Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Wheel[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: It has been here since 2005... Why wouldn't of this been deleted earlier? K50 Dude ROCKS! 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one bothered to or thought that it was notable. Just because it existed since 2005 doesn't mean that it is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The author appears very highly notable, and from the material in his article in would appear this book is also. Needs expansion, with reviews and the like. Many of the older articles of science fiction were written here essentially on the basis of personal knowledge, and now need upgrading. DGG (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elite (computer game). The inclusion of a sci-fi novella with a video game is a fascinating quirk of the early PC video game era. This content fits perfectly well as a section of the main Elite article. —Noah
Strong keep. I've just added a reference that shows that this was the first time a novella was distributed with a computer game, which surely makes this a notable work of fiction. JulesH (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:33, 9 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 Bariatrics. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical weight loss[edit]

This request has been blanked as a courtesy

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot G-2 mini[edit]

Describes in detail a decidedly unimportant variant of a single pen product from Pilot. Dcoetzee 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails notability. Seems like an ad. We don't have an article on the Pilot G-2 either, which I don't think is notable either. Danski14^(talk) 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. This is obviously non-notable -- come on, it's a pen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumobserver (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: n/n on its own. Merge into Pilot (pen company). --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 in my book. It is a pen and the Pilot G-2 doesn't exist either. And if it's kept (hopefully it won't be), it needs to be really wikified and expanded. K50 Dude ROCKS! 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WLMGP[edit]

Discusses a peculiar chain e-mail related to the font color in Windows Live Messenger. Of limited reach ("500 people" it claims) and unlikely to have any long-term significance. Dcoetzee 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non-notable internet phenomena : no independent references or coverage by media. Danski14^(talk) 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already wiped. seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John List (disambiguation)[edit]

Unnecessary dab. Only two names, can be handled with a hatnote in each article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Robinson[edit]

Only notable for appearing in a video. No other sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not notable.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established in any way. DiverseMentality 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not meet the general notability guideline. Canniba loki 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 9 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 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin koromete[edit]

The person exists, but there appears to be very little material available about him online. The sites www.utnz.org.nz (currently down) and www.homerescue.org.nz appear to be controlled by him or his organisation. If he was instrumental in the challenge to the Seabed and Foreshore legislation as claimed, there should be a lot more material available on him. Delete gadfium 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find material justifying this article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, no results from the NZ Herald or Stuff websites, one trivial mention from NZLII. XLerate (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Collectively, his activities seem to hint at notability, possibly as an activist. But there is still insufficient coverage in secondary sources, for either "Quentin Koromete" or "Quentin Goldsmith", to meet notability guidelines for a Wikipedia biography. Unless greater coverage on his activities emerges, the article should probably be deleted. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP/WP:N requirements not met from the article sources. Searches online have turned up zip and, as User:gadfium notes, the claims made would have reasonably been expected to generate some. As a suggestion though, the author may instead consider whether the organisation that Koromete is involved with has the required notability (with necessary sources etc) for an article, rather than focussing on an individual. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry (Family Guy)[edit]

A Family Guy character so non-notable that he's never actually appeared on the show.

Another minor Family Guy who has only appeared in one episode. Consensus on Talk:List of characters in Family Guy is that single episode characters aren't notable for inclusion in List of characters in Family Guy, let alone their own article.

TheMile (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, absolutely no hope of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both who cares. JuJube (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perfect example of non-notable. ReverendG (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giggity Giggity Delete Non-notable, just non-notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but some comments first. To start, I do not see how one can say "no hope of sources" until one has examined every possible review & discussion of the series. Then, I think that every individual named character with a spoken part in a notable series is appropriate for a sentence in a combination article. But this depends on consensus, and, examining the talk page, I do not see the least consensus that such characters should be removed. In fact, examining the discussion in the talk p. Archive, I see that the point was never raised --except to say that there should be a separate list of one time characters. The discussion seemed to be more about which one time characters should not be in the main list of recurring characters & I think reached sensible guidelines about that. I suggest the nom re-read the discussion,; I'll assume he is making the common mistake of thinking that the established consensus happens to be the way he would like it to be personally. I read it as saying that most actual one time characters not in single cutaway gags do get mentioned.

That said, this character does not appear in the show, but is just referred to. It's not even a non-speaking character, it's a non-appearing character. That is below any possible inclusion outside of a fan wiki. This might well have been said explicitly, but I don't see how anyone could actually disagree. There is a limit to what should even be mentioned, and this is outside it. DGG (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and DGG. Tavix (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DGG said it all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of characters article. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: An interesting side note; this AFD is longer than both the articles put together ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No usable content, and not needed at this time. Can be recreated if necessary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 9 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 KnightLago (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jobtac[edit]

Advert for recently created recruitment system. Written by user:Jobtac. -- Sgroupace (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since being tagged, the article has been rewritten in a less promotional style, but there is a clear COI and no evidence that the subject is notable - which is anyway unlikely as it was only launched this month. Wikipedia is not here to promote new businesses. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that COI and POV are not reasons for deletion in themselves; an article written with a clear COI but which meets notability guidelines would be rewritten and de-POVed, rather than exterminated! haz (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; but COI is worth commenting on, as it causes one to look more critically at the evidence for notability. JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There ought to be a rule that a business has to last two or three months before it has a shot at being notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - neither evidence nor assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as failing WP:ORG. (Although Orangemike's tagged for SD anyway, so adding this comment may prove to have been an exercise in futility...) haz (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I tagged it, but did not delete it, in an effort to respect consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaman Kyle[edit]

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

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

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

Subject does not seem to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Only defining characteristics are amnesia and a single appearance on Dr. Phil. Goodnightmush^Talk 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty unusual to me. He has the defining characteristic of being unidentifiable, yet still alive and well. Shadowblade (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting enough to me as well for the same reasons, I read the whole article and would like to see more. --Tsaylor (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above two replies. This is a very interesting person who I would like to know a lot more about. --Kenjamin80 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to be WP:BLP1E but I could be wrong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the very least, it needs to be cleaned up. Where did the picture with this caption comes from? "Beard darkened - how Benjaman may have looked in prior years" I could be wrong, but it seems to me that at least one editor is using this article as a joke. Rm999 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Discovery blog [1] via Google cache as it appeared on 3 Jan 2009 20:58:0 [2] "Round and round we went and Project EDAN ended up doing an age regression for the case upon request of Dr Phil. Two artists created a variety of age regressed images to various ages -- both hand sketched and digital". One square on the chessboard (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Rm999 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple other articles on this guy... http://savannahnow.com/node/364434 http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=104800 Let's leave this page up in the hopes that it helps someone recognize him. AngledLuffa
Must not be deleted ! This could be the man's only hope of reuniting with his real life !! Whoever suggested the deletion must be a truly cruel hearted person. Is this what wikipedia has become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk)

Wikipedia isn't meant to promote anyone or anything. We're not being cruel at all; he just doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. And please don't attack other editors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of far less interesting or relevant personal biographies on Wikipedia. Why not give this one a chance for a while longer? --Uyvsdi —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

For what it's worth, there's a high probability that this is a fraud. True amnesics almost invariably lose recent memory and retain remote memory. The opposite pattern (as claimed here) is hardly ever seen outside TV shows. Note the absence of any reliable sources here. Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reliable source, The Augusta Chronicle [3]. One square on the chessboard (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and TV shows have been following his story for quite some time and no mention of fraud has come up. After three years, if it was just a hoax, it would certainly be found out by now. --Uyvsdi —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Since he has been featured on secondary media sources, he should meet notability guidelines. FunkyDuffy (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference "Augusta Chronicle, Tuesday, September 25, 2007: Man with no memory tries to start new life" has been added to the article. One square on the chessboard (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Do not delete.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment: For what it's worth it appears The Discovery Channel blogged about this after the Dr.Phil appearance. Original blog is down so here is the google cache. http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:vIONIRGc-A4J:blogs.discovery.com/sleuth_truth/2008/08/to-be-or-not-to.html AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stong delete - does not meet notability guidelines and has iffy "truthiness" @ best. Fluppy (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this man is notable for being in need of the internet's help. Gordonjay (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I remember reading about this man in a weekly I buy. There may be more work needed in citing sources, but that doesn't mean the subject doesn't conform to WP:BIO. ephix (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. May need more sources, but still notable. --Vicovico (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, and it's too much like invading this guy's privacy: He's barely a public figure, assuming he is one at all, and here we have an article about some very difficult times in his life with only the barest fig leaf of external sources, none of them very good. --chbarts (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It showed up on reddit! Hurry, we have to delete this article!" God, is that what an admin really does? Try to keep a good PR image for Wikipedia? Geez, go expand an article or something, or at least give up your tools if all you're going to do is come back every once in a while to 'revert' someone every other week rather than make even the slightest attempt to expand an 'encyclopedia'. Probably too busy spending time on reddit. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Fail to see how this is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Subject meets all these criteria. 1. It is significant enough to warrant relatively broad media coverage. 2. It is interesting to many people (thats why the guy was on Dr. Phil: Because people are interested, and it would not tank ratings.) and, 3. It is unusual. Come on, let's face it: how often do you hear about a guy waking up naked in the streets, claiming not to know anything anymore. So far, this only happened in 12 Monkeys and Terminator. That's right - unusual enough to make it as significant plot device in several major motion pictures. (this comment is only partly tongue in cheek - truth is, this is unusual to many people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijnd (talk • contribs) 06:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable, as evidenced by his appearance on national television and the newspaper/magazine articles about him. Additionally, the case is unusual and interesting as an example of Retrograde amnesia. LK (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems sufficiently notable to me. ShardPhoenix (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned up the article some, and the 5 sources currently on the page establish notability in my book. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:BIO as per sources given in the article. The only possible reason I could see someone arguing for deletion that has not been brought up some possible risk of harm by having an article but that's clearly not the case in this situation (quite the opposite in fact). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish family law[edit]

Also nominating:

