. Mention should certainly be made re Obama being the first "black" (actually mixed-race) US president (and its historic nature, implications, and so on) but that should be done in the relevant articles. This is a pointless fork appropriate for a highschool essay but not an encyclopaedia. Secret Squïrrel 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Abundant evidence that this article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE is found in the comments of the persons who have voted to keep the article. All one has to do is read the comments—notice that they don't even agree on what the subject of the article is. This article is trying to be all things to all people, and a substantial number of people are falling for this silliness. Someone above made the comment that an article about Black presidents in fiction might make an acceptable article, and I'd favor that. Additionally, I'd support the creation of the following separate articles:
  • Alleged black ancestry of American presidents before Obama
  • History of black presidency in the arts and music
  • Black presidential candidates (in fact, if that article doesn't exist, I'm shocked.)

But this "article" is not an article at all, nor is it even an essay. It is just a collection of trivia that is only tangentially connected. As WP:INDISCRIMINATE says,

merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia

I point this out because several of the writers above are changing to "keep" votes because now the article is so well-sourced. Well, that's not all there is to it. This article lacks any definable subject. I could write an article on Water in literature and science, and include examples of people discussing water in poems and songs and how water was a big part of certain novels and then throw in the unique way that water expands when it freezes and how that makes life on earth possible and then how water is made up of two elements and on and on. And I'd be able to provide citations for it all. And who would deny that water is sufficiently notable for all that to be included in an article? Yet look at water. Sure, it touches upon the intangible a bit. But the subject of the article is quite clearly the physical substance known as water, with only 5% or 6% of the article dealing with anything else. But here--what is the main theme of the article? Please don't say "Black President" until you can make that the subject of a sentence that encapsulates the essence of this article. And no one has been able to do this yet, because it's not possible, until the article settles on whether it's about the fictional history of the concept, or the candidates that have actually run, or about the use of the concept as inspiration for music or other art forms. This article, if it is allowed to stand, without additional definition, will become a monstrosity, even if it is fully cited, because citations do not address the problem. Look at this article. It is highly sourced, with over 80 citations. And unlike Black president, it has a defined theme. Yet it is still a poor excuse for an article, because any one can put in anything they want with a citation. The article currently under consideration will fare far worse, months down the road, if it is not narrowed down. As it currently stands, this article has a very bleak and embarrassing future. I still favor deletion, but splitting it into multiple articles would be a more acceptable solution than keeping it. Unschool 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since much of the information for the articles you suggest is contained in this article with sources, it makes perfect sense to keep it and then consider your recommendations for splitting it up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete Xavexgoem (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaso'd[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vaso'd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an unnotable Neoglism DFS454 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)#[reply]
  2. Agreed. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good idea. I suggest you post that on wp:VPR DFS454 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ephemeral neologism. JuJube (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Global Warming (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete nn musician album Mayalld (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is actually about an album not musician. I originally opened an AFD before Mayalld closed it and created this one because I misformatted the old one (thanks though!) My original rational was (quoting from the first): "Fails WP:MUSIC because it is a page about an unverifiably unreleased album. The only source is rather questionable." --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No confirmed details yet.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it questionable? It's a legitimate source.

Zypo (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven (rapper)[edit]

Seven (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete nn musician fails WP:MUSIC Mayalld (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, but underground musician. No myspace/music videos/national recognition/advertisements does not mean non-notable. Wilkos (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was malformed Afd (NAC) Mayalld (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC because it is a page about an unverifiably unreleased album. The only source is rather questionable. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted g7 (NAC) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Developing Upon the Source Code of Education[edit]

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

The result was merge to Oxshott Heath. — Aitias // discussion 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxshott Woods[edit]

Oxshott Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Merge with Oxshott Heath until it has reliable sources and grows to big for that article. Although the Heath article says the wood is in the Heath and the Woods article says the Woods are in the Heath!. If it is one article it can be sorted in time. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oxshott Heath. The article has been improved, but it doesn't seem to have enough coverage in reliable sources to justify the existence of a separate article. Oxshott Heath appears to be more notable, although the article is currently an unreferenced stub. —Snigbrook 14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above - a combined article would be better and just as easily found. Which one should be merged, or if a combined name used is up to the merger.Yobmod (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above - I do not think we need a separate articel on every aspect of every piece of recreational countryside. I wonder whether both should not be merged to Esher Commons, but do not know the area enough to be qualified to comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

}}

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Media[edit]

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

Self-promotion, doesn't meet WP:BIO. --fvw* 20:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; If it's SPAM, speedy delete it (like I tagged it). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't particularly look notable. Doing what is claimed is a job not a notability. Looks promotional but not very spammily worded. Peridon (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. The person Eric Amaranth seems to have done his first solo sex thing(!) in August 2008, according to Google. Plus I can't find anything looking like notability or verifiability so far. I've re-added a speedy tag because of the lack of notability. I've no idea what the Bad Media thing is about. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Un-notable and doesn't meet WP:BIO. 67.148.15.37 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of megalomaniacs[edit]

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

"Regarded by the general populace" does not qualify this list to be a genuine list of megalomaniacs. One person's megalomaniac is another person's benign and cuddly hero. I fear this list is speculative original research. For it to survive it requires citations to reliable sources that say "megalomaniac" with precision for each entry. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A list that can only be the product of the author's opinion. As Fiddle Faddle says the list needs very strong refs to be even vaguely worthwhile. Paste Let’s have a chat. 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, might as well be people who are evil. --fvw* 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article is fairly meaningless. Far too subjective. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There should be a clear list of criteria. Stalin had more pictures of himself made than anyone else in history as I recall. That is one specific thing megalomaniacs do. And it should be a list of famous/notable megalomaniacs, not just a list of anyone. Have a checklist of agreed upon criteria for each person added. Then it'd be worth having. Dream Focus (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list already exist in the main megalomaniac article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania#Significant_Historical_Individuals_Presenting_Traits_of_Megalomania Dream Focus (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article already exists elsewhere, and does not fit NPOV rules. Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 100% uncited POV and OR. And only likely to attract more of the same. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I actually created this article with the intent of minimizing the article on megalomania to which people have an unfortunate though understandable habit of adding listcruft so perhaps it does have merit though I admit it does need quite a bit of work. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as the inclusion of living persons without sourcing (only the epitome of WP:WEASEL in the intro) renders this a violation of WP:BLP. I would have deleted this on sight had I found it before AFD nomination occurred. 23skidoo (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dumping ground for content deemed unsuitable for megalomania. Impossibly vague inclusion criteria, relies entirely on POV and OR opinions of editors. The creator's favorite hobby is breaking WP:NOR (I'm not just speaking from experience, he pretty much says this outright on his user page) and this should be nipped in the bud ASAP. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flashing (cell phones)[edit]

Flashing (cell phones) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is directed towards flashing the memory of cell phones. Flash memory already has extensive information on flashing memory, and there is no need for an environment-specific article directly related to cell phones as the article details no notable differences or considerations that must be taken when flashing a cell phone, compared to other devices. If the article is intended to be directed towards techniques for programming of mobile devices in general, then the FOTA, OTA, and FUMO articles already cover these concepts, and most of which are standardized by OMA. Mojodaddy (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, wikipedia is not a howto compendium. --fvw* 20:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOT. twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 22:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The argument that Flash memory already has extensive information on flashing memory is a bit lame: many owners of a cell phone may not be aware that this device involves flash memory (indeed, Wikipedia's Cell phone article does not mention flash memory, and Flash memory does not mention cell phones). Even if they do, they may not know that the term "flashing" is used by some for re-writing flash memory; the term is not even used in the Flash memory article. Cell phone users may also not be aware that their cell phone has firmware that can be updated or otherwise modified; I have looked through three cell phone user manuals, and nothing of the kind is mentioned. So if this article is deleted, then, when someone encounters the term "Cell phone flashing" and consults Wikipedia, they will not find their way to relevant information in the Flash memory article or anywhere else; they will only draw a blank. Finally, some aspects of cell phone flashing are specific to the operation of cell phones and are not covered by the purely technical information found at Flash memory; it is a bit like saying we don't need an article on Music since we already have Sound, or no article on Cremation since there is Incineration. The other articles mentioned are specific to "over-the-air" methods and also do not mention flashing. What is left then is the argument that the topic is not notable. With some 130,000 ghits, this also seems weak. 88.234.99.24 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Would it help if the article is renamed to "Flashing (mobile telecommunications user equipment)"? :) 88.234.99.24 (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article's intro could be tweaked a little as to make this legitimate (then rewrite the body), but this seems to be a how-to article without references. Two strikes, so you're pretty much out. Timneu22 (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect the link at the diambig for flashing to the relevant section at firmware. Any phone specific flash memory functions should be covered in the main article, these are too minor to warrant a seperate article. This way any confused phone user will still find the info. Wikipedia is not a how to guide for people who bought phones from manufacturers with poor instruction manuals.Yobmod (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Putrenko[edit]

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

Has no reliable third party resources, external links are to a site homepage and are nonetheless primary. Is at no current club. DFS454 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vervegirl[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable magazine. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but remove the ad copy and expand into a proper article. It is definitely a notable magazine within Canada, and a readership of 400,000 places it pretty high on the list. The material currently in the article is unacceptable, but the topic is viable and that is what AFD determines. 23skidoo (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, once the ad copy has been removed you're left with a short list of unsourced statistics. Delete now and create the article when there's someone willing to write it. --fvw* 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any magazine with that many readers, is notable. Dream Focus (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not a lot of sources, but a few - [22]. AnyPerson (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete, only a spattering of sources from what I can see, which doesn't really speak to notability at all, but minor blips. Article as is is a pure advertisement by a blatantly obvious SPA, and should be CSDed as such. No opposition to recreation as a proper article IF more extensive sourcing can be found (maybe userfy for one of the keeps above to let them redo from scratch then recreate properly). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbag[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Just the opening song from Duke Nukem 3D. That alone isn't notable enough. Plenty of games have had memorable songs, but they do not deserve an article alone. ScienceApe (talk) 18:49, 18 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 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A&M Consolidated High School Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:
A&M Consolidated High School Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete whilst convention tells us that high schools are always notable, this inherent notability is not shared by any club or team originating there. Mayalld (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable club. First paragraph copy/paste from MySpace page. -Atmoz (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the school. It's "A and M con-so-lid-at-ed high school band/we hope you will enjoy the show/A and M con-so-lid-at-ed high school band/we hate to see the evening go/A and M con-so-lid/A and M con-so-lid/A and M con-so-lid-at-ed high school band"-- from The Beatles A & M album. Mandsford (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and censure Mandsford for bad scansion. --fvw* 20:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to high school's page. That's where this sort of info belongs and is needed. If it is a copy-paste job from MySpace, clean it up before the merge. SMSpivey (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the high school's page. While the school is notable, the band is not independently notable. Please note that if this is deleted, A&M consolidated band is a re-direct that will need to be deleted. If this is re-directed, that should be fixed so it isn't a double re-direct. StarM 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom (and by the way, this article was already speedily deleted earlier, but the editor just re-created it). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in which case, if it's re-directed, protect re-direct. StarM 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable club. JamesBurns (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability not inherited. Redirecting to the school would be fine too, maybe some locals would use this as a search term. Salt/protect redirect if this is a recreation. High School Bands should be covered in sections in the parent article (except for special cases), so i don't think this would ever be a viable article. Explain to the ceator that the band should be a section at the school article (no point merging, as it is uncited and poorly written at the moment)Yobmod (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing the donkey[edit]