Delete until there is something there. This is a non-article posing as an article; if this is a keeper, we should have a bot creating these for the 200-odd countries, and the thousands of subdivisions that have law-making powers, and then create "family law", "property law", "criminal law", etc., and each possible combination of jurisdiction and type of law each saying that "Fooian XYZ law governs XYZ in Foo." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scots administrative law, Scots contract law, and Scots civil procedure, all created by the same editor, are equally bereft of information. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I've nominated them as well, along with another one I came across. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the ed. to expand Why was not the editor notified? In a case like this, where it appears an article was intend but not actually started, it would appear not merely polite, but the obvious way to try to improve the encyclopedia. This is especially true as he's an experienced editor with a two-year history of contributing a long series of articles on legal topics User:Wikidea#Contributions, included at least one Featured Article, Law. Carlossuarez, this is an especially egregious case where it was really rude--not Biting the newbies, but showing discourtesy and lack of respect for the regulars. Not just a question of notifying about the deletion,which is rude enough, but of not attempting to communicate your concerns about the problem before placing the AfD. Uncle G, too, if you think it's a chronic problem why didn't you discuss it with him? But I don't think it's a problem at all: on his user page he says he starts by writing stubs and filling them out--and he certain does fill them out splendidly! His work is to be encouraged, not deprecated. DGG (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you don't believe that WP:AGF applies to you. I don't post notifications to authors; it's not required and it seems like vote-seeking. Articles I have created have also been nominated for deletion without my being notified. Do I express indignation and call out anyone's egregiousness. No, I understand the rules of the process and assume good faith. You, don't, apparently. If you and the community think that articles of the ilk "Fooian XYZ law governs XYZ in Foo" is an OK stub, then we should and shall have more of them, since they seem to be what we want, they'll hardly be disruptive, now. Get over it, as other editors have expressed these are NON-articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This non-notification shows why it ought to be required, and shall certainly be used an argument for changing the guideline. How anyone can think it respectful of editor not to notify them when their articles are being listed for deletion escapes me. Even if you think that editors do not deserve respect as individuals, surely you do realize that inadequate articles are improvable, and the original editor is in a good position to improve them. The rule of the project is to seek alternatives to deletion, and the best alternative of all is an improved article. I've responded to some other aspects on my talk page. DGG (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change policy, this is hardly the place to do so; notification is a strawman as the author has chimed in and !voted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Editing can be terribly intimidating to new users, especially creating new articles. A stub, especially one that has all the bells and whistles such as this, invites the uninitiated to start editing because there is something there to edit. —Noah 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DELETION states that articles that can be improved by editing should be so improved in preference to deletion. Articles on these subjects should clearly be included in wikipedia. Therefore it is no-brainer to keep these articles to allow time for them to be improved. JulesH (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sorry I didn't expand anything, but you can see the template I created:

... and the articles were for that. The point is, so long as there's something there, someone hopefully will do something. Problem is, I'm not versed in Scots law. Perhaps you could post a message on the Scottish Wikiproject? It's not like there's a lack of hard drive space, anyway, is it? I understood that articles should be deleted when they never would be significant, etc: and of course these are all important subjects. I'll paste some extra material in some of them from Scots law for the sake of it, and provide some links. But you're just being a pain in the arse if you delete, because one day they'll be created again! Wik idea 10:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is obviously worthy. This is a non-article that essentially says that Scottish family law is the family law of Scotland - no shit, Sherlock! The rationale of the nominator seems flawed; the family law of Tonga is also a worthy subject, awaiting someone who has access to the appropriate sources to write one.

As an article that contains little more than a noninformative sentence and a template, it would appear to fall under several categories for speedy deletion. The question seems to boil down to whether a redlink to an encyclopedia subject is more encouraging to editors who want to start a new article there than a blue link to an empty article waiting to be filled. I think the redlink is the better option. A bluelink suggests that the rudiments of a subject have already been addressed, and here they have not been. The template looks fine and dandy. But if there are gaps in our coverage of these subjects, it should be obvious from looking at it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Scots law The template created seems to be informative but this is not an article as currently constructed, it is not even a stub. It gives no indication as to what the article is about (or potentially will be about). If the editor can add even one or two sentences as to what the content of this article should be. If not, a user on wikipedia that searches for "Scottish family law" would be better served finding no article and perhaps spotting Scots law in the search results. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is premature. The subject is worthy of a full article; if it is properly expanded, it would be too much to include in the more general article on Scots law. Scottish lawyers very innovative and two-hundred-year old Scottish precedent is still relied upon today in U.S. and U.K. courts; I think this article would be a great way to give more historical detail. Further, I trust the author who created it will certainly provide valuable copy if given time, and I believe others will join. If it languishes for a longer time, I would reconsider, but I think these AfDs are premature. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability: these articles could qualify for speedy deletion. jmcw (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

considering that every individual legislative Act is capable of being a base for an article, and every individual case that goes before a court of final appellate jurisdiction, it seems a little nonsensical to say that at general article on a whole subject of law of any national system is non notable. Anyway, speedy as non notable does not apply except to people, groups, and web content. One of the reasons it is limited is to prevent its misuse in situtions like this.) DGG (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article might be salvagable a one liner that says nothing isn't. If you think all appellate cases are worthy of articles, you'd abide the creation and retention of thousands of Paintiff vs. Defendant articles where the entire text is "Plaintiff vs. Defendant is a case where plaintiff sued defendant." That'll get us to the next million articles quickly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said not "appellate cases", but "final appellate jurisdiction", i.e. the US Supreme Court or the UK House of Lords. Such articles have been once in a while challenged here, but always or almost always upheld. For the US Supreme court ones at least, they are PD, so a bot could extract the introductory paragraphs & then they wouldnt be empty. As for US State Supreme courts, or the US Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals or the UK Court of Appeal, I think in practice one ought to show some particular notability. . DGG (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some and delete some. Scottish family law and Scots property law are fairly unique and notable - Scotland is the birthplace of common law marriage and the feu respectively. These are two very important concepts in the common law system used today in virtually every English speaking country including the United States. While many, if not most, state laws no longer use common law marriage, the historical background is useful for college students doing research. So those must be kept. Per Uncle G and Carlossuarez46 above, I'm not so sure of Scots administrative law, Scots contract law, and Scots civil procedure, which can be deleted if need be. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have added tags and information in the ledes to establish notability, and tags on the talk pages, for Scottish family law and Scots property law. I'm not making an effort to save the other three dicdefs. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst these are more placeholders than articles, one could argue that they serve the purpose of allowing contributions by unregistered editors to topics that we ought to cover but currently do not. Since anonymous page creation is disabled, I think that a necessary condition of deletion of placeholder articles ought to be that the topic is not notable enough for future coverage. In this specific case the topic appears to warrant an article and thus this stub should be kept; the same may not be true of other similar articles. CIreland (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scots property law and Scots contract law, as both now contain significant amounts of content worth keeping; redirect the other three to Scots law. All these subjects are (potentially) worthy of their own articles, but the sub-stub ones would be better served by redirects for the time being until someone is willing to write them. Terraxos (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a stub. There are adequate sources on the subject as twenty seconds with Google would confirm. We don't delete stubs, we expand them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scottish family law and Scots property law now. Enough non-obvious information has been added to these articles to make it a slight but valid stub. Question: some of these articles are about Scottish law and others about Scots law. Is there a reason for this that I'm not grasping? or should they be standardized with redirects? My personal preference is for Scottish if it relates to Scotland generally, as law articles probably do; and to keep Scots only for subjects that relate to the Scots language. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that the nominator fundamentally misunderstands the AFD process. We are not here to pass judgement on the quality of any article as it currently exists. We are here to asses if the topic the article aims to cover is notable enough to merit an article. Is it an encyclopaedic topic? The answer is a crystal clear yes. There are textbooks and learnèd papers on this topic. Just because Trinidad & Tobago family law does not have a Wikipedia article is utterly irrelevant (be WP:BOLD and create one if you like). If Jordanhill railway station (a trivial topic in my opinion) deserves a Wikipedia article, then Scottish family law most certainly does. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fairness to the nominator, at least some measure of quality or at least pertinence is indeed taken into account, and the original versions of these articles may well have failed them. It's easy to imagine articles on encyclopedic subjects that would qualify for speedy deletion. (Albert Einstein was a German professor with funny hair and a big mustache.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scots law is a peculiar and very interesting subject. The articles are encyclopedic, and at worst need to be improved. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 11 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. No redirect until more is known. When/if released, the article can be recreated. Tone 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me Myself & Mary[edit]

Fails WP:NM and WP:V, no sources backing up release of album. DiverseMentality 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirect to Mary J. Blige. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have, but because the title hasn't been verified, I didn't. DiverseMentality 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:46, 10 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. Tone 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jid sames[edit]

Delete not notable Mayalld (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. I was prodding as this was nominated, please consider prodding in future. — neuro^(talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs) 13:51, January 7, 2009

David L. Adams (Game Developer)[edit]

Delete nn bio Mayalld (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO, could have just been prodded though. — neuro^(talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore me, failed miserably at searching. — neuro^(talk) 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Adams is a game developer who has published one game, founder of 3 game companies, one of which is currently producing 2 major titles (Warhammer 40k Online, and Darksiders). Granted he's lesser known, but he is significant, IMO. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst people should know that Google hits are not a good way to measure notability a search (and another) reveal little correlation or evidence of notability. — neuro^(talk) 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - this, this, and this however do yield significant results. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crush! Deluxe his first title is a "top dog" on the underdogs. Trade Wars while never released generated lots of interest. --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does seem to be more of a biography than an encylopaedia entry Astral highway (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious, isn't biography part of an encyclopedia? --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- David Adams (businessman) is "encyclopedia" worthy, why not David L. Adams (Game Developer)? --Thabin (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I get roughly 1500 hits that somehow correlate David Adams with Vigil Games, the studio he partly founded. There are five articles at Gamasutra alone. I'm sure there's enough info spread around those links to scrabble together an article. I think that qualifies as "significant coverage". SharkD (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I very rarely get inclusionist tendencies, but frankly, this nomination is ridiculously quick. The article was created by an inexperienced editor on 6 January at 21:57. At 21:59, the article's second edit, it has been nominated for deletion with a rationale of two abbreviations. Do we have no tolerance for stub articles any more? Articles rarely start out at a high quality. To me, this represents a shocking breakdown in assuming good faith (in a different sense than the usual one of slinging insults at each other), the article has not been given any time whatsoever to develop. I'd say don't demolish the house whilst its being built, but this is more akin to taking potshots at the builders as they arrive to lay the foundations. -- Sabre (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just started putting the article together, when it got marked for deletion ... should I continue it, or wait for the decision on if its going to be deleted before finishing it?--Thabin (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd continue editing. If you can improve the article by fleshing it out a bit more and adding a rough list of references, it helps strenthen its position in this AfD. SharkD's links should give some sources to help give some more meat on the bones. -- Sabre (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Seems to be notable for me, plus the original nominator should take a gander at WP:BITE. This article deserves a chance and after looking at the various links posted here I can see there should be enough referable information to put together a short but solid article. In it's current state its very weak but I'd say give it a week to develop and you'll have something that should fail an AfD. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Give the article a chance. The sources are there; let the author improve it. MuZemike (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Warhammer 40K Online gets off the ground, it has the potential to be a major game worldwide (based on the interest generated by Warhammer Online). Developers of such games often have detailed WP articles. Deleting this stub before it has a chance to get off the ground would seem at best premature. Basie (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"IF" we work on what is, not on what might be Mayalld (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaping up nicely. I'm switching to a keep nomination on this new evidenceAstral highway (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gloryhunter[edit]