Chasing the donkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism; may be WP:MADEUP as ghits for "chasing the donkey" + cannabis don't return anything verifying this claim. Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be a hoax. The article suggests that the phrase was used by the media in descriptions of the US election, but searching google for '"chasing the donkey" obama -kong' (the latter keyword to eliminate results for an article entitled 'chasing the "donkey kong" dream', which is unrelated) turns up precisely three hits, at least one of which is referring to an occasion on which a literal donkey was chased, one of which the phrase occurs in a longer expression, "chasing the donkey's tail", and appears to be unrelated, and the other is an australian source which suggests it is unconnected due to the US-centric origin of the phrase as discussed in the article. Does not appear in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, which contains most common slang, and some that is quite rare. JulesH (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: very much a hoax. 67.148.15.37 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The article cannot be verified without references, and based on the searches above, I question whether the article is a legitimate history. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "chasing the donkey" may not have yet reached every corner of American life, I have heard this term used by such well-known comedian's as Paul Moonie and Richard Prior. While those people that are not members of the African American community might find it difficult to believe that such a phrase is not in the omniscient Google search engine there are some slang terms that you may not be able to find in a quick online search. To dismiss this particular phrase (that is very well-known to a particular demographic) based solely on a brief web-search is extremely short-sighted. Wikipedia exists as an collaborative up-to-date online tool to bring the latest or sometimes little known information to a wide audience. The phrase "chasing the donkey" has a long, often unpublished, meaning to a American ethnic group that in the past was frequently under-represented by the media. It has made a recent resurgence in reference to cannabis use and politics where "chasing the donkey" was most recently used as a term to describe the futile attempts of senator John McCain to chase his democratic rival senator Barak Obama. It is conceivable that president-elect Obama's race taken in context with the democratic mascot of the donkey revived the "chasing the donkey" colloquialism back into use by some members of the African American community. The reawakening of this largely forgotten American slang term should not be ignored by an organization that touts bringing information from diverse backgrounds into a searchable online database. T.Lindy —Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleLindy (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming racial bias and lack of effort to check sources is innaporpriate. Di you not read "Does not appear in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English".
  • Delete as either hoax or non-notable slang. Slang that doesn't show up on the net is not notable - this is not some niche scientific dissertation that would require library searches, it claims to be "popular slang", and this is not verifiable from google-searches. I lean towards hoax, as there is no way something said by McCain about Obama or vice versa is not in every newspaper in the world. A joke based on Chasing the Dragon (heroin use)?Yobmod (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Copyvio concern seems to have been dealt with; no other users in favor of deletion Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysian artists[edit]

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

This is just a list copied from an exhibition catalog. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • Keep- this sort of article exists for other nationalities see: List of American artists, List of South African artists, etc. While Other Crap Exists isn't a reason to keep something, this sort of omission is would basically be systemic bias, since the majority of Wikipedia editors aren't from Malaysia. This article should be cleaned up, not deleted. SMSpivey (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying there shouldn't be any list of Malaysian artists, just that this one is not appropriate. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that is understandable, the content of this article should be altered. That the article isn't at its best, however, isn't a reason to delete it. SMSpivey (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite to turn it into a list, and only include those that we have articles on. AnyPerson (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just completely rewrote the article by removing the possible copyvio text and replaced it with Malaysian artists who have Wikipedia pages or whose prospective pages are linked to by other Wikipedia pages. I checked through each artist listed in the copyvio text to see if they met that standard. SMSpivey (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Perfectly good summarization of information.
  • comment. Not very much links to the page. Robinh (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is probably because the article was first created on December 6, 2008. SMSpivey (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Fine Impression of Dying Ants[edit]

A Fine Impression of Dying Ants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable Album by an Unnotable band. DFS454 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band have UK press coverage and national tour dates and are therefore noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AidyDamage (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Not A Dead Transmission[edit]

This Is Not A Dead Transmission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page fails the criteria for inclusion as it has not had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. Also the band has not been subject of a broadcast by a media network. DFS454 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band have been broadcast by MixIt TV in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AidyDamage (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band also have UK press coverage and national tour dates and are, therefore, noteable.

Thank you for adding that DFS454 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage found - not yet notable.--Michig (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have examined all ghits for the band's name, and none appear to be in reliable sources. MixIt TV appears to be a non-notable video broadcast website, and without it having established a reputation for relevance and reliable content, it cannot really be considered a reliable source at this point. I'm unable to find any confirmation of "UK press coverage"; if such coverage is found and turns out to be non-trivial and in a reliable source then I would of course change my !vote, but at this point it looks unlikely that it will be significant. JulesH (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 11:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my pants[edit]

In my pants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a myspace bulletin, and for the most part should not contain content of that type. Ironholds (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable "game." As the nominator states, Wikipedia is not MySpace. Although a google search of "In my pants" game had many hits, most on the first few pages were bolgs, journals, etc. I would hardly consider that to be verifiable. The article is also not written as an encyclopedia article should be; Wikipedia is not a guide. Frank AnchorTalk 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NFT. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It does have a very proffesional-looking webpage, and mentions on a lot of forums. I think that this: a) does not fit WP:NFT, and b) should classify as a notable internet phenomenon, considering the number of relevant hits on google, regardless of the nature thereof. I would also like to remind you all that even if an article is written in an unencyclopedic way, that does not mean it should be deleted, it means it should be improved, if the topic is notable enough, which in this case I believe it is.

Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forums=not reliable, third party sources. The ability to code according to W3C guidelines=not reliable, third party sources. Google=not a way of judging notability on its own. Ironholds (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition: at waht point did I say that it was the way the article was written that led to me nominating it for deletion? You might need to remind Frank Anchor (although in this case I see his point) but don't be supercilious to us as a whole especially when your argument is as lacking in policy as it is. Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point in the case of the forums was not that they are reliable sources, but that this cannot be deleted per WP:NFT if it is verifiably in wide use on forums and blogs. Also, let us not forget that THE ARTICLE CITES MAJOR TV NETWORK WEBSITES!!!! Almost everybody seems to be ignoring that fact. And if they aren't reliable sources, then what is?Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't mentioned on MAJOR TV NETWORK WEBSITES!!! OMG I CAN'T FIND THE CAPS LOCK! it cites a blog and a forum which say it was on TV. You should know that since you made it the subject of your first argumentIronholds (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I'm not voting on this sinc eI have no true opinion and I don't know enough about the subject, but you Ironholds better stop attacking S8333631 personally. There is no need to mention the caps or anything, you are just going to blow it out of proportion. If you want to win a debate act professional. Some people use caps as a legit way to emphacize, so calm down. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a personal attack at all, simply a way of pointing out how annoying it is. Yes, people use caps to emphasise something; it is advised that people do not do this. It is eye-watering, disrupts the flow of text and simply makes it appear AS THOUGH THE USER IS SHOUTING. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to back down. Ironholds does have a point, and I don't want to get into a big argument over something as minor as this.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete see above.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, no coverage that can be relied upon. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops--hit the '!' four times instead of the '~'... Drmies (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, no RS. Lugnuts (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reminds me of adding "between the sheets" to the fortune in a fortune cookie, but not worthy of an article at WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    'you will die a horrible death between the sheets'.. Well the last part certainly improves it if you believe the French. Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Delete. A7 by User:Krimpet (non-admin closure) —macyes: bot 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sramek[edit]

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

This is person is only mentioned in 2 newspaper stories for good grades. The rest of the page is written about his interest and links to his personal page. These do not pass the criteria for inclusion DFS454 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'd be very surprised if there isn't a conflict of interest here, and it's definitely an advert. Deb (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You are wrong to say he's only been in 2 newspaper stories. I haven't listed every single source just creating the entry, but take a look - he has been in The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Financial News (the biggest financial paper in UK after the FT), local papers, is very well known in the internet entrepreneur sphere, his achievements speak for themselves, the revenue he earns from successful businesses. Isn't scoring the best A-Level results in UK history sufficient, yet alone everything else on top?! I'm extremely upset that I have spent the last hour trying to properly create this page with sufficient links etc just for someone to have the power to delete it all just like that! Kartik.lse07 (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You do realise that content is released under GNU Free Documentation Licence and you have no ownership of the article? Earning a large salary is not notable. Being mentioned in those newspapers is because of only one event DFS454 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely incorrect. He was in The Telegraph & The Guardian because of his A-Level success, he was in the Financial News because of his achievements in investment banking, and he was in The Gateway magazine because of the businesses he owns. Kartik.lse07 (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prolefeed[edit]

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

See the article's talk page for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note--I don't know if you're the IP who reported on the talk page that the term does not exist in 1984, but here it is. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and while we're on the topic, keep, following the results of that same GBooks search. The article needs a sympathetic editor; the topic is notable enough, methinks. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google Books search linked by Drmies shows clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am not the IP who posted it, since according to WHOIS, the user is from Texas, but I am from Ontario; I personally had never been there. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 18:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whoops, my bad. Apparently the online versions of 1984 that I searched didn't contain the section devoted to Newspeak, hence I missed that the term is used. 75.45.119.22 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged into Lesbian and redirected by Clay Collier. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian-identified[edit]

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

Previous discussion had a pretty much overwhelming decision to merge, though there doesn't seem to be enough material to do much with in the mergeto article. Or not enough interest. Delete SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The previous discussion had 5 to merge and 3 to keep. There were 3 comments; loosely described, they were one in favor of merging, one in favor of keeping, and one which queried the choice which said "expressions like 'female-identified' and 'woman-identified' are reasonably common and established within the fields of gender studies". While the statement obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual identification, this confusion does establish a clear need for informative articles on this subject. Anarchangel (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - useful info that doesn't need to have its own article. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - seems like a lot of the content would be more appropriate for Transgender. Not to re open the merge debate, but as I set about to do the work, that's what occurs to me. Scarykitty (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close / merge. Last discussion was only a month ago. I see no reason to believe consensus has changed in the meantime. Give it time for consensus to settle down over whether this should be merged or not, and give editors on the articles in question time to perform the merge. JulesH (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I may have not understood, but the text on the closing from the last AfD says "If the merger is not completed promptly, this article might be re-nominated for deletion." Is a month not "promptly"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the previous Merge consensus. This reads more like an unreferenced essay from a lesbian apologist than it does by anyone with any understanding, or study. It's not a social academic topic, and reads as times as a pretty childish list of high school definitions of quasi-metrosexual concepts. Otherwise, get it merged already. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is not only scientific discussion of this topic, but it is so long established that discussion in the field is moving onward. Social sciences are not only informed by Lesbian-identified as a common social terminology, and therefore assume that Lesbian identification is valid, but are proposing refinements of the terminology. Moreover, as in so many AfD, current material is used as evidence that the article subject itself is deficient. The problem is that editors can't or won't search scientific sources. That doesn't make the topic non-notable, and it certainly doesn't make it unverifiable. Even my casual search found this evidence of sexual identification as a topic of scientific inquiry. Anarchangel (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Proxy User (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to Lesbian. --Alynna (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing about this that indicates it is notable as a distinct term, and in any case any content here is redundant to lesbian. No redirect needed because nobody is going to search under this term. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close I went ahead and merged what I felt to be the relevant material from the article into the Lesbian article and redirected to the same. There wasn't much; the history is still there if someone thinks that I missed something significant. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encore Cartoons[edit]

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

Animated three episodes of Tiny Toon Adventures, and absolutely nothing else. Nothing at all is known about this studio. Expansion was suggested in last afd (from 2005), but nothing's come. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with User:TenPoundHammer. One of the episodes they animated has an article and they can be mentioned there. Apart from that, nothing to merge. --Pc13 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Bummer Vacation[edit]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Bummer Vacation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; not enough information (unsuprisingly for a book that won't be released for at least a year) to create a decent article. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, but I think you might have forgotten to do some tasks when you made the proposal. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. WP:CRYSTAL and no notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Unsourced, no notability, little content and won't be released until 2010. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those are speedy criteria (well, notability can be, but not for books). 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly protect for a little while (maybe a month, or until the book actually comes out?), this article has been deleted twice (although speedy deleted) and recreated again and again.--kelapstick (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • note the previous speedy deletion was for nocontext, the article did not identify its subject.--kelapstick (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No content, notability not established. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that became a speedy criteria when, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. All the content has now been userfied at User:Timneu22/piano cleanup and will be reorganized in some time. Time to delete the articles that have no future and can not be reasonably redirected. Tone 17:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of solo piano pieces[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lists of solo piano pieces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Second nomination.