This has been tagged as a hoax: I don't think it's that, but I don't think it's notable either. The guy decided to pick a football team at random and support them till they lost a game, when he would transfer his loyalty to the winners. That's all. Sources are two blogs and Facebook; from the first blog it seems he has hopes of selling a book about his "epic journey". Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might not be a hoax, but not notable in any case. Looie496 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly not notable.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This certainly isn't a hoax but at the moment this subject just isn't notable, it's just a football blog. However, according to the ITV website a book is being released at the end of the season, so MAYBE this subject will become notable in the future. Maybe... Bettia (rawr!) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Appears to be self created page looking at author name and contributions, bit WP:ONEEVENTish, unlikely to stand the test of time per Notability is not temporary. Another case of 15 minutes of fame. --ClubOranje^Talk 11:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently non-notable. However, if a book is published, TV show made etc., IN THE FUTURE then it could be notable THEN. Giant Snowman 12:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the problem is sourcing, I'm pretty sure I've seen an article on this on FourFourTwo. I reckon I still have that issue and will try to bring more details. Unsure if it is considered enough to warrant notability here or if we should wait for other publications, if and when they arrive. Kaizeler (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe if we'd heard something about his quest other than the original news article and his blog... You just can't force something to become notable. It either is or it isn't. GreyWyvern (talk) 15:01, 9 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. Tone 14:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malina Dimitrova[edit]

This person fails to meet wikipedia's notability requirements. Extensive searches for references varifying the contents of this article have yielded nothing. The article was created by the subject's son (a user now blocked from editing the encyclopedia) and therefore COI does play a factor here. Nrswanson (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too have searched extensively and found nothing. Her main career appears to have been as a répétiteur (vocal coach) and accompanist for opera rehearsals. As such she would only be notable if someone has actually written about her in that respect. The author of the article claims that she was an accompanist for various recordings, but again, it's unclear whether this meant coaching and rehearsing the singers for the recordings or actually performing on them. I can find no evidence of recordings where she is credited. The author has been repeatedly asked for at least the dates and places of any of her public performances, broadcasts etc. but has failed to supply them. A brief section about her could be added to the article on her husband, Stefan Dimitrov, who is notable. But given the complete lack of evidence for her independent notability, this should be deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Bulgaria and WikiProject Opera. - Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In fact, no need to create a redirect since this is an improbable search term Tone 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars 2003–2008[edit]

Redundant to List of wars 2003–current TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to List of wars 2003–current.Gandygatt (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just try redirecting the article to the target? Protonk (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a good idea--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant fork of existing pages on current wars. User:Jersay, the page's creator, has been making widespread unilateral unsourced edits to pages about contemporary warfare, and does not respond to civil approaches to discuss these changes before making them. This is a particularly obvious example. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars 2009–current[edit]

Redundant to List of wars 2003–current. No need for splitting, maybe after 2023 :) TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant fork of existing pages on current wars. User:Jersay, the page's creator, has been making widespread unilateral unsourced edits to pages about contemporary warfare, and does not respond to civil approaches to discuss these changes before making them. This is a particularly obvious example. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't even correct. The current Gaza War started a bit before 2009 ;) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reasons above. --121.72.177.241 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Legend[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This poorly written thing is barely a stub. Shoester (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sub-stub on film by non-notable company. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP... no independent notability established. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable and it should be deleted.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, and I recommend that you bold "deleted" in your message. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with the nom. If/when this film is released and gets coverage of some sort... maybe then. But as of now? No way to source notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro DasCola[edit]

Delete. Non notable kickboxer (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, unless additional reliable sources can be found. The subject doesn't appear to be notable. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any sources to establish notability. - FlyingToaster 11:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. --Know zilla 14:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shoester (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:01, 9 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 the number of users on each side of the debate is roughly equal, the delete opinions are stronger and more refer to Wikipedia policies. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescentilism[edit]

Essentially a dictionary-like disambiguation to articles that are sometimes incorrectly referred to by that name, at least according to the present state. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's disambiguation with use. There's nothing wrong with "dictionary-like" information to help a disambig page make more sense. Even if the second is incorrect usage, the fact that anyone uses it that way still means the distinction is needed. Shoester (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the word does not appear in either of the articles referenced. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--No harm is done by keeping this disambiguation page. It may be helpful for somebody searching for the term. --Jmundo (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No harm, but no use - it won't help someone searching for the term, because neither of the articles it points to mentions it. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above: WP:NOHARM. Per wikipedia policies: WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:V, WP:N. Put in Define:adolescentilism into google: no hits (that means nothing on a prominent dictionary, or better yet: NOT A WORD.), WP:MADEUP. Furthermore, there's WP:DICTDEF. Wikipedia is not a spellchecker, the search feature already looks for similar words. (~~coincidentally, how do you tag a article on wikitionary on a word that doesn't exist?~~figured it out) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term may not appear on a prominent dictionary but the word does exist: Google Books.--Jmundo (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it does exist. But it doesn't exist in either target article, so each of the "disambiguation" links should not point to an article. That would make it a dictdef without pointers, which is exactly what I said it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, disambiguation with some use. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly Redirect to ageplay (as an alternate spelling?). Disambiguation page with no use. No mention of term on Ephebophilia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayatullah Khan Durrani[edit]

incorrectly listed, deletion requested by User:Jasy jatere Jac16888 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani caver who runs a cave exploration company.

"Cave exploration Adventure Sports in Pakistan and pioneer of the Mountaineering, Rowing / Canoeing / Kayaking & Sailing Sports in Balochistan."

Also organised some walks and hoists flags on national holidays. That does not seem notable in itself. On the other hand

On 14th August 2005, in recognition of his life long services to Caving, Mountain Adventure and water Sports in Pakistan, the honorable President Islamic Republic of Pakistan, conferred "President's Award for Pride of Performance" on him."

Does anyone have an idea of the quality of this award? Does that confer him notability, or is it a run-of-the-mill award?Jasy jatere (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See our article Pride of Performance". Hard to find a reliable source for him getting it though. dougweller (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

after reading about the award, I think he should be notable because of that. If a reliable source can be given, I will withdraw the AfD. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may be what is required for the article - [4] Paste ^Talk 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. That should do it. This seems formatted wrong, by the way. I let Twinkle do it for me. dougweller (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Shoester (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gch government colleges hostel[edit]

Completing unfinished nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. (See No.4 in the List of bad article ideas). JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JohnCD. - Power.corrupts (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. While several hostels are notable as landmarks, curiousities, etc., this is not one of them. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reason as given by Bearian.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is an unwanted duplicate of Government Colleges Hostel, Mumbai. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of malls in Pennsylvania[edit]

Delete, we have a category that adequately covers the subject; this rather poor start of an article illustrates the fundamental unmaintainability of the undertaking. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I've said it before, and it appears I have to say it again: being redundant to a category is not a reason for deletion. This list can be expanded within reason, and it can certainly be sourced. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are other lists that overlap the categories, such as Shopping malls in New Jersey and List of shopping malls in Michigan. I can help to expand and source the list; it is maintainable and verifiable, and being redundant to a category is not a reason for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists can be redundant to categories. Some things could be cats only and some lists only, but more reason is needed to cut one or the other. Not every mall deserves its own Wikipedia article, but could be worth including in this list. Shoester (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a sale at Penney's? Oh, Keep Seriously, as per the previous comments -- redundancy is not synonymous with non-notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a category can only contain articles about notable malls while this list can hold information about all of the shopping centers in the Keystone state, the existence of a category is not a valid reason to delete a list, and there were steps that should have been taken per WP:FIRST before this was brought to AfD just one week after it was created. - Dravecky (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve noon[edit]

Unreleased independent film. No sources, or claim to notability. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFF; nothing on IMDb. There is a film called "Twelve Noon Sharp" said to be "in development", but no detail, certainly not enough for an article, even if that is what is meant. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If nothing else, WP:CRYSTAL applies. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability. Also CRYSTAL, as above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Films can't be speedied. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregorB (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits: DisneyMania 7[edit]

Unsourced future album fails WP:MUSIC. At least three prior articles have existed (and been deleted) claiming to be DisneyMania 7. Unable to verify if this tracklist is the same, so I don't feel comfortable personally adding a speedy tag. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These albums don't usually come out until July. We've had too many problems with false Disneymania album articles, and this is no exception. No sources and likely incorrect track list and artists. Nate • (chatter) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 9 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. Tone 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin phrases (A–E)[edit]

Delete these articles are vestiges of a prior scheme of breaking down the rather large list, and are neither useful nor likely search terms (any more than A-D or A-F, which won't be found) - the problem with G6-ing these as ought to be done is that many articles have links to these clugey titles and a bot should clean those up, which can happen after deletion. Note: I am not proposing the deletion of any lists themselves, the community has already spoken to keep them, I am just trying to get rid of these non-useful "dab" pages Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Shoester (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki I think to WikiQuote... maybe Wiktionary, probably wikiquote. I think they took all the proverbs... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand--they can most of them reasonably have an article here--there is enough to say in almost all cases. This is a good guide to the ones that need to be written. All of them are phrases one might well wish to browse, and browsing is enough of a justification for a list. DGG (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand this comment. The nominated pages are dab-only, and do not contain any actual phrases. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, though who's going to take care of fixing the incoming links? DGG and the IP must not have looked at the actual articles that are proposed for deletion. The pages with the latin phrases themselves are not up for deletion, just these three disambiguation pages. Jfire (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone apparently made an ad hoc decision to split each of these lists into two sub-lists, since they got big. So, we should go through the pro forma process and delete these articles, which are basically supersets of the now split-off lists. We'll also need to clean up any incoming links to these lists, as well, and there are several. Caveat emptor. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this link page as per nom. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete these disambig pages but keep the pages with phrases in. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these useless dab pages per nominator. Of course this doesn't include the pages with the actual phrases on them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cludgy stuff, I just stumbled on it while searching for a phrase, and it only managed to confuse me and slow me. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:05, 9 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 as a copyvio. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RIngitone[edit]