This article was nominated for deletion previously, with some support. On further reflection, I believe this list and all associated lists need to be removed. While stand-alone lists are acceptable, there are many reasons why these lists are not. The reasons for deletion are:

  1. There are millions of piano pieces, and most pieces themselves are not notable for a wikipedia entry.
  2. Lists like these are severely indiscriminate; each of the sub-lists are randomly assembled with no clear direction.
  3. From WP:SAL: all the links in a "list of lists" should be blue, not red. Many red links exist throughout these pages.
  4. The naming convention used on these lists is inconsistent. One example of many:
    1. List of solo piano pieces, American
    2. List of Polish solo piano pieces
  5. The lists are far too difficult to police to verify that things are reliably sourced and relevant to wikipedia. There is no way to keep these random lists in sync. For example:
    1. List of solo piano pieces by composer: F includes Gabriel Faure. Because Faure was a French composer, one would expect to find information about his piano pieces on List of French solo piano pieces, but it is not there.
    2. Some of Chopin's pieces are listed on List of solo piano pieces (romantic), while a different list is displayed on List of solo piano pieces by composer: C, while an even different list is on List of Polish solo piano pieces
  6. The style of these lists is inconsistent. Some have subsections, some have bulleted lists, some have a this weird style where only the subsections of a list are bulleted. Some have multiple columns of bulleted lists.
    1. Sometimes every piece is listed. Sometimes the list just says "32 sonatas".
    2. On one page where Chopin is listed, the list just says "etudes" and "preludes". How is this helpful?
    3. Some pages list composer birth/death years. Some pages list the years of the pieces. Some pages list both/neither or one-or-the-other.

Overall, these lists cannot be maintained long-term, they are not encyclopedic, and they cause far too much overhead for people trying to maintain Wikipedia. I believe point 5-2 above is the biggest reason why these lists are wrong. It is one thing for wikipedia to have a List of Polish composers and a List of Romantic-era composers. Chopin shows up both places. However, by the very nature of these piano lists — we are listing composers and their pieces, not just the pieces — the content on different pages is going to be different. Essentially, these solo piano lists aren't "lists of lists", but rather they are "lists of lists of lists"! If only wikipedia had some way to make the same information appear in multiple locations... AHA - CATEGORIES ARE THE ANSWER!

My proposal to clean up these lists is for relevant articles to be created and then categorized appropriately. This accomplishes a few things:

  • It helps to ensure notability. If a composer's solo piano works are truly notable, they could be on a single article. "List of solo piano pieces by Beethoven" or "List of solo piano pieces by Chopin" are certainly worthy articles.
  • It makes information centralized, so that there is no possibility of having different lists for the same composer. A single page will be in different categories: Solo piano pieces in the Romantic era, Solo piano pieces by Polish (or German) composers, etc.
  • It just cleans things up.

Because most pieces by themselves are not notable, categorization on composers is the answer. While it may be wonderful that Michal Oginski wrote a single solo piano piece, I do not believe it is notable. (If it were notable, the piece would have its own article.) These lists of lists of lists allow for such rubbish to exist on wikipedia. I propose that we remove all these lists and categorize appropriately. Timneu22 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominated lists for deletion:

  • Delete all There are literally millions of piano pieces, many by red link writers and the list is terribly indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Lists are preferred when the number of items is too small to make useful categories. These lists do not have that criterion. Categories are preferable because they do not require separate maintenance the way lists do. Bongomatic 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the rationales in the previous nomination, and as redundant to categories. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just a reminder that a list being redundant to a category is not a rationale for deletion. Perhaps this should be renamed "Famous solo piano pieces" and be severely cut down. SMSpivey (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep After looking through some of this, it seems like an awful lot of legitimate information to just delete. Maybe each and every piano solo is not notable, but I think this list is inherently useful. It isn't an indiscriminate list, as piano solos have to be published in real life by someone. No to speculate too much, but I don't think there are a ton of piano solo fanboys digging up every piano solo ever written to include them. People have to learn about these solos somehow, and I believe it is probably through having played them. Really, how does one even measure the notability of a piano solo? Even when an independent source covers a concert, they don't talk about every piece that is played. If they were composed by a notable person, perhaps that makes them notable (since those pieces are what gives them notability, in reality). Perhaps it should be reorganized and cut down, but those are actions to discuss and perform on the talk page, not here at AfD. SMSpivey (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - what about the 5-2 problem listed above? Multiple lists (when categories would perform the task better) cause Beethoven's list of pieces on List A to be different than Beethoven's pieces on List B. This should be completely unacceptable, isn't it? My other problem with all these articles is the method by which they are properly monitored. As Bongomatic stated, "lists are preferable when the number of items is small." Are there really people watching the List of solo piano pieces by composer: H article? To address your concern that "it seems like an awful lot of legitimate information to just delete", well I agree. There would have to be an intermediate process by which relevant articles (List of solo piano pieces by Beethoven) and categories would be created. But as it currently stands, Beethoven has three separate lists of pieces based on his last name beginning with "B", his music being from the Romantic era, or his nationality being German. I just don't see how this makes sense. Timneu22 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a well-argued nomination. I also feel that alphabetic categories of piano piece composer have no inherent notability nor interest (unlike, say, categories by nationality which can lead to comparative national stylistic analysis). So a double delete on alphabetic categories/lists. Zargulon (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I agree with nominator's cogent arguments, esp. since the lists and their overlaps are very, very difficult to synchronize and organize. Categories are probably a better answer, and the intermediate stage noted above a welcome solution to the practical objection of loss of information. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate the "well-argued" (can't express it better in my own words) nomination as much as anyone else does. To be sure, we can have both lists and categories (otherwise, we'd not have the featured list List of counties in Kentucky plus Category:Kentucky counties), but there has to be something substantial to the lists, which these don't. Agree that this should all be turned into categories, or put into already-existing categories, and the articles deleted as soon as proper categories are ready. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've formatted so the actual articles being deleted are clearly listed, I hope that's ok as I found a subpage for an AFD unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps I'm reading this nomination wrong but they are actually doing a mass merge instead which doesn't seem like a bad idea while working to also cross-referencing whichever solo pieces do have articles to various categories. None of this requires deletion. Lists can be quite useful and they indeed show where some articles in a series have been created whereas others have not. This allows those who know the subject area to start articles where they need to exist. I'm uneasy about mass deleting what has been built up until a thoughtful and careful process of merging takes place first. Seems like we're in a rush to delete when a process of merging is already being planned. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is to move the information into relevant articles or remove the information, then we delete. So deletion is required (as others have mentioned, categories work here and lists don't), but only after the information is put in the right place. I wouldn't even mind if we created a single temporary page for eveything in the interim. Timneu22 (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a reason to simply start merging and delete empty pages after completion. To me, AfD is about removing material that simply can never be encyclopedic on an article level which doesn't seem to be the case here. Surely the process can start with a set of pages and progress from there. Once a page is empty just redirect it or have it deleted if the title phrase is illogical. In this way someone searching for "solo toy piano pieces" is still likely to find what they are looking for. I'm all for better and logical organizing but you seem to have a decent plan for doing this that doesn't require AfD which all but erases the former articles and organization which may not be needed or in the future best interest. -- Banjeboi 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all and redirect to a more suitable list; deletion is not required when merging and redirecting are reasonable options, and in fact deletion policy and editing policy is that we specifically do not delete if there is a reasonable alternative that can be accomplished through normal editing. Redirects are cheap and none of these would be deleted for any reason listed at WP:RFD#DELETE; thus they should not be deleted here. DHowell (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the pages absolutely have no future ("List of solo piano pieces by composer: G") and they will be deleted after this is cleaned up. In fact, my guess is that all the lists will cease to exist in lieu of categories; that is the only reasonable cleanup method for this group of articles. Timneu22 (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting started. Does List of solo piano compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven (and its new, uncreated categories) seem like the way to go? I also added information to its talk page. Feedback please. Timneu22 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep Rather than delete this, perhaps they should be lumped into a category. And as for the argument that we can't list all of the piano pieces, we can list notable ones. This article is very helpful for their are no other lists of significant solo piano pieces.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    The proposal is exactly that -- create relevant categories and delete all these unneeded articles. Timneu22 (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is a rough consensus here to reorganize all the content, such as proposed with Beethoven. I am planning to close the discussion as a delete. But, since all the work with merging and categorizing the useful content will take some time, I would like to know, how people willing to work with this prefer doing that. Shall I rather:

  • delete all now and provide the content when asked or
  • userfy all the content to some place so that it is accessible for later use and delete only when all the work is done?

Up to you, I'll come around some time tomorrow. --Tone 23:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the comment but at the very least I suggest a keep some, merge the rest since there are 40+ articles here and a thoughtful process to clean these up doesn't require deleting these. Also no one has suggested that any of this information is harmful or false, just organized in less than a stellar way. -- Banjeboi 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Per my comments above and further looking at the organizing issues here. Categorizing only covers the existing articles for solo pieces that have them, at this time. Just because a solo piece doesn't yet have an article doesn't mean it isn't notable, just that an article hasn't been yet created. If a concerted effort to merge all useful content into appropriate list articles, which doesn't require AfD, I doubt there would be much opposition. Simply deleting all the content feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, there is some useful content there even if it needs to be re-organized. We are always improving articles and it looks like some of these lists expanded prematurely. That doesn't mean they should be imploded as much as remerged and re-organized. The rationales listed, in most cases, are clean-up. If something needs to be standardized, then do so. For the Chopin example - three different lists on three list articles - this would be a good reason to clarify and centralize that content. And indeed the place to do that is List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin and split out from there as needed. In that way all of Chopin's work is presented as one list, even if it is in several parts, but has an overall structure. In the overall A-Z solo list, perhaps a preventative measure would be to recombine a, b and c, for example, so psychologically other editors may feel it's big enough already and may not look to adding more. In any case I feel clean-up is more in keeping here. -- Banjeboi 23:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it will take some time to reorganize the content, but it will be helpful to eliminate these pages right away, my suggestion is to:
  1. Put all the information somewhere (WP:Userfy?) — can this be on one enormous page somewhere? Where will you put it? Ideally, the information will be in a location so that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music people will have some visibility on it.
  2. Delete the existing list pages immediately.
THANK YOU. Timneu22 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing some cleanup, and I can honestly say it is worse than the nomination described! Beethoven was listed under Classical and Romantic, again with different lists, and others had complete messes too. I'm getting it into a reasonable state where all the pages will be almost empty by the time they are userfied/deleted. Timneu22 (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why deletion is unneeded here. You're already cleaning it up, no comments as to what content is being lost in all this, so deleting simply isn't needed here. -- Banjeboi 01:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make sense. Certain pages in the list already have zero content. The pages will be deleted. Timneu22 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have removed all the information from an article, presumably merging it appropriately elsewhere, then AfD is not the way to go; AfD is not clean-up. If you empty out a page and a redirect is not appropriate then use WP:CSD instead. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Either way, the "D" of AFD or CSD applies. This is really the goal here. Timneu22 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uclides[edit]

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

Apparent POV fork of our article on Euclid. Though I question the verifiability and the sourcing of the article content, that would be something to discuss if the material were being proposed as part of the Euclid article. For the moment, only the creation of a duplicate article is at issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston proposed a deltion of this wiki on the 16th stateing it is a fork - which it is not. Even though he is not considering the fact that the wiki got reworked today (6 hrs ago) completely and im open for ideas of enhancment. No content present in Uclides wiki is in Euclid or Elements. I added it there but it got remvoed - even the word Uclides is not mentioned anywhere. The source and publication is linked and valid. --Tales23 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this rather odd-fork using an unknown (invented?) alternative spelling of a rather famous historical figure in an attempt to have a mirror article, towards what end it's not clear. But what is clear is that it's not encyclopedic and fails a number of policies. Not sure whey this can't be speedied.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be which policies? --Tales23 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For starters? WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:COATRACK WP:V WP:NOTE WP:CFORK. I'm sure i could come up with some more if i put my back into it, but why bother?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay-like article going on at undue length about an unimportant change in transliteration. We are writing the English Wikipedia, we use spellings of terms and names as they are commonly given in English, in this case the proper spelling is "Euclid" regardless of how inaccurately that might render his proper ancient Greek name, and more to the point there is no reliable sourcing for notability of any kind of controversy over the spelling. I don't see a lot of justification for a speedy but maybe we can snowball this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: textbook example of a fork. A paragraph which User:Tales23 had worked on was removed from Euclid's Elements [23] (last deleted paragraph) so Tales23 immediately created an article consisting of that paragraph, [24] and then added some redundant material from the Euclid article to make the new Uclides look like a normal article. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you google you will find more idependently sources. Anyway as nobody else seems to be intrested in this i thought of living the decision up to you guys, the administrators. I want mind if you edit my wiki or use parts of it whatever ...--Tales23 (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing your earlier attack on the sanity of the rest of us, Tales23.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--the editors above have said it well enough: POV fork, mirror, etc. The accusation that we amputate ourselves of/from reason, or that nay-voters are terrorists, well, I can live with that: I've been called worse. Time for WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Paul August ☎ 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 by Woody. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network:Clash with Nicktoons[edit]

Cartoon Network:Clash with Nicktoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced and incoherent. Seems to be a hoax. No hits at all on Google for "Clash with Nicktoons" outside of Wikipedia itself. The Wikiquotes are probably bogus too. DanielRigal (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullwinkle's Corner[edit]

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

This segment of a show does not meets the criteria for inclusion. DFS454 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends. Agreed. This is a show segment, not a separate series, and the segment itself isn't independently notable. Fair game to mention it in the main article, but not on its own. 23skidoo (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per 23skidoo. --Pc13 (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'm taking a look at The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show and I notice that many of the segements of the show have their own articles: Mister Peabody, Dudley Do-Right, Aesop and Son Aesop And Son (which is even shorter than the Bullwinkle's Corner article, btw) and Mr. Know-It-All. The only regular sketch not to have it's own article is Fractured Fairy Tales which just redirects to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. I realize that Mr. Peabody is more memorable and that there was a live-action movie produced about Dudley Do-Right, but if we're going to have some of these other independent articles we should also give a chance to this stub. That is, unless it is obvious that there is no chance of significant and viable content, in which case I would fully support a Merge. I would also then propose a merge of Aesop's Fables and Mr. Know-It-All into The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. Valley2city 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually Aesop and Son redirects to the show's main article but Aesop And Son (capitalized "And" sic) is the title of the article. I made the change above with strikethrough and italics respectively. I think I am going to AFD that article. Valley2city 19:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Change to Delete. There's a section in The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show that can be enhanced instead Valley2city 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Delete Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yari ( yaoi/yuri )[edit]

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

A neologism by its own admission. No independent RS references. Seems to be a coat rack for advertising a website. Prod removed by author. DanielRigal (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nomination, and per the author of the article himself: "... but it is still in its infancy as a term. A search of google or yahoo will turn up a few instances of its use, and there are more added every day." -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 15:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have ADDED to the article, and whats more, it SAID that the notice could BE removed if I added to it!

Speedy delete Non-notable neologism. No reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as self-admitted protologism. 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macsen dickinson[edit]

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

This seemes like a parody of a fictional superhero written for a real person. DFS454 (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sellam Arifi[edit]

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

Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Mayu Sakai. MBisanz talk 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pan Syndrome (manga)[edit]

Peter Pan Syndrome (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable manga by a non-notable manga artist with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Original prod was disputed based on the number of ghits, which is a false standard to determine notability. Farix (Talk) 13:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it hasn't officially been released in English, you won't find any reviews for it in any English media. Googling for the Japanese name of it in quotation marks and the Japanese name of the writer in quotation marks, I found mention of it about. [25] I do not know what major newspapers or other publications that count as proof of notability exists, so I can't narrow down the search. I listed on the talk page why it seems notable. Dream Focus (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just how much digging did you actually go through with those links. All of the ones I checked were sales catalogs with a blog entry thrown in here and there. Again, notability is not established by the number of ghits, and 1,210 hits is in fact a rather small number. --Farix (Talk) 14:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dream Focus: There are series that have been reviewed in English that haven't been licensed -- Vinland Saga and Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou come to mind. Just so you know. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Tokyopop Germany have licensed it, but aside from that there's very little actual info out there, and as stated most of it is japanese book sellers or scanlation sites (neither assert notability). Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources and unlicensed beyond one German publisher, so unlikely to have more. Fails WP:BK. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm kinda surprised that Viz Media hasn't snapped this up for their Shoujo Beat line, as it's exactly the sort of cute urban fantasy adventure they handle so well. However, they haven't, and I'm finding precious little reliable about it. Selectively merge pertinant info up to the author, Mayu Sakai, to associate the title with her. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OT, but with the current down turn in the anime/manga market, it seems more companies are cutting back on licenses beyond "sure hits" (like all the Tanemura stuff). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, unless the author's page is up for deletion as well, articles like this should never be deleted. Merge is always preferable. Doceirias (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its currently tagged for notability and likely will be prodded or AfDed within the next week. Still seeing if there is anything notable about her, but so far, not finding anything. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dimond[edit]

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

Long article about a religious leader considered heretical by the Roman Catholic Church, but whose notability is sketchy at best. Google returns mostly blogs that are critical of him, but few if any reliable sources. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a blog. This is a notable apologist Robert Sungenis writing against him: http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/dimondradio.htm Why would he write against him if he was not notable. Ourshelp (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Most Holy Family Monastery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a redirect to the above. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and edit) books.google has a bunch of hits on this colorful person (about 5 about him, 3 his works). Heretic? Definitely according to the RC church. Notable? Yes. Puff needs removal? Sure. Still a Keep. Collect (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable. The article would be more useful if it were written so that non-Catholics could understand what was being discussed. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is he notable? Any evidence? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he is talked about in several sources as if people care about him and what he believes and what he is doing.Steve Dufour (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or re-source. Far too many references from a single source. Where is the notability outside of this source? Timneu22 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per books cited by Collect by and about him, per the Alexa review cited in the article and the strong reactions of Catholic apologists. I have removed a large blockquote of copyvio material; the rest looks okay, though I haven't checked it. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A quick look around JSTOR and Lexis doesn't bring up much and from what I can see from Google books all of his works are self-published. If we allowed minor, self-published authors to all have articles we'd be overrun by people from [www.Lulu.com Lulu]. Can't seem to find much reaction to him from the official Catholic Church either, suggesting they don't view him as a very big threat. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Panyd. THF (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep His website comes up first ranking in the list of Catholic websites not in communion with Rome on Alexa. http://www.alexa.com/browse?CategoryID=28757 Ourshelp (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And a ranking of 172,346 overall. But since the article is not about a website, such statistics are not really relevant and may in fact denote a high volume of traffic from within the organization. Alexa rankings can betray a lack of notability, but they cannot confirm notability. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He receives a lot of unique visitors as well. "Below are the web stats for just over one month (34 days). We received almost six million hits and over 200,000 unique visitors." http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges_Archive.html Ourshelp (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I so wanted this man to be notable - but I can't find any WP:RS for him. Springnuts (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Springnuts, you're nuts! but you're right. There are no reliable sources to be found--a character like this ought to generate hits in Google News, and he doesn't; the results for a regular search produces articles like this and this, but neither is really independent or in what we usually call a reliable source. Google Books has nothing but a mention or two in that "Compendium" book published by Lulu, and a few title by Lucien Gregoire, another nutcase (pardon my French)--the page with notes that cites Dimond is bad enough to link here. Anyone who's ever read a good, academic study will see in one second that if the notes look like this, then the book is not carefully and diligently written. Nope, no notability. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles on this non-notable head of a non-notable, schismatic monastery have been speedied several times, not sure why this time around should be any different. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that being a schismatic should be a reason to delete his article. This is not Wikicatholicopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, being schismatic is often a point in favor of non-notability, especially if the schismatic group is so miniscule it is hardly worth mentioning. The Catholic Church has 1.131 billion members; the Most Holy Family Monastery apparently has had between 3 and 10 members in the past and perhaps just one now if I read the article correctly. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the fact that a lot of people who don't know him personally seem to dislike him is an indication of notability. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, up to a certain point. However, if the only third-party sources available are libelous, as is the case here, then you must conclude that the authors did know either him or one of his disciples. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know lots of people but I wouldn't post information about them on a website unless I thought that it would be important for other people to know about them. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one -- Not being a Catholic, and certainly not familiar with its traditionalist dissentions, I find it difficult to comment on this, but will try. I suspect that this may be a significant subject. However, I think it would be more appropriate for the material to appear in the article on the monastery, rather than that on its leader. The main problem is that most of the sources are internal ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a new page for Most Holy Family Monastery I have made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ourshelp#Most_Holy_Family_Monastery
I will move the "Michael Dimond" page to Most Holy Family Monastery. Ourshelp (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to delete the Michael Dimond page, now that a suitable Most Holy Family Monastery has been created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourshelp (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it as a plausible redirect. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The main result of this debate is that there is nearly unanimous consensus that the subject of the article is notable enough for inclusion. This point is more or less not even disputed by those who said the article should be deleted. Likewise, there is broad consent that the article needs better sourcing — as even admitted by those who said the article should be kept. Taking all this into account it's safe to say that there is a clear consensus that the article should be kept, but there is an evident need to continue adding reliable sources as well. — Aitias // discussion 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican conspiracy theories[edit]