Article is a description of possibly nonexistant musical genre. Seems more like a report than an encyclopedia article. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio. It's here amongst many other places, but it looks lie it is a cut and paste from a newspaper article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio. Shoester (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per above. ReverendG (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete, per statement above. Canniba loki 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, so tagged.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 9 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W.H. Morden Public School[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this school is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district: Halton District School Board as is customary. meshach (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per custom. Redfarmer (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halton District School Board - why are we here? TerriersFan (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Shoester (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Riderect as cited above--Ped Admi (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Unforgiving Poem[edit]

Delete unref'd article about a poem by redlink author with no claim to notability asserted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Maybe I should see if A9 should be extended to include other works only in cases where no notability is asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - A9 is only for music recordings and is very explicit in stating that it does not extend to other types of media. Also, the fact that the author is redlinked, may be indicative for lack of notability, but is not conclusive as the fact that it is a red-link means that nobody has written an article about the subject. Wikipedia is not complete. And in this particular case, after some searching, it appears the writer may in fact be notable, but just doesn't have an article. Her short story in a collection is mentioned in this book review. The poem itself has been published here although it is unclear in what context. so by no means is this something that should be put under speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, I didn't speedy delete it; I brought it here. That said, I agree with TenPoundHammer's comments about extending A9. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extending A9 might very well be a good idea, but AFD is not the forum for discussing such a policy change. -- Whpq (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete without prejudice. All we learn from this article is the existence of a poem by this name by an author we know nothing about. The speedy deletion criteria about unimportant music recordings does not apply here. But several others do: this is a very brief article that tells us very little about the subject. The poem may be noteworthy; hard to say until we have an actual article about it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 9 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 Seicer (A7). Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moron Police[edit]

This article is about a band that does not meet notability for a music group. There are no reliable sources writing about the band. The best I could manage in my searches was this short review, but it is not clear what editorial oversight is exercised by the site, and the "submit news" button leads me to believe that much may be just user submitted content. The band is currently unsigned (and only formed in 2008). No hits or awards are in evidence. Whpq (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Only one dubious source, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:51, 6 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. Editors are welcome to redirect or merge (as always), or to open a discussion on the article talk page with the intention of doing either. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Lorenzo[edit]

Non-notable artist. Only claim to fame is finishing 5th in the latest series of The X Factor. She is already covered here. Until she is signed, I don't see the need for her to have an independent article on Wikipedia. I'd be happy with either deletion or redirection with full page protection until notability can be established as a result here. John Sloan (view / chat) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not my area of expertise, but articles exist for US singers with the same level of notability (ie. came fifth or lower in American Idol). The same notability guidelines should apply to both countries. I will only support the deletion if it is expanded to cover American Idol finalists as well. --G W… 18:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are articles on US American Idol finalists whose sole claim to notability is American Idol (i.e. little or no music career or media coverage afterwards), feel free to nominate them too. If this article doesn't survive the AfD, they won't either. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did, a year or two back, and if I recall correctly, all of the ones who were in the top twelve were kept. That is why I will only accept a dual UK-US nomination. --G W… 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, there has already been one AfD on another X Factor contestant from the same series which has gone to a redirect, so there will be inconsistency either way. I can see the case for a discussion on a consistent line with X factor etc. contestants, but we won't achieve it here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see where this could be coming from. But it's not Ruth's fault she came fifth. She has a great career ahead of her. Many people have already seen her at her gigs. She has an enormous fanbase all over the world so it's only fair that they know a good bit about her. She has had many record offers and is performing at a public awards ceremony so I think this page should stay. XF5000 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect - This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E, and there's not really that much worth keeping in this article that isn't in the other X Factor articles anyway. (I'm not sure about page protection though - that is generally only done in cases of persistent vandalism). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggest page protection is to stop the redirect from being repeatedly removed as has happend on a few Diana Vickers articles since her AfD closed as a redirect. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this article should stay. We already know Ruth is going to get a career out of The X Factor, she is performing at an Awards ceremony in Belfast and she is also going on the X Factor Tour aswell. Keep the article it will save us a lot of time when she gets a recording contract! RL1000 18:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Please don't vote stack with socks XF5000! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't already know: 1) WP:CRYSTAL is pretty clear that Wikipedia is not for articles for things that people think are going to be big but aren't yet (and, to be brutally honest, every X Factor contestant has a fanbase convinced that they are going to be massive, and half the time they sink without trace); 2) If she meets notability later, anyone can revert the redirect and start from where the article left off, so time will be wasted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand where your coming from, but i don't have more than one account. Honestly what makes you think that. And as for the signature thing i didn't understand what was going on about it being unsigned. So i put mine and RL1000's names in bold. Sorry to SineBot who signed them. XF5000 19:15, 6 January 2009.

Redirect - until her career actually does take-off, then any actual success is just crystal balling. When her career does take off as some editor's have weighed in as being almost a cerrtainty, then there will be plenty of coverage in reliable sources to create the article. But until that time arrives, then the appropriate action is a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Too many of the keep arguments are based on crystalballing. Shoester (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect BLP1E Sceptre ^(talk) 09:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is borderline, but I think it just about passes WP:MUSICBIO criteria #2 (with others, for "Hero") and #9 (depending on interpretation of a "place"). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eoghan Quigg for another recent debate. DWaterson (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, placed means on the podium (First, Second or Third). Ruth was only fifth and fourth placed Diana Vickers' article was (IMO rightfully) redirected via this deletion discussion. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: until her career takes off she isn't notable enough to have her own article. JamesBurns (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I know she's not officially a recording artist or anything like that yet, but I would like to see this article kept. But then again do what you have to do. --Titanictaker (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:ILIKEIT isn't a very strong argument for keeping an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, I get your point. (Sorry) Do what you have feel is best. --Titanictaker (talk) 20:24, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of climate scientists[edit]

This recreated article was previously speedily deleted. It is a list of scientists loosely falling under the rubric of ~~"climatologists,"~~ "climate scientists," a discipline which covers so many disparate research areas as to be close to meaningless. It also appears to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is vastly incomplete, which leads me to question its utility in any case. This material is already available in far more readable form on the website it was copied from. (The article's author previously claimed to have permission to reproduce this explicitly copyrighted material.) — RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator response: This a list of notable climate scientists (CS) - not "climatologists"; there is a distinction. It's not a directory. Nor is it disparate. As the intro states, many (most) of worked together on the seminal interdisciplinary scientific efforts of our age, the IPCC Assessment Report series. However, limiting the list to eg. just IPCC AR authors would lose the notable CS context by omitting non-IPCC notables. Excess red links are an issue, but are useful to indicate WP gaps. For example, it's extraordinary that there is no WP James Zachos page, while we have endless pages on completely obscure popular culture figures. Anti-listers might like to consider whether these other similar lists should be tagged for deletion: geneticists, ecologists, biologists, psychologists, chemists, astronomers, economists, geographers, linguists, zoologists, more? Earlier discussion is here. --Gergyl (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough with the distinction between climatologists and climate scientists. Nonetheless, there is no clear set of criteria for inclusion in this list, which makes it seem quite arbitrary. In other words, its members have no common well-defined shared characteristic. If you can fix this, significantly shortening it in the process, I'll withdraw the AfD nom.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 07:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Bit too much on the listcruft side. There may, however, be a case for including the link to the paper in the Climatology article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but: a) limit to people with Wikipedia articles and b) reduce to name and a few words. Plenty of precedent at this level with the lists of: physicists, physicians, civil engineers, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and trim to the most well-known. -Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per page creator response Power.corrupts (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with conditions. Notability of people in lists such as this can really only be demonstrated easily if the name links to an article on the person, which in itself shows the person must be notable but explains in the article why they are notable. All red links should be removed. This would bring it more into line with similar lists, although I suspect some of these need similar removal of red links. List of chemists is a good example. There are only 17 red links out of over 210. The current version could be copied to user space, to guide people who might want to write articles on the current red links. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a list dealing with a topic that in theory could be notable, but the current article fails to demonstrate notability for each person listed. I'd suggest a table along the lines of List of biochemists with a short summary and reference for each entry explaining their notable contribution to the field. Otherwise this becomes an indiscriminate collection of information. If no improvement is made over a reasonable time, I have no prejudice against re-nomination and deletion of the current article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic or notable, this is similar to having a list of my graduating high school class. --Theblog (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep These list articles are mostly a bit rubbish; but a list with this title has as much right to exist as comparable scientist lists. That said, it needs massive correction. User:Bduke's point that the list in its current form (filled with red links) would be more useful out of mainspace is right. It seems to have been created as part of an argument over AGW, but a list like this shouldn't be there to make a point. The criteria of inclusion don't guarantee that the scholars are notable climate scientists (they may have achievements in other parts of physics and only unimportant climate science publications). Better to work out who has made important contributions to theory (like Svante Arrhenius, not on the list), preferably not limiting the question to AGW research. (Of course, I'm not planning to do the work myself, but that's how keep votes seem to go on AFD). N p holmes (talk) 08:13, 10 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. Tone 14:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holotecture[edit]

Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a concept originated and promoted solely by Bruno Uhr, without gaining much traction. Google turns up no notice unconnected with Uhr or any discussions in wider media. Acroterion _(talk) 18:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability outside of a (presumably) non-notable book which I suspect this article is attempted to promote. If it's of any relevance, this page was repeatedly created and deleted in 2007, which isn't additional grounds for deletion, but makes me wonder. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please Check google link.[5] There are plenty references of Holotecture. Use 'Urh' for search term not 'uhr' and also bear in mind that we talk about a Term that was created by Slovenian Architect and therefore majority of references are in Slovenian language (pedrieni)ArhiMan (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOTE if you haven't already. Notability is significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Google hits don't count, especially when most or all of the hits appears to be written by the author of the book. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, term doesn't appear to have gained any notice in other authors' works (nothing really on Google Books or Google Scholar, for example). Bruno Urh himself may or may not be notable; if he is, then a brief mention of this concept could be merged into his biography. --Delirium (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Shoester (talk) 21:54, 6 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/keep. Stifle (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flanagan (former Minister)[edit]

An ex Minister? I can see no reason for inclusion Fails. WP:BIO Paste ^Talk 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is supported by a newspaper article, http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewarticle/c343_a10164/News/New_York/Neighborhoods.html -- Eastmain (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree there is an article but what notability does it confer? Paste ^Talk 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain --Alpha166 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BIO, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.""