Vatican conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm in two minds about this article. Part of me says "Gosh, this is notable and verifiable" and part says "Even if it is, this article is a prime example of synthesised original research." Even if it's intended just as a list it still requires references, doubtless all of which can be supplied. I know we'll get the pro/anti religion/Roman Catholicism/Conspiracy Theory folk discussing the bejasus out of this from a pro/anti religion/Roman Catholicism/Conspiracy Theory viewpoint, but it would be far better to discuss it from its technical merits as an article. After all, the theories etc exist. I'm concerned about the synthesised OR aspect. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I say Keep. I've got many sources I'd like to add and these are among the most famous Conspiracy theories. Also, there are many more articles on related conspiracy theories. ADM (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sure you are familiar with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, though it is rather a harsh name! My concern is absolutely not the citability of the individual items as my nomination says. I have taken it as read that they can (probably) all be referenced. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite close to being exhaustive, and it is not original at all. These are things that everyone has heard about, that all may know well already. ADM (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My contention is that the article synthesises original research. That is the rationale for my nomination. I dispute none of your other points and never have. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the sources DO reach the same conclusion, therefore it is not original research. It would like to ask you to read the article Antisemitic canard, it is very much based on this previous work. ADM (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antisemitic canard has 63 footnotes, which reference dozens of books and academic articles. Vatican conspiracy theories, until MQS got to work, had one reference to a NYT article. And your earlier remark, "These are things that everyone has heard about," that pretty much sums up what this article is based on: suspicions, rumors, allegations. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my nomination, I am in some doubt. I suggest we let this run, after which you will have a pretty definitive outcome. Our community usually makes wise decisions especially when an individual is unwise (and I have been both wise and unwise all my life). I'm happy to be proven wrong as well as right. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Warrington (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not the kind of synthesis that the drafters of WP:SYNTH had in mind. This is actually closer to a disambiguation page. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear case. Notability in spades. Needs cites to be sure, but that is a mechanical exercise and not a valid reason for deletion. SYN? Not in the NOR sense at all. Collect (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to "Conspiracy theories involving the Vatican" Wow I had no idea there were so many! Steve Dufour (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article clearly needs better sourcing, it is a good way to organize info on the various notable conspiracy theories. Edward321 (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll disagree with everyone on here and say Delete. No references, too much information to reference, and just an awful article. Further, as each item on there appears to have its own article, this seems better as a category. Timneu22 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Increase to super strong delete. This is the first I've heard of WP:COATRACK; there is no better example than this article. Timneu22 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only if substantial sourcing is added. The topic, and some of the conspiracies mentioned, are clearly notable and have been the subject of many books, films, etc. But it needs sourcing placed fairly quickly. I'm going to break my own rule here and state that I'll even support renomination of the sourcing isn't added within the next couple of weeks. 23skidoo (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Article is a classic example of WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK, created and maintained by one user, please read the lead: "They usually involve the Pope or his sinister curialists, typically jesuits, trying to dominate the world in a ruthless enterprise of secular power-wielding. Other conspiracies will involve dubious papal interventions in the history of Christianity in order to conceal or hide allegedly secret information." Any sourced information can be saved into Criticism of Catholicism.--J.Mundo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete "Clearly needs better sourcing" is an understatement. Don't even bother to put up an article with this many accusations unless you can tell us where you heard them. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Could stand better sourcing, but its a legit topic, and problems with POV are for cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- All conspiracy theories violate NPOV, original research, etc, yet there are still plenty of them wikipedia (see RFK, JFK). A google search produces many book/web results, so this is notable and verifiable. And even if those sources are synthesized original research, keep in mind that these are conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsdrinktea (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per J.Mundo.Simon Dodd (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part unsourcable, part better treated in other articles, and part WP:BLP. Also, the novels seem oddly out of place. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If only for the lack of references. Some of these conspiracies look like they were made up. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--really, this is too ridiculous for words. This incredibly long list has one, ONE, reference, and I fail to see how any of the Keep-voters missed the very first sentence, which is about as POV as can be. Worse, it's not something that can be taken care of by editing: the whole list is essentially POV, especially since there is no sourcing to indicate that the suspected conspiracy has any kind of reality or notability at all. May I point out author ADM sees fit to include a "His Dark Materials" conspiracy? Read it: "In Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, the Church exerts a strong control over a fictional world. There is a conspiracy by which the Magisterium must be destroyed by various rebels." Well--this is a work of fiction. The Church in question is a fictional church. The Catholic church, or the Pope and his sinister Jesuits, do not control that fictional world. Are you kidding? I'm going to go and remove that right now, in anticipation of removal of the entire article. I'm far from a Pope-worshiper, and I've never been a very good Catholic, but this is too ridiculous for words. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making good progress deleting what is completely bollocks, blatant nonsense, or the opposite of what the article is supposed to be about. Keep-voters, did you notice that one "Vatican conspiracy" theory is that Protestants often thought the pope was the Anti-Christ? I mean, how in the world can that be a Vatican conspiracy? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe hold off on tearing it apart until we can get in and source even those that you feel are bollocks? I have begun some... and there's lots out there.. and its admittedly a VERY LONG article requiring lots of sourcing. Remember, wiki is not about truth... its about verification of included materials... and it seems that most, if not all, of these "theories" can be verified. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Michael, you'll have noticed that a left a lot...incl. all the sections you have been working on. Ha, it's not such a long article anymore. You'll note also that some of the things I've deleted are gone not because they are unverified conspiracies, but because they weren't "vatican conspiracies," such as the "Vatican ratlines conspiracies," or totally fictional (i.e., derived from fiction), such as "God's spy." But the bigger issue here is NOT that the claim that there are these "conspiracies" cannot be verified, because that's clearly not true: any idiot with a computer can make a nutcase conspiracy verifiable. The bigger problem with some of the sourcing is that almost all of these claims simply aren't notable. Now, some of them are--the anti-Christ thing for instance--and they are treated elsewhere, in great detail. What I'm saying is that the basic concept of the article is flawed, nevermind the fact that a lot of (bollocks) theories were published in a WP article and it's left to you to do the sourcing, or to me to delete what I consider unverified or unverifiable (and I know a little bit about this stuff). But as always, I appreciate your zeal! Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article, delete problematic pieces — because of well-known claims such as Pope Joan, Pope John Paul I, and the recent buzz related to The Da Vinci Code, the idea of "Vatican conspiracy theories" is made quite legitimate. I'm not defending the inclusion of fringe theories, such as the idea that the Catholic Church invented Islam; I don't defend the unreferenced state of the article; and I agree that the intro needs to be cleaned up bigtime. However, I believe that this can easily be reduced to a good basis for a better article, simply by offering summaries of such theories — and as far as Drmies' note, because this is about theories that the Vatican is conspiring to do something, the idea that the Papacy is the Antichrist and conspiring to oppose true Christianity definitely qualifies. This perhaps would be the easiest to source; just check the Westminster Confession, any other early Presbyterian document, and probably lots of non-English documents. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't dispute that that idea existed, not at all--but I take issue with placing that on a par with UFOs and Nazi gold, and it seems to me that the Vatican-antichrist theory deserves its own article, under its own title--if it werent' already covered in Anti-Catholicism, pretty exhaustively and carefully, rather than under some general catch phrase in an article full of unreferenced and non-notable conspiracy theories. I mean, placing the Westminster Confession next to Paul Blanshard is really giving "undue un-weight" to the former. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks good to me. The sourcing is off to a solid start. Can't beat the NY Times when it comes to conspiracy theories.ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But look at the lead: "They usually involve the Pope or his sinister curialists, typically jesuits, trying to dominate the world in a ruthless enterprise of secular power-wielding." That's not just a random POV-statement, it's what underlies this random list--sloppiness and slippage, grammatically and otherwise. But I appreciate your sense of humor and irony, that "the sourcing is off to a good start." I've seen articles on poppy seed with better sources than this one! ;)Drmies (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that lead can be sourced, then there is no problem. And naturally poppy seed is better sourced. Its only one subject. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is a curialist? It certainly sounds sinister. Did you catch my subtle dig at the NY Times? And what about how they shaved Sinead O'Connor's head like that! Perhaps a tweak of the wording is needed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, the pope shaved her? That's kinda...well...saucy! Drmies (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curialist: "One who belongs to the ultramontane party in the Latin Church." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one source doesn't support any of these "conspiracies" - some of which are BLP violations. Why does it seem that everyone can malign the Roman Catholic Church without sources and put all sorts of b.s. Seems to invite a diatribe against every religion and source it to the religion's own denials of the allegations to "prove" the conspiracy and cover up. This is the crap that makes WP a laughing stock and erodes our credibility. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources verifying the theories are being added. And with respects about credibility... the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If the theories can be verified as to exist, that meet the threshold for inclusion, no matter what kind of hogwash they may be. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.Comment: I don't share your separation of the two principles nwhich I find artificial. The concept of verifiability is ultimately dependent on the quest for truth. And people consult Wikipedia, because they have faith in the truthfulness of the contents. Verifiabilty on its feet alone means absolutely nothing, a void, abstract concept. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rewrite though to remove the POV phrasing. Hooper (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and countinue sourcing. I can see this article as wonderfully controversial, specially in that "therories" are not "facts"... just suppositions. But of course, since "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", the existance of these many theories can be verified and their continued coverage ensures notability. And commenting upon the nom's "this article is a prime example of synthesised original research"... that synthesis of research is not by anyone on wiki. We're just here to place the existing theories in an encyclopedic format. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't this sourcing one of the problems? I mean, the references you added aren't exactly on a par (yet) with the scholarly research done here or here. I am not trying to demean your work, but before you know it, every blogger gets to add their own conspiracy (http://www.popejohnpauli.net/), or report on one (like Ruth Bertels on http://www.takingfive.com/). Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert in the field. Sourcing seems to be the major concern here... and most conspiracy theories fall under fringe. I shudder when I think of the ardous task ahead in researching and sourcing such a list... but such sources must certainly exist outside the fringe, perhaps in acadamea. There is the article in New York Times and I did find coverage by Discovery Channel, and these folks have resources that I do not. Such an expansive aricle cannot be sourced in a few minutes or hours... or perhaps days or weeks... but as wiki has no deadline, this becomes a matter for cleanup, and not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For conspiracy theories, I use Google, not Wikipedia. 11 footnotes for twice as much theories - almost a conspiracy of misinformation in itself. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the theories are largely rubbish, but they are out there. Some of them may be WP:OR by a single person, who has given them little publicity. Others are widely believed even though they are unsubstantiated trash. A few appear already to have their own articles. Others do not. The objective should be to provide sources for the theory as propounded and for its refutation. One of the problems is that once some one has propounded an error, it is liable to get repeated. I agree that the article is not (yet) adequately sourced, but that is a reason for improving it, not one for deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and sourced conspiracies.Biophys (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nofal[edit]

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

non notable.. name, I guess? Wikipedia has such name articles as disambig pages between articles on the various 'holders'; considering we have doctors, pharmacists, children and a 1,000 year old priest I think I can safely say we are not going to be having articles on these people unless the notability guidelines take a trip off Beachy Head. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ??? Is there a WP standard on articles on family names? I would think that an article could be written about almost any name. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear attempt at self-promotion by article author. Edward321 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong delete. Agree that this is self promotion (editor name is"tnofal" or something). Also, it may be the worst article on wikipedia right now. Timneu22 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ; see this. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, fine. The article you cite is worse! ;-) Timneu22 (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay, I win! That's one of those competitions it is best not to try particularly hard in :P.Ironholds (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self promotion of a non-notability. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn name; most names are - get over it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually most last names are worthy of an article - assuming that there are multiple people/items notable enough for pages it is commonly used as a disambig page. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most last names have no one notable with the last name. A few last names have many notables (whether or not related to each other). First names are similar. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even aside from the possibility it's a COI, this appears to be a clearly nonnotable and indeed insignificant name. Shall I produce an article about my almost-unique surname, which (as far as I know) is used only by my close relatives, and hasn't produced anyone of more long-term significance than a career US Army officer. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a hoax. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Matcham[edit]

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

The page is a hoax, Alexandra Burke won the X-Factor in 2008. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11bangbang[edit]

11bangbang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The word might be in use in the military but apparently there are no reliable sources for verification and to justify its notability. Google turns up with forum and MySpace usernames. –Capricorn42 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I also did a Google search finding nothing to indicate sufficient notability for this to be an article. FaerieInGrey (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions of Paradise[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Wasn't a single, hasn't charted and isn't notable. Note: Emotions of paradise (redirection page) will also need deleting. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of waterways[edit]

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

If this page was ever to be completed, which is highly unlikely, it will be incredibly lengthy. A better page would be Lists of waterways (note the "s"). All the good links need to be pulled out of this article and put in the suggested article before deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It boils down to a desire to make it "lists" because it, indeed, has lists in the list? Make "lists" and then redirect it here rather than delete this. Collect (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hate lists. If anything, this should be a category. What is the purpose of this article? Will anyone actually search for this title? What could reasonabily link to such a title? I just see no purpose for this article now or ever. Timneu22 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it gets too long it can be split. Is the nominator going to put all the other "list of"s up for AfD too? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was anywhere even close to half complete it would be an extremely long list as to become unwieldly. Your comment of "all the other "list of"s up for AfD" smacks of black and white thinking. I am happy with lists as long as they are useful for WP but it seems that some editors get a little carried away with creating lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be split into list(s) of canals and lists of rivers which already exists. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can be split or whatever based on discussion page process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is what Categories are for. THF (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a good list to me. Categories can't contain redlinks. Lugnuts (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a need for redlinks as an editing tool it can be usified. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Delete Lists are hugely useful (See WP:LISTS) and serve very different purposes than do categories (see WP:CLN). This actually seems to be am amalgam of a list of waterways and a list of lists of waterways. Both types are useful.—G716 <T·C> 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my opinion. I spent some time on Lists of rivers and think that this list is no longer needed. Maybe need a Lists of canals—G716 <T·C> 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently cleaning out redundant links and checking to see if they are listed in the individual country lists. I have found the the List of rivers of Foo articles are more comprehensive. I don't agree with a List of canals, estuaries, and firths article as a replacement. Firstly I find lists that are not annotated to be of little value and a list that includes canals, firths and estuaries is linking built and natural features in an, ahem - well, unnatural way! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There were too many opinions to justify a relist, but neither side presented a strong argument –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Couture vs. Chuck Liddell[edit]

Randy Couture vs. Chuck Liddell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete this is pure unadulterated original research garbage. JBsupreme (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have deleted a couple of sentences of original thought; beyond that the article seems fine. The subject is notable because the Couture/Liddell rivalry played a major part in the popularization of ultimate fighting in the United States. For an example of what this article could be like when expanded, see Muhammad_Ali_versus_Sonny_Liston. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a substantial independent literature on Muhammad_Ali_versus_Sonny_Liston, which, because of racial issues, was a major cultural event as well as a sporting event. There's nothing in this article that isn't redundant with existing Wikipedia articles, otherwise I'd say merge into Liddell and Couture articles. THF (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge content into biographical articles. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep concur with Baileypalblue that this is a notable rivalry within MMA; gsearch seems to support interest in this particular combination (e.g., couture vs liddell gets over 450K hits with 135 in gnews). E.g.: "Fast forward to UFC 57 in February of 2006, it was the rubber match between the two biggest stars in MMA, Chuck Liddell and Randy Couture. Liddell once again knocked out Couture, to continue his dominant reign. Just like the second time these two fought, the event broke the UFC record for PPV buys, pulling in 400,000 buyers. That is when the numbers really started to jump." [26] JJL (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I am, as always, disheartened by a first mainspace revision being a whopping 395 bytes in size. This article has potential and a notable subject, though it would have been nice if that potential had been developed before it was mainspaced. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 21:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I see no reason why this is notable enough for a WP entry. I mean, we're not talking about Ali vs Frazier, that the newspapers and magazines actually wrote about--and I don't see any really relevant Gnews hits in serious, independent publications. The article itself doesn't help, talking about the event(s) only as event(s), not as some kind of cultural phenomenon like a Superbowl or an Ali fight. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the trilogy is notable. Portillo (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please phrase your commentary using English? That made no sense. JBsupreme (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And userfy –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xero Error (film)[edit]

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

Doesn't really satisfy notability. A first film, in production, hopes to be shown at a film festival... Also copyvios from [27]. roux   07:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The Helpful One 17:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws Project[edit]

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

Non-notable CMS/blog software Blowdart | talk 11:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was tagged as blanked by author, but is actually the result of a copy and paste move of Jaws (CMS) created by a different editor, which now redirects here). So let's discuss the merits of the software here under whichever title--Tikiwont (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Afz's edits were confusing. Actually we could have deleted it per G6 and fixed the move, which we still should do if the article is kept.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This suggests a little notability for this project; not just anything gets worked on as part of Google Summer of Code. Beyond this, though, all the sources I see are either routine new version announcements, or entries in databases that aim to be comprehensive. But maybe I'm missing some additional sources, as there certainly are a lot of hits for this one. JulesH (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaws_CMS not suitable name for jaws, because jaws is framework, the CMS is native and official product, that build by this framework —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afz (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this AfD is now about both.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:44, 14 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, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for apparent lack of reliable sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Blazer Drive. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mystickers[edit]

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

Collection of stickers without any assertion of notability... and one assertion of lack of availability, thinkly disguised as rarity. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back into Blazer Drive without which it lacks crucial context. The main article's current lack of sources is worrisome, but could be addressed by a relevant WikiProject if given the time. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • as i said, the page is incomplete but i don't know how to mark it incomplete. the series only started so i will continue to add more FlameMonkey (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it gets more completed or longer, then you can consider creating an article for Mystickers. Right now, it is unnecessary. I second that merger. Hyakurei (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some formatting on the above comments; I made no changes to the actual comments themselves. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have a majority. Are we merging this or not? Hyakurei (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of algal culture collections[edit]

List of algal culture collections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an external link farm. seresin ( ¡? )  06:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but reformat. Valid thing to have a list of. Links can be thought of as references. JulesH (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I agree that in theory these links could be useful to create an article on algal culture collections, this is a pure external-link directory and really isn't what Wikipedia is here for: if this were a new article I'd say give it a chance to be expanded into a sourced encyclopedia article, but it's been here for nearly three years and remains as a simple web-directory page. WP:NOTLINK is pretty clear here; lists are useful as a means of navigating and summarising Wikipedia articles on a topic, but it's really not the function of an encyclopedia to provide directories of all the web sites on a topic. ~ mazca t|c 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Formatting should be modified so the links are made into refs. But otherwise it seems okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTLINK is directly on point. THF (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linkfarm if these places had articles, perhaps... but algal culture collections isn't necessarily a notable feature of these places. They probably also have urinals, and can be included in the List of urinal locations that may eventually get written. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, algal culture collection are not urinals. As others have said, the list just needs formatting. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I listed this discussion at the relevant (I think) project page and on the Algaculture (or something like that) page so the experts can weigh in. Speaking of algaculture, it's about time to clean the shower... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While it appeared to be well cited at first glance, the references available contained no discussion of "orthogons". This rather damning flaw in the article was not addressed by the Keep voters. Given the strength of the delete arguments, I see no option other than to close "Delete". Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orthogons and design[edit]

Orthogons and design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are zero reliable sources to support the asserted topic of this article; in English, orthogon is either not a word, a neologism, an archsism for rectangle, or a bad translation of rectangle from the German, that's all. The editor who created the article is likely [email protected], a site referenced for details in the article, a clear case of WP:COI, and a non-topic. If there's any content here from reliable sources, it can easily be integrated into dynamic symmetry and/or root rectangle. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Valriejensen1 has moved the page to Orthogons & Design. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge – (as nominator). The only thing that looks like an actual source is the 1956 Wersin book. If the concept were notable, we'd expect to find some mention of it. There are about 50 or so books that mention Wersin's book, but none of them mention "orthogon"; who made up this new term from it? Can't tell. Probably vj, our author. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for use of the word "orthogon" in this context have been added and any possible conflict of interest deleted. These edits should address possible concerns. The article provides details from a variety of sources about a set of design templates that are classified by a variety of terms (harmonic rectangles, dynamic symmetry, root rectangles, golden rectangle, sacred geometry, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valriejensen1 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Valriejensen1 (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Although the term may not be readily accessed via the internet, the term "orthogon" in reference to these specific group of rectangles (by Von Wersin) can be verified as not originating from the article's author. This website in German may help to clarify concerns: [28] Valriejensen1 (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OED defines "orthogon" as a right-angled triangle and Wiktionary agrees here. As far as I can tell, only Von Wersin uses the term in a different sense. If the Von Wersin book is notable, then an article about the book could mention this unusual usage of orthogon, but this terminology is not sufficiently notable for its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"orthogon" can't mean triangle, ortho is straight, and gon means angle. Besides, the Webster dictionary and CURTIS, Thomas, The London Encyclopaedia, 1829, pp. 356, agrees that it is a figure with 4 sides and right angles.--20-dude (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Webster (MICRA_ uses it for "a rectangular figure" with no claim for archaic. If improper COI naterial is edited out (as appears the case) there is no cause for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for background, this comment from User:Collect should probably be interpreted as WP:STALKING me, as we're engaged in a dispute elsewhere and he has no relevant history in this area. Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this --- I have now commented on well over a hundred XfD issues, my background is in physics and applied mathematics, and I have not the slightest interest in stalking anyone at all. Before making accusations, you might wish to look at facts. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "probably" was based on my impression that your involvement was pretty much all in politics-related articles; I had not seen you in math-related articles, such golden ratio, golden rectangle, root rectangle, dynamic symmetry, and such, that this concept is said to relate to, and on which I have tons of editing experience. Your keep didn't sound sincere, since it missed the point that the article topic and content are largely unrelated to the dictionary definition you cite. Your not seeing any cause for deletion is quite possible, I admit, but it sounded more like you just hassling me. Forgive me if I called it wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the improper material is edited out, only a dictionary definition remains, which is a cause for deletion per WP:NOTDICT. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable if Wersin's book is the only source; otherwise the article should be about the book (see Gandalf's comment). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are a specific set of rectangles that are directly referred to as "orthogons" (or die Orthogone--which is German for "the orthogons")in the title of Von Wersin's book. Information about how these constructs are applied in art and design is likely more available in Europe, particularly in German texts. Allowing this topic to have its own heading gives English-speaking artists and designers the opportunity to understand how this set has been and can be used. A book by Alfred Ziffer, Wolfgang Von Wersin 1882-1976, refers to Wersin's use of the Orthogons as well (Klinkhardt & Biermann 1991). German heading of the diagram (pg 31): Geometrische Beziehungen der Orthogone or Geometric relations of the Orthogons. I first learned of their existence and use (from German artists), and would have researched under that name rather than the other suggestions, including Wersin. This information will also likely be of great interest to anyone seeking to understand in how artists, architects, calligraphers, etc. can actually use the golden rectangle (and the other orthogons) in a design. This topic has application to art and should be considered in that light.Valriejensen1 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these rectangles are used in art, surely someone would have written something about that in English by now, no? I think they're just too obscure, the imaginative creation of a handful of people who never got them noticed. Enough to mention in an article, but not enough notability for their own article. How about merging with root rectangle into something like dynamic rectangle? Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much has been written about the use of specific orthogons in art (Michael Schneider does a great job with root rectangles) and others as mentioned in the article. Artists I know who use them are less interested in publishing than creating--which is probably the case even in higher education. Art schools such as the Bauhaus and Royal College of Art likely have information available, but apparently not through the internet--and not in English. These are a specific set of harmonic rectangles and anyone interested in their use (most likely in the fields of art/design/architecture/calligraphy/typography) probably won't be looking under "root rectangle" or "harmonic rectangle." This set of 12 harmonic rectangles surely has a term. The titles of the rectangles don't appear to originate in English, but their use as outlined in the context of the article is verifiable. Your points are excellent, but keeping the article under this heading allows time for more information (and hopefully, verification) to emerge--or re-emerge as often happens in the world of the arts. An internet reference to a statement by the architect, Stanley Tigerman may add to the conversation: "I pledge allegiance to the orthogon".Valriejensen1 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without citing more sources, your comments don't help. It doesn't matter whether the sources are on the internet. But if there are none in English it's hard to support keeping the current title for this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is having the references in English of so much importance that the information not be made available otherwise? English is a form of low German, the language of the most verifiable reference available at this time.Valriejensen1 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the beautiful citations mention the English word "orthogon" in the sense of the article topic. The topic is pretty much Jay Hambidge's dynamic symmetry and root rectangles; a merge would allow beefing those up with a bit from the German source on "Orthogone". The rest of what's claimed is pretty much just imaginative. I have the cited book by Ghyka, which may support the statement "Besides being orthogonal and rectangular, their main characteristic is a dynamic symmetry, which means that their proportions are a consequence of geometric ratios as opposed to an exclusively static symmetry based on rational ratios," but doesn't support connecting "they" to "orthogons". I don't find an exact passage for that, but it appears to be based on the chapter on "dynamic rectangles" of Hambidge, along with Macody-Lund and Moessel. Nothing about orthogons or Wersin; no mention in Ghyka. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could go along with a merger per Dicklyon. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mysticism without much support in the literature. Anything worth including here is covered better already in golden rectangle. And "orthogon" is just a pointless neologism; we already have a perfectly good word, "rectangle", meaning the same thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are a very specific set of harmonic rectangles that by themselves are abundantly verifiable. Their use in either designing or analyzing works of art is also verifiable. Giving them a different term, even "harmonic rectangles" would put the article in the realm of neologism.Valriejensen1 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice essay on a neologism. The only non-original research material in the article is a definition. -Atmoz (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Increasing awareness is a valid endeavor and appears to be a purpose of Wikipedia. This article would qualify as an essay on neologism if the term was in fact new and if it only applied to a very narrow, fast-moving field. Wikipedia contributors should be allowed to refer to resources beyond the internet. Otherwise, the world knowledge base is at risk of losing valuable information. In this particular instance, artists and other designers may find that the benefit of subduing this knowledge exceeds the general "need to know."Valriejensen1 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing Wersin saw the value of publishing what artists and other designers simply talk about (in the guild tradition). I happen to agree with him and Sir Francis Bacon (and apparently JFK)--"knowledge is power."Valriejensen1 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, but the content has to be verified and sourced.--20-dude (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC) The name of the article has to be changed back to orthogon.--20-dude (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would including images from the book make the difference? The book is available through inter-library loan, but be prepared to wade through Wersin's highly technical tome--auf Deutsch.Valriejensen1 (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content in the article has been verified, sourced and improved for the purpose of clarification.Valriejensen1 (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been established: there are no sources independent of the proposer of the term; it is not used in English. Dicklyon (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, since the rectangles referenced have abundant sources in English and the German source for the 12 as a whole is verifiable, could the article remain until someone can prove the term orthogon is specific to Wersin and should not be used in a broader context? The information in the article is particularly useful (and valuable) to artists/designers/architects and is being taught in English--but that's not as easily verified.Valriejensen1 (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much more sensible to merge the meager sourced content (dropping the rest) with root rectangle into a new dynamic rectangle article. Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Actually I was going to say that notability is not an issue since a) there has been a lot of historiacal use of these orthogons and b) the word orthogon can be found in some dictionaries (as the one from the XIX century I found in google books). I was also going to say that since orthogon=rectangle, the merge was going to be tricky... However, Dicklyon's idea just nailed the situation. The 12 Wersin orthogons are Dynamic rectangles (some are both dynamic and static), which is a concept far far more researchable and verifiable. In consequence a Dynamic rectangle article with a Wering section would be the way to go.--20-dude (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already created the dynamic rectangle article, please don't move there anything from the orthogons article that doesn't have a reference (<ref></ref>). Let's built that article the right way.--20-dude (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you captured the sourced info OK, so I change my recommendation back to delete. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also change my recommendation to delete and also recommend to the creator of the article to source whatever he or she wants to move to the dynamic rectangle article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Quentin Tarantino . MBisanz talk 03:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vega Brothers[edit]