the article meets this criteria. --Alpha166 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the author Alpha166 I am sure that you do believe that the article should be kept, however WP:BIO states:- A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This subject has only one article written in a specific subject paper. I can find many people with articles about them in local and national papers but they do not all warrant an article on Wikipedia. Paste ^Talk 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paste. He's only been covered once in one paper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting the fact that he mentioned in several other sources, not just that newspaper--Alpha166 (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Herbert Bomzer, a professor of Talmud and Jewish studies at Yeshivah University and author of “The Chosen Road”, who teaches a class for converts, considers Flanagan's case particularly notable given Michael Flanagan's deep involvement in Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha166 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This particular person is sufficiently notable, and the sourcing is jut enough to carry it. The Jewish Week is an accepted RS for this general subject field . DGG (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can accept the first reference as a RS, but not the others. I wouldn't call that single article significant coverage. Decltype (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the nominator has it wrong, see reasons below. The article is new, created on 6 January 2009 [6] and like many new submissions does need polishing. A {{Cleanup}} tag would be more appropriate at this very early stage. Had the nominator looked further he would have seen that there is a disambiguation page for Michael Flanagan with each entry getting a "suffix" such as Mike Flanagan (American football) (he is not a "football" he is a US football player); Mike Flanagan (baseball) (he is not a "baseball" he is a baseball player); Mike Flanagan (footballer) (this one has it closer, he is an English soccer player); and Michael Patrick Flanagan who doesn't need a "(____)" suffix since he has "Patrick" as middle name. So now, one can clearly see how Michael Flanagan (former Minister) needs "(former Minister)" purely as a suffix in order to (a) distinguish him from the articles about the four other Michael Flanagans. (b) It must state what is unique about him, that he is by training a "minister", and (c) for the sake of accuracy and completion he is no longer a minister, hence the need for "former" because he left the Christian ministry and converted to Judaism. Very unusual and noteworthy indeed. Therefore, (d) it makes him all the more extraordinary and a clear case of qualifying for WP:N as well as (e) qualifying for WP:BIO and (f) there are definitely WP:RS to back this up. The article was only submitted a few days ago and instead of running to axe it, it is kindly requested that it be taken to WP:TALKJUDAISM where the resident experts on these kind of Judaic topics could and should be given more time to improve and review it and give input. Note also, (g) User Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [7] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Finally, note (h) Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built: "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub and edited, and expanded, rather than simply deleted." On the basis of points (a) - (h), The nominator is kindly requested to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't feel that I have it wrong at all. By putting 'An ex minister?' at the beginning of the nom' I was merely indicating that this is not a reason for the subject to have an article, it was in no way querying the title of the article which seems completely correct. If the consensus is that the article is kept or deleted I will have no issue but I do wish the AfD to run its course. My personal opinion is of course that the article should be deleted as the subject being non notable. Paste ^Talk 11:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the Van (song)[edit]

non-notable single Mayalld (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Think That It Is Notable As This Is The First Single Where She Has Got Her Fans Involved, Plus If Thats Not Proof Enough That It Is Notable It Might Became Notable In The Future So I Say Give It A Chance, Plus I Just Spent 45 Minutes Creating That When There Are Some Pages That Are Two Lines Long And Theres No Effort Put In And Have Not Been Deleted, Please Keep ChillaxNOW (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are You Capitalizing The First Letter Of Every Word And Bunching Everything Into One Sentence? Seriously, though. Please read WP:SONGS, the notability criteria for songs. Saying "it will be notable in the future" is looking into a crystal ball which is not allowed. Wikipedia is for things that already are notable. This song hasn't charted and is unsourced, so there's no way it's notable now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear fail of WP:MUSIC. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first single released by a notable artist seems like something we should document. There are reliable sources about this song: [8] [9]; I'm sure there are more (although they're hard to separate from the non-reliable ones which are extremely numerous). I think these two facts are enough to ignore the fact that the song hasn't (yet) charted. JulesH (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of those reliable? They look borderline. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both meet the specific requirements of WP:RS, i.e. they're third party sources published by organisations that exercise editorial control. How reliable they are, I'm not sure. I'm not a regular reader of either. But they definitely meet minimum standards. I also see brief mentions in much more notable sources, e.g. a one-sentence description of the song in the Guardian, a couple of lines in one of the major Australian papers (I forget which), etc. This is enough to convince me of notability. JulesH (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No chartage, no awards, no covers. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peril (magazine)[edit]

Delete non notable web "magazine" Mayalld (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be non-notable per WP:WEB. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 9 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. Tone 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bartleby Project[edit]

This article is a reprint of the afterword to the book "Weapons of Mass Instruction". While the copyright notice indicates that it may be "circulated without cost on the Internet, but only if used uncut and cost free", it would be better served on a site like Wikisource or quoted on a topic like Standardized testing. Here, it does not have any encyclopedic purpose. TheLetterM (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though the book gives permission to be circulated, the license might not be GFDL-compatible. Also it could be understood that the requirement for the text to be uncut might mean a partial reproduction (as is the case here) of the text is not allowed. Subject does not seem notable in any case. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 17:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copyvio; terms of license are definitely not GFDL compliant. JulesH (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the copyright issue, the sources are not adequate to show notability, and a Google search for "The Bartleby Project" doesn't find hits relating to the topic of this article (as far as I followed it anyway). Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bennett[edit]

Article appears to be a hoax; references and web searches don't offer support, and page is a magnet for vandalism. JNW (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Clear misinformation, sources don't mention a Christian Bennett at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Edits appear to be coming from East High School in Salt Lake City; teen vandalism. JNW (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Place of birth given ("Exening, England") does not appear to exist. JulesH (talk) 20:09, 6 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. Tone 14:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Yao, The Leaving Days[edit]

No notability asserted, fails Wikipedia:NF. Tryptofeng (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable film, agree fails Wikipedia:NF. Paste ^Talk 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fallout Vaults[edit]

List of vaults shows no notability outside of the game series, and effective is a game guide material, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Presumably mention of the general description of vaults should be present in a Fallout series article but save for those critical to the plot (eg Vault 13/101) an explicit list is unnecessary. MASEM 16:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; we have lists containing information from video games all over Wikipedia. I think it qualifies simply for the fact that certain fans want to know the info.Saberwolf116 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this information is not of any use to the general reader; it is worth noting in the Fallout series article that the vaults were used for various forms of psychological experiments, but listing every single vault throughout the series is not helpful. This information can be linked in from the Fallout wiki which is presently there on the page. --MASEM 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure gamecruft. No indication of notability, no explanation as to why these are relevent (only Fallout fans would know just by looking at the article). The page is just a copy of info from http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault . I see no need to have it here too. TJ Spyke 16:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting list, already well maintained at wikia. Here it's gamecruft, though. Marasmusine (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: May be interesting to some readers, but inherently does not belong at Wikipedia. Fails WP:NOT and WP:VGSCOPE for going into exhaustive detail about the game world, verging on a game guide. Also fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:OR because it is impossible for this article to rely on anything but the game itself for verification. Articles need to rely on reliable, independent secondary sources. Randomran (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Indiscriminate information fit more for a game guide than in an encyclopedia. MuZemike (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cruft. SharkD (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of locations mostly trivial in-game, certainly trivial out-of-game. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Wikia pages are better anyway.--_ZXCVBNM 22:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it is not of any general interest to a non-gamer and as mentioned by others above, information is available elsewhere, one of the benefits of Wikipedia is it is more likely to be available on the net for the long term than many small enthusiast sites. The notion of the purpose of the vaults is amusing and harmless. --Mattrix007 (talk) 01:59, 9 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 main article and redirect the rest to it. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Film Critics[edit]

Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Actor
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Actress
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Animated Feature
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Cinematography
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Director
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Foreign Language Film
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Picture
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Adapted Screenplay
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Original Screenplay
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Supporting Actor
Seattle Film Critics Award for Best Supporting Actress
Seattle Film Critics Awards 2002
Seattle Film Critics Awards 2003
Seattle Film Critics Awards 2004

The Seattle Film Critics seem to have floated in and out of existence without leaving a huge mark. The main article has been tagged for expansion for almost two years: it consists of a one-line intro, a list of the award category articles, and a list of the three award ceremony articles. Delete all SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Keep main article, redirect rest per cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Weak keep seems sourced enough now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not notable. JuJube (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Withdrawing vote.[reply]
Keep, the organization may have been dissolved, but this is no reason for not keeping a record of their work. Article apppears bona fide. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Took only a little digging. Pity the article was never sourced, but there is information out there... So I added these: Seattle Weekly" "Club Clash: it's not a circle per se, but an ad hoc group of 23 local critics invited to vote on annual awards". Early in 2008 it was thought the loose organization may be no more: seanax.com: "There is no more “Seattle Film Critics Awards,” and no formal body to put their stamp on the year in review as a group", but as late as May 2008 it was still around: seattle.gov: "Mike Caccioppoli of CinCity2000.com has acquired the interest of other local critics who have agreed to join the new Seattle Film Critics Association (SFCA)". I did find an announcement at "Women In Film" of its original creation and its founding members (near bottom of the page):"SEATTLE FILM CRITICS ASSOCIATION FORMED" with old phone number and email. It does seem to get press: seattlechannel.org: "An Evening With: Seattle Film Critics Wrap 2008". And it does get the word out: moviecitynews: "SEATTLE FILM CRITICS CIRCLE Complete 2004 List", altfg.com: "The 3rd Seattle Film Critics Award winners were announced on December 30, 2004", seattlepi.nwsource.com: "Local film critics find 'American Splendor' splendid". And more like it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seattle Film Critics per Schmidt and merge the rest. I'm satisfied by the notability of these awards, but it can all be quite comfortably contained within a single article. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just expanded the article a bit to assert and show the notability. I agree that a group merge is in order... but the master article is now a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And with a couple edit conflicts, PC78 and I were both over at the article merging the awards list into the main baody. So the eleven "lists" can now be deleted after the main article is kept. ~~I do think we should now inlude a Keep for the three sub-articles, Seattle Film Critics Awards 2002, Seattle Film Critics Awards 2003, and Seattle Film Critics Awards 2004.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I disagree, to be honest; those three articles don't say anything that isn't now covered in the main one. Redirect all, I say. PC78 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I agree that redirects to the main article best serve Wiki. Good point. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per obvious consensus, or merge if anyone feels inclined and is bold enough to do so. (WP:NAC) flaming lawye r^c 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Maqadna Mosque strike[edit]

There does not seem to be a reason for this page. Everything can be placed on the main conflict page, and a one paragraph page is not necessary. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 1) The main conflict page is already too long. 2) Details will be added to this article when they become available. 3) Military attacks on civilians are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trachys (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 16:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Events occurred on January 3, 2009 (WP:No deadline). Let's wait until we can figure out the international ramifications of this military strike against civilians.--Jmundo (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if this page, or the conflict page, had news articles that showed Hamas was using mosques in a military fashion. Otherwise, this can be a POV article as well.

The sources of this article are from the BBC and The Guardian. This was a military strike on a mosque covered by the international media, 1. If this is a case of POV, it can be fix by editing not deletion. I'm sure you can find sources. --Jmundo (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see any benefits to readers to breaking out this short paragraph. --Delirium (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Jmundo (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and perhaps delete, if this event is not seen to have an impact of the current fighting. Recentism. The mosque itself does not seem to be notable and this is only one event of many of this conflict. Delete does not belittle the deaths of non-combattant civilians. Perhaps if a page showing the notability of this mosque might add something or not. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge terrible tragedy, very sad. Info should be in the article on this conflict if not there already.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like one of the battles of the conflicts, important. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't articles on wars and conflicts have sub-articles on specific incidents/battles? It is small, yes, but it could certainly be expanded. There is no justification for this article's deletion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was there any far-reaching effect of this incident? Has notability for this attack been established. Because this incident occured during conflict, something has to distinguish it from other strikes. Chesdovi (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PathSolutions[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE, no outside references, sources, or anything resembling a link that would constitute notability. Fairly clear WP:ADVERT. Sammael 42 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability offered. (Saying a product can handle a network of size N does not confer notability - explaining how that relates to other similar products might.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I checked the definition of WP:ADVERT and it asks to be written in a neutral point of view. Can’t it be argued, since it has a neutral point of view (pointing out benefits, drawbacks, and competitors) that WP:ADVERT does not apply. On SarekOfVulcan's comments regarding notability, I am not sure I exactly understand you... there is a list at bottom of similar products each having an article, "other similar products". Goldenrowley (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC). One more comment: The talk page says this article is a stub supported by the WikiProject Software.Goldenrowley (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't point out any drawbacks, the whole thing is a pitch for their products. I don't think that listing off a few other products in the same field really balances out to what I'd call NPOV. As for your second comment, I don't see what you're saying. There's no "other similar products" section. Were you looking at the right article? Sammael 42 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just did not understand all of Sarek's comment (no offense). There IS an external article reference - that's evidence of notability right, saying its a "first" of kind. Maybe this wasn't clear. I moved the reference from external links to a new reference section. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep, not really convinced this article contains any notable and useful information, but Goldenrowley makes some good points. WP would be better served by having this article fleshed out rather than deleted. Kparsons08 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Delete -- I would agree with you, Goldenrowley, but check out that reference you're citing. They're not a third party, they're a site that republishes self-written 'press releases.' Their forum has been hacked for months now without remedy, probably because there's really nothing of substance there. I was on the fence before, but with the only two remaining 'legitimate' links being directed back at the subject's own site, there is nothing useful or notable left in this article. Kparsons08 (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok... I did not realize the Security Zone was a vanity publisher. Goldenrowley (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ADVERT. Also, hilarious that the company's page links to a hacked forum... Are they even still in business? Meatychode (talk) 21:02, 10 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. Tone 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open_EMS[edit]

No evidence of notability, no clear references or sources. Strong candidate for WP:ADVERT as well. The whole tone of the article is very spammish. Sammael 42 (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Does not seem to be notable. Most ghits for the name (other than those published by nokia) are talking about something completely different. JulesH (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think these sources may establish notability. Do you think they are reliable? [10], [11], [12] LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Did you see the article? There are no reference links in the article itself. The "See Also" links are simply -- as the article puts it -- a list of "Competing Products" (does nothing to establish notability). The EL are just links back to the company's own site, and definitely not reliable. This whole thing reeks of COI and ADVERT. Lahnfeear (talk)

- I'd say the first two may be reliable, although the second is on a site I'm starting to suspect will publish just about any press release you send to them. The third reads to me like an unedited copy of a press release, and is on a site I've never heard of despite having a strong interest in its subject area. Changing to weak keep JulesH (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'first two may be reliable'. The first four links on this page ("competing products") all have nothing to do with the article's subject. The only two remaining links go directly back to the parent's site (Under ELs). Are we looking at the same page? Lahnfeear (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for failing WP:NOTE Lahnfeear (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete or perhaps Redirect to Nokia Siemens Networks? Meatychode (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete in agreement with OP -- there's just nothing here. Kparsons08 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breakin' Dishes (song)[edit]

Fails WP:Music#Songs. In particular, it was never released as a single, and the Portugese and Bulgarian charts are listed as unreliable at WP:BADCHARTS, which only leaves the Hot Dance Club Play chart position.
The article was forked from a late September version of Breakin' Dishes. The topic was previously discussed in early August and closed as a redirect to the album.
I believe the current version is substantally identical to the discussed version (diff), but an admin disagreed. None of the concerns from the previous AfD were adressed however, and only one additional review was added: " Billboard gave the song a positive review, stating: "With no signs of burn yet, a word to the label: "Breakin' Dishes" could break records as the next single." [13]. Amalthea 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect and protect. Its only chart entry was on the Dance club charts, which are hardly major, and there are no sources for it besides a terse Billboard review. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once In A House On Fire[edit]

Band is of questionable notability. very low number of G hits and many of them are hits on a book. Articles only citation is myspace, an unreliable source. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN band. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We kinda gathered that, since you nominated the article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myspace is the only relevant google hit. Gandygatt (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only hits I can find are the MySpace page and a few blogs and forums. Barely notable on the local scene. Astronaut (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 9 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 Edina, Minnesota#Places of Worship. Stifle (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Grace (Edina)[edit]

No evidence that this church meets WP:N, contested prod from a while back, not much in improvements since Delete Secret ^account 15:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the newly created section Edina, Minnesota#Places of Worship. No evidence that this church is notable, e.g. for architecture, history, controversial events. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Good info perhaps better suited to church's own site. ReverendG (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't mentioned in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis#Significant Parishes, and as mentioned above, it isn't all that notable for history (being established in 1946) or for architecture. The Church of St. Patrick in Edina is more notable, being established in 1857 and being part of the original Cahill Settlement, but I'm not sure that even merits its own article. I think a few sentences about Our Lady of Grace in the Edina, Minnesota#Places of Worship article should be enough to cover this parish, so I'll go with a redirect as mentioned above. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest pass caught in the NFL[edit]

Trivial list, fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:TRIVIA, prod removed a while back. Delete Secret ^account 15:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some article on football. Is there one on "Foreward pass"? The article is somewhat confusing. It seems to be about the most yardage gained on a passing play. I don't think anyone has passed a football 99 yards. To me this makes the distinction a little more trivial. The longest play possible is 99 yards. There have been passing, running, and kick returns of 99 yards. So what? Northwestgnome (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or (less likely) Merge to List of National Football League records (individual) . Since its creation in 2006, this has never been more than a crap article, copied straight out of the NFL record manual. If someone were to try to go beyond the NFL website and try to describe the eleven different events in more detail, in other words "tell us something we don't already know", that would be a worthwhile article. However, the nominator is right that this presentation is trivial and uninformative. And, I would add, boring. As Northwest correctly points out, nobody has caught a 99 yard pass. What happens, of course, is that the receiver catches a pass after getting past the one yard line, then runs the rest of the way for a touchdown. If someone wants to save it, please go beyond this "Look-at-what--I-copied-from-a-book-Mom" article. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found and added 3 9 refs,covering ~~the first 4~~ 7 of these, but there needs to be an additional text box or fields to be completed, which I am not sure how to format. For instance, in the 1939 entry, I found a paywall article in the NY Times and a description of the play in a book about the Redskins team history. I also found a news story from a 1939 paper. Filchock threw from behind his own goal line on third down in a fake punt play to Farkas, who received on the 3 yard line and ran 97 yards for a touchdown, setting a league record. The line of scrimmage was the 1 yard line. I strongly expect that sportswriters provided at least as much information about each of the other 99 yard pass plays. A pass play from the end zone is a high risk play, compared to a punt, since an interception makes it very likely the other team will score. Edison (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote, since Edison is taking the first step in the task of improving the article. Up until now, this had been nothing more than a xerox of the NFL manual. I'll see if I can't find some links to news stories of the specific games. As a PFRA member, I can say that there are other persons who can probably help this along also. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is nothing here but a list of the passes, trim done the uneeded parts and redirect to List of National Football League records (individual) which already has this listed. TJ Spyke 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest renaming Longest pass plays in the NFL or even 99 yard pass plays in the NFL for greater accuracy. They are not necessarily the "longest passes that were caught," since one of the passes was 3 yards followed by a run the rest of the length of the field. They are still the longest pass plays, and were notable at the time and in summing up the career highlights of the quarterback and runners when they retired. "Longest" is not an arbitrary criterion. 99 yard pass plays have occurred 11 times in the 88 year history of the league, which currently seems to play over 250 games a year, so they are rare as well as notable. Edison (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have cleaned up and expanded the lead, and would like to see this article renamed to 99-yard play, which if necessary, could be made more specific as 99-yard plays in the NFL or 99-yard play (NFL). I would also like to see the table expanded with a column to describe each play-- specify how long the pass was, how many yards were subsequently run, any other interesting specifics about the play, and the outcome of the game, etc. If that would be too much for an additional column, the table could be converted to prose, with one section to describe each play. But now I'm getting off-topic for a deletion discussion. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly urge that the title mention it is "pass plays" since it is also possible to return a kickoff or punt from the 1 yard line for a touchdown. Might it also be possible to run the ball that distance, or to return an interception that distance? A field goal seems beyond possibility outside gale force winds. Edison (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete plain, old, trivia. Marlith (Talk) 05:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I would like to ask if you have seen the article since my and others edits from on or around January 6th. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have renamed the article to 99–yard pass play. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an NFL record book. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 11 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.