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Most of the salient data already exists on the Quentin Tarantino page. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to have been no more than an idea in Tarantino's head, and that looks less likely to change with each passing year. It's not something that requires it's own article, and indeed it's already covered at Quentin Tarantino. PC78 (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge I think projects that were seriously considered by one of the most famous directors are worth including. The article is sourced and a fine stub. Some film student or enthusiast may want to look up projects that Tarrantino wanted to do, but never finished. I see no harm in keeping it and some harm in deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect into Quentin Tarantino (Or delete, since some admins treat merge/redirect votes as "keep" for some reason.) THF (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Quentin Tarantino. Fails WP:FILM as just a concept for a film that he had at one point. Hardly deserving of it's own article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect I agree with User:ChildofMidnight about the importance of projects considered by a famous director being worth inclusion, specially when the article is both well written and well sourced and passes WP:GNG... but if somoene is looking up information on the projects (completed, proposed, or even just considered) of Quentin Tarantino, its to HIS article where they will likely first go. Deleting the information is not even a consideration. A merge to the director's article best serves Wiki and all Wiki readers, specially since adding the information that he has now re-considered making the film, could be as simple as expanding the existing 2 sentences in the Tarantino article to include the new and sourced informations in context to his other projects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Quentin Tarantino#Projects. While I agree that the projects considered by directors like QT are worth covering, I disagree that they require their own articles per WP:NFF. Most projects that do not enter production can be adequately summarized, such as in this case. More specifically, I would say to work in the Rolling Stone citation at my proposed redirected section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - hoax. TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khram[edit]

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

I'm working on the assumption that this is a hoax. Reasoning: no search results for Ringshall FC, the guys name or the guys pseudonym, Khram is a slang term for a dudes private parts and I highly doubt a player from an English football team born in Burkina Faso would be the subject of a documentary in the US. Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redwall (film)[edit]

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, virtually no information appears to be currently available; even the official website is just a placeholder. The sole content of the article appears to be assumptions about the movie's plot based on the book. At best this movie rates a brief mention at Redwall until enough sourced information is available to write an encyclopedic article. ~ mazca t|c 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. An empty website is admission of an utter lack of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if there's little information, the movie is real, and therefore notable. Filming doesn't have to begin before we create an article on the subject. Even movies that have been canceled can have their own article as long as it's notable. ScienceApe (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "real" is not the same as being "notable", and per WP:NFF filming is required to have commenced before we create an article. PC78 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Far too soon for an article on this film. Official website is merely a blank placeholder, and even the article states that "no further information is avalible at the time". PC78 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:USERFY... with respects to User:ScienceApe. Real or not, the article needs coverage. When it meets the guidelines for future film notability please bring it back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of coverage; if there are any details that surface about this planned film, they can be placed at a "Film adaptation" section at Redwall until production is verified to have begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killadi[edit]

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

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. Film never commenced shooting, despite a lot of press hoopla and launch parties. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House Full (film)[edit]

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

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. Film was said to begin shooting in Jan/Feb 2009, but the sources are from last summer and I've been able to find no new indications that confirm any shooting imminently. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost certainly the same film but in a different language, as Bollywood exists in a plethora af languages all demanding film. If the Telugu version gets its own article.... well, hope its not a one-souce stub.  :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Marasmusine (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godtower[edit]

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

No reliable sources to back up notability. It is an online puzzle similar to (though in my opinion less notable than) Notpron, which was deleted due to failure to establish notability. Paul_012 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Phi Mu[edit]

Delta Phi Mu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising, appears to be non-notable sorority, advertising/promotional tone of article, no independent sources for notability found. Cquan (after the beep...) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--no notability, and not a single meaningful hit. Google News has a couple of hits, but none of the ones I looked at are really independent and in-depth. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--I see no sense in deleting an article that is causing no harm. I don't quite understand the "lack of notability" argument for deleting articles either. FYI, I edited a link on this article a while ago, but that was just to help the page look better. The biggest "problem" with these small organizational articles is that many of these organizations do not have that great of a history or that much to write about. They have the right to at least have a blurb about them in Wikipedia.DPRVig (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Pi Rho[edit]

Delta Pi Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:DPRVig/DPR (edit | [[Talk:User:DPRVig/DPR|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fraternity, advertising/promotional tone of article, no independent sources for notability found. Declined speedy and also likely conflict of interest article creation by User:DPRVig. Also, if the result is delete, the user subpage User:DPRVig/DPR should be deleted as well (copy of the article). Cquan (after the beep...) 04:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--same reason as the Delta Phi Mu AfD review, above. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Considering we are a young and small chapter, I am quite aware of the fact that we are relatively unknown right now. That is actually a reason as to why I decided to make a Wikipedia article for us; to help get our name out. I don't see how anything I have written is all that advertising, as I have only written down facts. I would understand that argument better if I bad mouthed any other organizations or talked about how great I think we are. The fact is, as a small organization, we have few outlets where we can have people read about us. Also, note that I am the historian of my organization, so this does fall under my duties.DPRVig DPRVig (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notability established. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per article's author above: "The fact is, as a small organization, we have few outlets where we can have people read about us." Toddst1 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Toddst1. THF (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ORG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No substantive, independent reliable sources to be found. Fails WP:ORG. Deor (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Klingon culture#Gagh. MBisanz talk 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qagh[edit]

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

I am not at all a deletionist, but this article is an abomination. It has a horridly unencylopedic tone, cites nothing, and is apparently under the purview of no one - in the last two and a half years, we've had someone bolding the article title, tagging it, vandalizing it, reverting that vandalism, SmackBot dating the tag, me PROD'ing it, the PROD removed by an anon, and then this AFD. That's it, for the last 33 months. I'll gladly withdraw this AFD if someone can roll up their sleeves and make something out of this article (I've got a little bit of a Trekkie streak to me, so I know what this article refers to, and I think it's at least possible that the subject is suitable for Wikipedia and not just Memory Alpha), but right now this article is a mess. If nothing else, deleting it will turn what it functionally is (a gaping hole) into what it truly is. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 04:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've stubified this article, and although very short, it's now encyclopedic and sourced.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  04:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I'd still prefer to let this take its course, to see if there's consensus that this topic is suitable for Wikipedia (or, at least, for its own independent article). Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 05:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. A completely separate issue is whether or not this meets the general notability guidelines.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  05:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging information into a relevant article. Even after the cleanup and sourcing done, I don't see how the topic is notable enough to merit an article, though the information could possibly be added to another article. FaerieInGrey (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only existent article that seems remotely appropriate is List of Star Trek animals. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 06:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The only possible issue I see here would be notability. In my opinion, WP:DICTDEF does not apply as this stub has the potential to grow quite a bit---it can discuss the dozens of different types of qagh, how to prepare it, describe the sauce and how it poisons the worms, talk about this dish's importance to the Klingon culture and its popularity. It can also discuss ways of preparing qagh with ingredients available on Earth (i.e., without the serpent worms) etc. If it were to be merged, I think Klingon culture would be a better target than Klingon language.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real world significance or notability. Not every concept in the Star Trek universe get an article, just as not every concept in the real-life one does. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, otherwise merge and redirect to Klingon culture. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just happened to stumble across this by accident, after reading an almost duplicated section in the Klingon Culture article. All I can say here is... wow... I don't really think there's anything to say that isn't reflected in the nom. Unencyclopedic: Check. Horribly written: Check. Sasuke9031 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect to Klingon culture#Gagh. Deletion is unwarranted as this is a reasonable and likely search term. DHowell (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, then merge and redirect to the appropriate place in Klingon culture#Cuisine —G716 <T·C> 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Klingon culture#Cuisine. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure) LittleMountain5 22:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child Museum[edit]

Child Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Note -page moved to Child Museum of Cairo to accomodate others.

Unasserted notability. —La Pianista (T•C) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear dear Julian you should know better than this. Wiki is here to be expanded! A quick google check would have shown up a number of sources to assert its notability. When is this running to AFD before even asking the creator to try to at least expand it going to stop? Would somebody please kindly ask the creator to expand itin future before running to AFD please, its such a waste of time. I don't start articles on unencyclopedic or non notable subjects, people here should know this. Uliger another I created was also considered "non notable". I can't be expected to do all the work here, but I start them off as stubs in good faith that somebody will come along and expand it. Actually I'm not so bothered now as it prompted me to start another ten articles on museums, including Oman Children's Museum see Template:Museums in Oman!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly per CSD A1, like JC stated, but more because of WP:N.--TRUCO 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a couple of sources to the article, and the museum seems to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metro's edits and the fact that ghits show evidence that there is material available which can be added to show notability. No ghits don't confer notability but in this case the presence of info which establishes notability shows room for improvement of the article. StarM 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —StarM 06:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —StarM 06:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Thanks to Metropolitan90 for identifying it for us; the question must be, is this museum notable? Are there any distinguishing features that would set it apart from all the other museums in the world? If a consensus develops that the museum is not notable, it could be transwikied to Wikitravel. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think it has to be set apart from any other (children's) museum. It's my personal opinion, though I think it also meets WP:ORG, that museums generally generate significant attention/coverage to meet the notability threshold. Here we're also dealing with a museum in a non English speaking country, which presents further challenges StarM 07:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've been to some non-notable museums in my time, including a heavily promoted maritime museum that turned out to be a trailer with a 20 foot beach out back, so I wouldn't identify museums as generally notable; but if this is the nationally prominent museum it appears to be I'd say it makes the cut. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -obviously now asserts notability and is a worthy article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability clear. Including connection to Egyptian "first lady." Collect (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly sensible disambiguation page. Comment why is there no AfD notice on the disambig page? Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially with new edits and sources Frank AnchorTalk 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new version clearly asserts notability. SMSpivey (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a reasonable disambig page but is that the same page as other editors are commenting on - is this a malformed AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not an article, should be at WP:FFD. Thanks. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 03:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's Where You Take Me.jpg[edit]

That's Where You Take Me.jpg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Picture is a fake I made and put on internet and was placed here. Gimme46 (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seyminhol[edit]

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

Band has been tagged for non-notability for a year. No sources can be found beside the usual (metal) sites--nothing in print, nothing in the press, nothing on non-user contributed sources. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 06:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micki Free[edit]

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

nn musician Oo7565 (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...so you say. Keep: he won a Grammy in 1985 (Purple Rain--see Grammy search and there's plenty else in his biography to distill a nice article out of. (I'll grant that the article is a mess.) This musician is plenty notable; what he needs is an advocate on WP who rewrites the article. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Drmies meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 03:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: please have another look at the article; perhaps you'll consider withdrawing your nomination, after some cleanup and referencing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I withdraw the nomination sorryOo7565 (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Koura[edit]

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

Failing notability. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Hall (pub)[edit]

Trinity Hall (pub) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An Ireland-themed pub in Dallas, Texas, US. Fails WP:N. Kwekubo (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ameen Aziz[edit]

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

How to manual; not appropriate for wikipedia (see WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTHOWTO). Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Scholarship. MBisanz talk 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College Scholarship Penalty[edit]