I'm closing this as WP:AFD is the wrong venue for this. Redirects should be listed at WP:RFD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stade_de_Al-Merreikh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stade de Al-Merreikh

page moved to correct English spelling of the venue Al Merreikh Stadium ∏∪βiατεch 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why delete the redirect? Keep. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the redirect.Gandygatt (talk) 21:47, 6 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 - obvious hoax. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Griffin[edit]

This article appears to be some sort of hoax. The article template was stolen from the Isabella Rossellini article (the name "Isabella Rossellini" has rather obviously been replaced with "Ashley Griffin" in a number of places - there is no "Ashley Griffin" at the link given at Commons, for instance.) A cursory Yahoo! search for "Ashley Griffin model" turns up nothing. Consequently, I suspect this is either a hoax or a personal page of some kind. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:HOAX. Obvious copy of Isabella Rossellini with some changes. I can't find anything on Google News, either. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, therefore Keep - despite the lack of reliable sources, it's obvious that at least one of the characters she voices has a large fan base. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Berman[edit]

Fails WP:BIO... horribly. Probably not an a A7 candidate, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, actress is a regular in two notable television series and has voiced a character in two Peanuts specials. Suggest that this article is in need of cleanup but does not fail WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Plenty google hits and reliable sources, including IMDB. Gandygatt (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one reliable source. IMBD isn't one. Oh, and one GoogleNews hit. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for informing me about IMDB, it seems all the sources I thought were reliable lead back to IMDB. I still don't think the article should be deleted for lack of notability.Gandygatt (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme keep per notability. Article requires WP:CLEANUP not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS, none of which are any reliable sources. I found none. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't ever count "google-hits". However, as Elyon Brown of W.I.T.C.H. she has a fan/cult following [14]. I have just done a bit of cleanup to the article to make the proper assertion of notability. Of course, even if the article is deleted... she's just 18 and has a long career ahead of her. She'll be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkins demo albums[edit]

This article fails the basic album notability requirements listed at Wikipedia:NALBUMS. These demo tapes are not notable and have not been the subject of much third-party coverage. Also, contributors to this discussion should keep in mind that notability is not c. While The Smashing Pumpkins are very notable, not everything associated with them is. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep well sourced article, wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia:Notability (music), one of the many bastard children of the controvesial notability guidelines, which became a guideline because of the input of a handful of people (see page history in 2005). As a guideline now, it "is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Smashing Pumpkins is a very mainstream band, having immense media coverage, this is one of those exceptions. travb (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-sourced"? There's no citations in the article at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The_Smashing_Pumpkins_demo_albums#References travb (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no inline citations, and the only source used are various pages from a fansite, which does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines for acceptable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I noted in the nomination, notability is not inherited, so the Pumpkins being really famous has no bearing on this article's notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inherent notability and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited are mere essays, which editors can "Heed them or not at your own discretion." The Inherent notability article mentions arguments for inherent notability. travb (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a solid rational for keeping beyond the fact that the band is well-known. Once again, these demos were not commercial released and thus did not chart on any sales chart, there are no inline citations, the only reference is a fansite, and as the primary writer of The Smashing Pumpkins, my research for the topic has indicated the the amount of secondary sources available for these demos is close to nil. There is no reason to have an article about these demos. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - demos are not notable; anything of interest goes in the main SP article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are absolutely no sources for any of these demos. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no inherited notability, especially without reliable, third-party sources. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only non-notable (notability is not inherited) but I also argue that it's indiscrimate information. MuZemike (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — for full disclosure, I am and have been for a long time a big fan of The Smashing Pumpkins, and I do have nearly all their albums and songs, released and unreleased (including the epic fail that was Zwan). I just don't think this belongs here for the reasons I have stated above. MuZemike (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Lacks sources, most demos lack notability but any of interest can be in the band's main article. Gandygatt (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable 3rd party sources WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable demos with lack of citations. Clearly fails WP:NM and WP:V. DiverseMentality 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was } Nomination withdrawn Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thomas Abbott[edit]

Heyyyyyyyyyy, Abbott! Outside of winning the Newdigate Prize (a famous Oxford University award with plenty of less-than-famous winners), it doesn't appear that our subject has achieved any significant notability as a poet. A Google News search turns up nothing. This could be a case of WP:BIO woes. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True: Google news yields little that I can see. However, subject is listed as editing Oxford Poetry journal, and his book is well-cited with reviews etc. As winner of Newdigate Prize, our subject meets bio. notability criteria: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them". All.labour.in.vain (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but where are the reviews? And where is media coverage that would confirm Mr. Abbott's notability as a contemporary poet? I am not of the opinion that winning a student writing award that is limited in scope to a single university is enough to justify inclusion here. I would state the Newdigate is famous for some (certainly not all) of the people who won it -- people are not famous for winning the Newdigate. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions on Newdigate Prize's limitations are undoubtedly valid. However, they are not in line with Wikipedia's notability inclusion criteria. Perhaps we should seek a third opinion? Additional reviews and independent sources of notability I found (in two minutes on Google) are as follows:

Reading in Bodleian Library with Seamus Heaney, Mick Imlah, and Bernard O’Donoghue: http://www.ouls.ox.ac.uk/bodley/about/exhibitions/bodcasts#archipelago

Robert MacFarlane writing in the Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/jul/14/featuresreviews.guardianreview1

http://deconstructivewasteland.blogspot.com/2008/06/review-paul-abbotts-flood.html

http://www.clutagpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=31

http://www.clutag-archipelago.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=5

http://sers018.sers.ox.ac.uk/about/exhibitions/bodcasts

http://buddhoblogosphere.wordpress.com/2007/07/15/a-r-c-h-i-p-e-l-a-g-o/

http://joty.wordpress.com/2007/07/15/a-r-c-h-i-p-e-l-a-g-o/

http://www.towerpoetry.org.uk/tpr/issue3.pdf All.labour.in.vain (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that could be considered valid, as per WP:RS, is The Guardian -- and in that article, Mr. Abbott is mentioned in a fleeting round-up of writers who appear in a magazine. The other sources are insignificant blogs. No go, sorry. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In addition to the Guardian citation, the Bodleian reading and mp3 of Flood fits notability criteria, as per WP:NN. As does the mention at http://www.towerpoetry.org.uk/tpr/issue3.pdf. These are in addition to http://www.towerpoetry.org.uk/poetry-matters/june2008/abbott.html. Collectively, this topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, surely it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article? All.labour.in.vain (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am sorry -- a podcast of a poetry reading and a PDF of a student magazine does not meet the requirements of WP:RS or WP:N. And The Guardian cites Mr. Abbott in a single sentence as being one of a number of writers whose work appear in Archipelago -- he is not the subject of the article. And don't call me Shirley! :)Ecoleetage (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is only one piece of supporting evidence, amongst many. Also: you have twice used the word "student" in a derogatory manner. This seems unfair, as the student sources cited for this subject are still reliable, third-party, published sources, as per wiki criteria. Wikipedia is not an anti-student hierarchy, to my knowledge. The podcast of the poetry reading (which you dismiss as evidence of notability) in fact includes the Noble Laureate Seamus Heaney, and was held in the main auditorium of the Bodleian Library, on whose public website it is independently published. It conforms to the WP:RS standard of "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; [whose] authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In addition, and crucially, it is media coverage demonstrating the subject has notability as a contemporary poet. Taken with the other evidence, therefore, I repeat: this topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Further, I cite WP:NN, where it says: "Notability is distinct from 'fame,' 'importance,' or 'popularity.'"

I accept that Abbott is not a major poet: this is true. But I think that Wikipedia ought to have a series of articles about the Clutag Press and its poets, which range from newbies like him to Seamus Heaney, Geoffrey Hill, and its other bigger names. This would be a valuable resource, would add to the history of contemporary poetry publishing in Oxford, and would be demonstrably notable, in line with WP:RS or WP:N. Clearly this is a niche subject, and only significant in its own sphere: but what's wrong with that? Any help you could give me researching and writing this series of articles would be greatly appreciated! :) All.labour.in.vain (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you talked me into it. Yes, I will do what I can to help in researching and writing these articles. Hit me up at my Talk Page or via e-mail and we will make it happen. And as a sign of good will, this AfD is withdrawn. Your labour was not in vain! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyMania Presents: WOW! Christmas[edit]

More crystalballery in this long-running sequence AndrewHowse (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think these articles should begin to be speedied on sight and the account blocked. This hoaxer is getting weaker with each new creation (WOW! and Disneymania? They're kidding, right?). Nate • (chatter) 06:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I could find a legit clause: A9 doesn't apply here, I don't think. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: insufficient 3rd party verification, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal balling goes a long way. And by a long way, I mean they really go into the future with these articles with no sign of notability or verifiable content. DiverseMentality 21:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and indef-block the creator: Appears to be another hoax in a series of hoax articles by an editor that only creates hoax articles. Complete waste of everyone's time.—Kww(talk) 17:53, 9 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. WP:CSD#G7 Author blanked article, and no keep votes have been cast. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flower punk[edit]

This information is too limited in scope to rate its own article. There is already a mention of the "flower punk" genre on the Black Lips page. The term "flower punk" can refer to many other things other than this single reference (including a song by Frank Zappa written in 1967). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. A genre with only one member is probably not a genre. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Conn[edit]

Non-notable person. Suspected autobiography, article is primarily a rant at previous employer. Article has no citations. Uncle Milty (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if the awards (notablity) can be referenced and the rant against the employer is removed. Needs a serious re-write, though. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current article is too thoroughly biased by its autobiographical nature. Since the subject seems to be notable, perhaps a posting at requested articles can elicit a neutral biography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even a year mentioned for his awards. If the author can't prove the Awards, delete the article. If he can prove them, the article has to be shortened and cleaned. I removed parts of the "bad bad CBS7" -bashing. Oh and he is not mentioned in IMDB, I found his (or the author's) claim to appear in Silverado rather irritating.--Stanzilla (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If the awards can be referenced I don't doubt notability. Regarding Silverado, the role may not have been credited hence the lack of a IMDB entry, but the broadcasting awards would be sufficient for notability.Gandygatt (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sam seems likable enough to buy him lunch, but this is pure autobiography / resume / vanity territory. Not encyclopedia territory. --Lockley (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have worked in several markets with Sam in here in the Southwest. He is very popular out here. The Roswell Daily Record (newspaper) did a feature on him and his horse that was in "Silverado". I remember seeing it sometime in 1985. Had a bunch of pictures. Texas Monthly also had a deal on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubreylaughlin (talk • contribs) — Aubreylaughlin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest of keeps per this search. Notability is definitely here. Article requires WP:CLEANUP not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, nay, try "sam conn" instead. For your search you get every possible conn like in connecticut and every sam around.--Stanzilla (talk) 17:40, 10 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 OrangeMike (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong rights[edit]

non-notable band. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:band. Anyone can play at the The Cockpit, doesn't make the band notable. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:25, 6 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. Tone 14:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Worker (band)[edit]

No assertion of notability Archivey (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 19:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 9 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. Tone 14:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uniblue Systems[edit]

Fails to meet WP:CORP. Article was previously prodded for this reason. No outside sources. Graymornings_(talk) 10:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and A7 - Article about a company that does not indicate the importance of the subject. A lot of companies make software for Windows. A lot of companies are Microsoft certified. Mattie ^TK 11:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Google has 22 news articles on the company, including 5 from Business wire (picked up by Reuters), PC World, PC Magazine, Scientific Computing, PC Magazine Online, and ZDNet.com.au.[15] Google itself has 176,000.[16] Although it is much easier to delete an article than contribute to it, Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." it appears that the nominator and the delete editors did not take one minute to do this.travb (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment on keep or delete, but I'll just point out that a good number of those Google News hits are press releases and therefore don't establish notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 9 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.