College Scholarship Penalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is entirely original research (all references are primary sources) ElKevbo (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unless a reputable source provides commentary on this phenomenon, it's not wiki-worthy. Graymornings(talk) 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable issue and topic. Would probably be appropriate to merge to an appropriate target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ChildofMidnight; this stub is little more than an essay, but the concept ought to be somewhere in a comprehensive resource used often by college and high school students. Perhaps merge with Financial aid. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find reliable sources that have commented on this and/or used the term "college scholarship penalty to support the idea that this isn't OR or SYNTH? Graymornings(talk) 02:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on the scholarship and financial aid article talk pages. Hopefully we'll get some feedback. I don't know how much it's been covered or under what title. But I think it's worth looking into a bit, so I'm interested to see what others have to say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be an article here by somebody, but this one is all WP:OR and WP:NEO. Delete unless significantly improved. THF (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree with CoM and Bearian that the topic may well be notable and worthwhile, but a. the article is all OR and b. the title is not that apt. It can't be apt because it generates no hits at all (and I searched the archive for the Chronicle also). Under a different name, perhaps, but not this article. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In looking at this article, I was surprised to learn that Wikipedia doesn't have anything about the Higher Education Opportunity Act or HEOA, which is the "requirements of the federal government’s loan programs" that the original author was referring to. The act, and the DOE regulations that were authorized by it, are where the so-called penalty comes from. The article Commission on the Future of Higher Education mentions HEOA, but this bit of federal legislation has had an impact on students trying to afford college. I don't consider myself qualified to write an article about HEOA, but perhaps someone out there can do so. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or possibly userfy) It's possible that there is a notable topic here (notwithstanding the fact that other commenters here have not yet found evidence of notability). However, not only does this appear to be original research, but as currently written this is essentially a how-to guide or advice page -- something that Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, this article (like far too many articles on education topics) is totally U.S.-centric but fails to acknowledge that it deals with a US-specific topic. As written, the ideal disposition of this article would be for the contributor to publish it on his/her own website as a "how-to" piece, or contribute it to an advice website for US college applicants. Alternatively, with work, I can imagine it becoming an encyclopedia article some day in the future. Because it's not appropriate for article space in its present form, it should either be deleted or sent to the contributor's user space for additional work. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut to a paragraph and Merge to Scholarship or Financial aid. There's some issues with the tone and scope of the article, but we're pretty much in agreement that this is a real issue. That sounds like a reason to redirect to a broader topic and add a brief paragraph about the penalty issue with a source or two. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Article of a non-notable journalist. Coundnt find any reliable references. Keep only if anyone can provide them -- Tinu Cherian - 06:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : per nom -- Tinu Cherian - 16:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete :Mmm, a google search only seems to show of a British painter (1860-1921). It lacks decent sources and doesn't really assert his importance as a writer other than he had some publications in local newspapers. "Famous" is not a word I'd use and it is full of peacock words and POV. If more reliable sources could be found and the importance can be properly asserted then I'd support it, but by the looks of it seems a clear delete. The Bald One White cat 22:04, 9 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, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The peacock words and POV can be edited. This article has been written by me who has no experience of wikipedia and how to get references and from where. It will take time to collect the references. But none of the article is false. Solomon Joseph was famous for his social work among Malayalees in Bombay and his writings became controversial after his 1980 article on the connection between Mata Amritanandamayi and the thorium deposits in Kerala's soil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthomasin (talk • contribs) 04:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Well this is one reference that I could get hold of regarding Solomon Joseph... http://www.sunnynewsonline.com/aboutus.html Will have to search for more references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthomasin (talk • contribs) 05:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments  : Mthomasin, We need third party references regarding the notability and verifibility of this subject's notability.sunnynews is directly related to Solomon and cannot be treated as RS. If the subject is really notable, reliable and third party references should be easily accessible. Besides there is a strong COI with Solomon with the only contributor of the article. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Thanks Tinu...there are newspaper articles about Solomon Joseph's notability and verifiability in reputed main stream newspapers like the Times of India, Indian Express, Free Press journal etc. I will need some time to get some of these references and post them online. Thanks and regards...mathew--Mthomasin (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Please note that AFD are usually open for a week -- Tinu Cherian - 17:42, 15 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 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per WP:N --Tux the penguin (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since none of the sourced content in the article establishes notability. If Mthomasin wishes, it can be userified for few weeks, till appropriate sources are found that justify recreation. Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Stephens[edit]

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

non-notable comic strip artist Oo7565 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails wp:creative, wp:bio. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand: it's a stub. Jack and Jill was a notable British kid magazine. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am hard-pressed to believe that an artist working on two extremely long-running comics magazines cannot pass WP:N. As the magazines ended in the 80s, Google is a poor resource to use here - it will require resorting to (*gasp*) print. But it is very difficult to believe that this subject would not pass WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following Phil Sandifer. It looks like it has the potential to be a solid well-rounded article but will take time and effort. (Emperor (talk))
  • Weak Delete Sandifer has a point, but the speculation about the availability of reliable sources to write a good article does not to me equate to the existence of reliable sources with which to write a good article, and I have seen no evidence of such. THF (talk) 22:16, 17 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) 00:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English blogs in Mexico[edit]

English blogs in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It just appears to be a directory of external links, with no prose or explanation of what they have in common, other than they are Mexican blogs that are written in English. It strikes me as quite unmanageable and unnecessary. roleplayer 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopedic list of marginally related blogs. JJL (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please as a list with no purpose or content. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to fall squarely under WP:NOT#LINK. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof. FaerieInGrey (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a directory. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Hair (truck)[edit]

Wild Hair (truck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see how this individual truck is notable. There is no substantial coverage of reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N. Tavix (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC) keep who really cares if the article isn't within the wikipedia guidelines, it doesnt affect anything[reply]

*Delete - per WP:N.--Truco 02:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep found plenty of independent sources via Google TrekFanatic (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretions[edit]

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

Almost speedyable; I only brought it here because it's been up for awhile. I don't see any third-party sources providing evidence of WP:MUSIC notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:16, 13 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, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anurudh[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF - Article does no more than a dictionary does/should. Tavix (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It also lacks the proper context. (At least, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It's somehow related to Hindy deities, but the creator didn't start with a proper definition, perhaps a merge/redirect is in order? =- Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it as there really is any articles that would accept this kind of information. Tavix (talk) 23:41, 13 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, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Quentin Collection[edit]

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

Sources only cover opening of new stores, coverage is not substantial in any way. No non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sources already establish notability. Attempts to dismiss them as only covering the subject of the article are bizarre. WilyD 14:50, 13 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) 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Kildeer[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping center, sources are press releases or trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:00, 13 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) 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deerfield Square[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall. Only sources are Crain's Chicago and a primary source. No secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge / redirect back to Deerfield, Illinois. (BTW, the AfD notice on the page is malformed. It shows up as a redlink. I'd fix it myself but can't make sense of the template hash....) --Lockley (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try purging the server's cache next time by changing "action=edit" in the URL of the edit page to "action=purge" and hit the browser's "go" arrow. Does wonders. MuZemike 07:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easy enough to establish notability [36] + [37] + [38] + [39] and so on. No need for nonsense, this is not an unusual case. WilyD 14:54, 13 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) 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm finding plenty of coverage of the history of this center, in the Chicago Tribune. I would not discount that as "local coverage", and WP:N does not discourage the use of local sources, if they are substantial enough, to establish notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fecuop[edit]

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

This SPA created article does not appear to be notable. A quick Google search found few hits, with many being unrelated article's subject. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article appears to have been created by someone in the organization. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator left the following on my talk page. Seemed more relevant here.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami art has been thriving since the appearance of Art Basel Miami. Fecuop is one of the first art collaborative to emerge from this event. Fecuop is also a supporter of national and regional organizations such as Save Dade, Legalart and Globe Miami island

articles include:

http://www.robertchambers.com/NewTimesArtBurst.html http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2003-06-26/culture/art-by-district/ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_12_91/ai_111503867/pg_14 http://www.miamiartexchange.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=41 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_12_91/ai_111503867/pg_15 http://bestofmiami.biz/2005-08-11/culture/a-collaborative-canvas/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fecuop (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial (band)[edit]

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McDonnell[edit]

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

Self-created vanity article. This article is a re-creation of a previously speedied article. It fails notability. This subject has represented a few famous clients, but that's what lawyers do. He claimed to have written some books, but the source provided didn't support this. His claims that his cases have appeared on CourtTV are likewise not notable as this is true for many attorneys, and his claims to be a guest commentator on the show are also not supported and may not indicate notability even if true. Rklawton (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete., agree with all points raised above. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If his cases appeared on CourtTV that would make them possibly verifiable and if I understand the role of the guest commentator in that particular show, it would make him sort of a presenter of a notable tv program. I think at least that last one, might make him notable if it's verified. What makes attorneys notable anyway. I'd say high-profile cases (usually involving celebs) are an important part there. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celebs are in court all the time - and therefore in the news all the time. Therefore, not just any case should suffice. Rklawton (talk) 13:20, 13 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) 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar Danziger[edit]

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

Aritcle fails guidelines for notability of musicians, and lacks any real 3th party sources. The closest thing to a reference is s Jerusalem Post article which is about his immigration to Israel. That column is about everyday normal people who immigrate - not people who are notable for any other reason. The article make little claim to notability and says that he does not work full time as a musician. Jon513 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is a redirect Itamar danziger with nontrival history. Jon513 (talk) 09:28, 8 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) 00:04, 13 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, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources. Notinh in google books and only the one human interest story in google news. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mowat Express[edit]

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

Fails WP: Notability miserably, no verifiable references other than the pictures in the link provided. MrShamrock (talk) 09:14, 13 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) 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The Helpful One 17:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaws Project[edit]

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

Non-notable CMS/blog software Blowdart | talk 11:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was tagged as blanked by author, but is actually the result of a copy and paste move of Jaws (CMS) created by a different editor, which now redirects here). So let's discuss the merits of the software here under whichever title--Tikiwont (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Afz's edits were confusing. Actually we could have deleted it per G6 and fixed the move, which we still should do if the article is kept.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This suggests a little notability for this project; not just anything gets worked on as part of Google Summer of Code. Beyond this, though, all the sources I see are either routine new version announcements, or entries in databases that aim to be comprehensive. But maybe I'm missing some additional sources, as there certainly are a lot of hits for this one. JulesH (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaws_CMS not suitable name for jaws, because jaws is framework, the CMS is native and official product, that build by this framework —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afz (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this AfD is now about both.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:44, 14 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, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for apparent lack of reliable sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LeRoy Gardner III[edit]

LeRoy Gardner III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable amateur sportsman, not a record holder, no coverage beyond rankings. No reliable source covers him individually, just as part of a team or in ranking. Tried prod but article author removed without explanation or major editing. Cerejota (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability derived from records at United States National Wrestling Hall of Fame, Stillwater, OK. referenced in article proposed for deletion. [1] Substantiated notability derived from individual accomplishments referenced in article, from NCAA records at NCAA degree granting institution. [2] Prod removed when editing highlighted record holding status as first National Champion at weight category from specifically referenced NCAA institution. References #'s 9 and 10, 10 and 11 within article proposed for deletion are attributed to nationally distributed news media, recognizing individual accomplishments specifically.

suzzyuz (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"wrestlinghalloffame.org" link is a machine-generated database search for rankings, anyone who ranked has information in there: no claim of notability. Ref #9 is a primary source from the college website (go-knights.net), a primary source. and Ref #10 is NCAA News, also a primary source. I see no "nationally distributed news media" secondary sources specifically verifying notability. All of the sources used are either short notes among a sea of reports, or rankings. None are singly concentrated on LeRoy Gardner or discuss him at length. --Cerejota (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"wrestlinghalloffame.org" link is the codified results of all Unites States National Governing Body amateur wrestling championships, the only records contained therein are records, not rankings of National Championship winning athletes and/or coaches. Additional references (numeration was changed due to editing per Cerejota's input), including NCAA News "http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=135" are of national distribution through the governing body of all collegiate level athletics in the United States of America which is the National Collegiate Wrestling Athletic Association, whose article specifically references only him and accomplishments therein; Wrestling USA Magazine "http://www.wrestlingusa.com/" is of national distribution covering amateur wrestling within the United States of America. All of the results indicated and referenced are specific championships or placings earned, none are of "rankings". ---suzzyuz (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources, including Wrestling USA Magazine (the only thing approaching reliable source in the references), reference LeRoy specifically as singly notable: giving the results of a match is not notability. Just because your picture is in the media doesn't mean you ar enotable enough for a wikipedia article. Again, the "wrestling hall of fame" link is not even an article, it is a machine generated search of a database. These are not reliable secondary sources. There is no sourcing that claims notability. Since this is an amateur sportsman, I see no reasons why we should keep. --Cerejota (talk) 13:22, 14 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, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. G7. Author requests deletion, admits its only a rumour and no substantial contributions by others. StarM 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 WINTER SMTOWN - So Shine[edit]

2008 WINTER SMTOWN - So Shine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This album was never released. All results from Google and other online stores point to this being an album that was never released or that it was a rumour. Pandacomics (talk) 22:03, 13 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, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even the page creator believes the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon-sunrise (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, unsourced and likely an incorrect rumour; per Moon-sunrise's comment above it seems distinctly unlikely that this is a salvageable article about a real release. ~ mazca t|c 13:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Afterburner (truck)[edit]

Air Force Afterburner (truck) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual monster trucks generally aren't notable. I don't see this truck as an exception as it lacks reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N Tavix (talk) 23:51, 13 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, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hogvillian (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.wrestlinghalloffame.org/wrestlers.php?wrestler=11885
  2. ^ http://www.go-knights.net/wrestling/nattourn.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_18&oldid=1081071445"