Have you seen this page? It's POV advertisement at it's best! Antonio Bringing the Sexy Back to Wikipedia Martin 9:45, 6 January, 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the problems with sourcing and maintaining the article are not simply tempory issues to be overcome by editng but rather inevitable results of its nature. Thus, deletion is the appropriate outcome. If someone would like the content for use in creating a List of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report authors, I'd be happy to userfy it, but it should not be kept in its present form or scope. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

Inevitably incomplete page of no value. By contrast, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is fairly complete William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is mainstream, it is inherently impossible to cover all notable scientists with this view in the list. A list of people opposing this view is shorter and actually possible to maintain. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 8, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Item 2 from Listcruft--"The list is of interest to a very limited number of people." No, climate change is of interest to everyone. Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican VP nominee denies man-made climate change--she and other politicians are making policy decisions based on scientific opinions. Voters are electing these politicians. This list interests many people. Item 8 "The list is unencyclopaedic". This "reason" is tautologous--we should not include this article in the encyclopedia because it should not be included in an encyclopedia. Item 10 "Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas." What original research or synthesis? I added the first names to the list by searching for quotes from climate change scientists. Is a Google search considered original research? Item 11 "The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date." How is it volatile? Are scientists releasing press releases every day announcing that they have changed their mind about global warming? The effort required to make this list is no more than the effort required to make the list of successors to the British throne. This list is article is perfectly valid.--hunterhogan (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Cleanup~~ Rename to ""List of scientists supporting the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming" or "List of scientists supporting the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming". see below The only source for the definintion of "Mainstream Scientific assessment of global warming" is a link to another Wikipedia page. It is unreasonable for that to be any better than sourcing a Wikimirror site. Treedel (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopaedic - it reads like some kind of exclusive petition. A more powerful and useful converse to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming would be an authoritative list of important climate scientists, so the dissenter's context becomes clear as (very) few among many. Tried to make a start here. --Gergyl (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually useful. I think it would be better to retitle it. The present title is kind of overkill. How about something like: "...supporting the theory of human-caused global warming"? Northwestgnome (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As observed, accounting for every relevant scientist that holds a mainstream view is a hopeless task. A complete list would be unwanted information (cf. List of scientists who believe the earth is round), an incomplete one would be misleading. I'm fairly doubtful about User:Gergyl's list too, I'm afraid. N p holmes (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs to be cleaned-up. Also, 9 references is nowhere near enough for a list of 600+ people. Ndenison ^talk 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While I appreciate the author's wish to balance out the "list of scientists opposing", people "supporting the mainstream" on anything would be a long list. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the "mainstream" would it? For obvious reasons, it's a long list, but naming all of these persons would be the same problem as compiling "List of scientists who ~~believe that the world is round~~ graduated from college". Mandsford (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the mainstream view, and such a list would grow to extremes. NP Holmes put it quite right, when he compares it to a "list of scientists who consider the Earth to be round". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I honestly didn't mean to be a copycat. NP Holmes did come up with that analogy first. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Nominator's reasoning is WP:RUBBISH found at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws.
Wikipedia:Listcruft is a mere essay, written by editors who don't like lists, as the template at the top states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion" User:Inclusionist (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the reasoning that this would be "inevitably incomplete" is rubbish. How many of the 637 scientists would you trim from the list? Would there be an objective way to decide who goes and who stays? Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Mandsford: "Would there be an objective way to decide who goes and who stays?"

Answer from Mandsford: "The list, almost entirely, is a directory of the scientists who signed the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" travb (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essay WP:AADD faces wide disagreement, and dismissing arguments because they appear on it is not particularly strong. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase "mainstream" already sort of implies that it's "everyone else". A list of people with notable minority opinions (in any scientific field) might be useful, but a list of people whose only qualification for being in the list is, "has absolutely, boringly mainstream opinions on the subject" is not. --Delirium (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to Pres. Bush saying, "You are either with us or against us." Which is obviously not true. Some scientists have publicly opposed the mainstream view, some scientists have publicly supported the mainstream view, and most scientists have not said anything publicly. A list of every living scientist in the world would be absurd--but this article is not a list of every scientist in the world.--hunterhogan (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A complete list would likely include 10s of thousands of names, and as such would be fairly useless as an encyclopedia article. -Atmoz (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not capable of maintaining databases with thousands of names. Neither the software platform nor the editors can maintain such uber-lists. The proposal to list all mainstream scientists is, in fact, a proposal to create unmanageably large database. This job is what paid citation index engines are for. Not to mention what was already said about completeness and verification. NVO (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has value and the length is not prohibitive. Specific replies: 1) Yes, the list is "inevitable incomplete", but that does not merit deletion. Compare this list Line of succession to the British throne. That list is "inevitable incomplete" and the longest article on Wikipedia. 2) It is not true that this article has "no value." There are still many people who are confused because some scientists oppose the mainstream view of climate change. For those people, this list makes it easy for them to weigh the statements of three dozen scientists against the statements of hundreds of other scientists. 3) It doesn't matter that "it is inherently impossible to cover all notable scientists". First, if it is possible to list the thousands of people in line to the British throne (and thousands that are "skipped" on the list), then it is possible to list the "notable scientists" who work in climate change. The list of "notable scientists" must be small. If the list of "notable" people were long, then all of the people on the list wouldn't be "notable." 4) Treedel suggests "cleanup". I agree. The list needs to be expanded. As a list on Wikipedia, multiple people can work on it. 5) Comparing this list to "List of scientists who believe the earth is round" or to a "List of scientists who graduated from college" is fallacious. There are politicians making policy about climate change who are listening to those few scientists who opposing climate change. There are no politicians listening to "scientists" who think the world is flat. 6) The fact that the list is long is not sufficient to warrant deletion. 7) This list is not merely a dumping ground for people who have "absolutely, boringly mainstream opinions on the subject". Again, there are large parts of the public and many public leaders who are confused about climate change. This list would give them a place to look for thoughtful and/or powerful opinions from professionals. 8) I do not think the "complete list would likely include 10s of thousands of names" because of the requirement that the scientists must state support in their own words. Outside of the scientists who work on climate change, there are very few scientists who have a reason to state in a public forum that they agree with the climate change scientists. No one has suggested why the list would be significantly longer than the Line of succession to the British throne--hunterhogan (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIR ("Wikipedia is not a directory") suggests that we avoid this type of article. The list, almost entirely, is a directory of the scientists who signed the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, starting at page 15 here [17], and the pdf format lends itself to cutting and pasting each individual name, starting with ACHUTARAO, Krishna Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory USA -- and then pasting "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. ^[1]" over and over. Perhaps there are other ways to make the point that most scientists support the mainstream. The analogy of scientists who believe the world is round was used, but the better analogy might be the telephone directory for a small town. Mandsford (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is "almost entirely" a directory of the approximately 800 scientists of the IPCC, then the list will 1) not be too long, and 2) be easy to complete. Please clarify why you oppose this list. Earlier, you stated that you think the list would be too long, but now you think only 800 names would be "almost the entirety" of the list. Furthermore, this list does not fit into any of the five categories described in the WP:NOTDIR ("Wikipedia is not a directory") article. For example, the people on this list are closely related, not loosely related.--hunterhogan (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hunterhogan, this list does not fit into any of the 5 WP:NOTDIR reasons. Please clarify. travb (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article had the title "List of scientists who signed the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report", it would not be grotesquely misleading (merely pointless). As it stands, it's like creating an article with the title "List of people with two legs" and listing only players for Premier League football clubs. N p holmes (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are people on the list besides authors from the IPCC 4th assessment. Adding the IPCC 4th assessment authors was a logical first step in making the list. If the problem is that the list is too short, then the solution is to add more people, not delete the entire list. --hunterhogan (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~,Comment as I'm the nom, but also: this list has clearly been compiled from IPCC ar4 authors. There has been no real checking that any of them actually agree with the mainstream position. Someone added John Christy, and someone else thankfully realised he is on the opposed list, so he got taken off. This proves the obvious: that being on the IPCC authors list does not prove you agree with IPCC. Therefore, the vast majority of the names on list list should be deleted on the grounds of lack of evidence for inclusion William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "voting" twice?--hunterhogan (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is voting twice. Ndenison ^talk 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for deleting the list--this is an argument for cleaning up the list. --hunterhogan (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Christy is sitting on the fence. He does support the AGU statement on climate change ("Many components of the climate system ... are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century"). I would put him 1.132123 sigmas (approximately) from the mainstream, towards the sceptical side, but still significantly in agreement with the IPCC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christy is on the other list. He can't be on both. This *is* an argument for deletion: 99% of the people on this list haven't been checked at all. They would all have to be removed pending checks. Note that this is how the opposed-to list works: you don't get onto that list without a quote justifying your place. Somehow the arguers for "symmetry" seem to have forgotten that aspect William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the editorial oversight, like we have on the other list, that is required on a list with this many potential entries would be horrible, not to say impossible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has millions of pages, but this one article with a list of scientists will cripple the editorial capabilities of the entire Wikipedia community?--hunterhogan (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did i say the "entire wikipedia community"? No, i think i was rather precise in my statement. As for millions of pages, yes it does. Hardly any of them are like this proposed list, which potentially would contain every notable scientist with a mainstream opinion on climate change, even considering that only a fraction of scientists are notable, and a fraction of those make their opinion clear - we end up in the several thousands - each of which is going to have editorial oversight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The majority of the arguments for deleting (if not all of them) are some variation of: "This list is hard to make, so we shouldn't even try." Explaining the Big Bang is hard, but Wikipedia has a page. Listing all of the successors to the British throne is hard, but Wikipedia has a page. Defining terrorism is hard (and controversial), but Wikipedia still has a page. Some people have tried to argue that this article would list everyone in the world, so it should be deleted. But, the above discussions saying that some people should not be on the list show that it is not true that "everyone" with two legs, a college degree, and who thinks the world is round will be on the list. You may think this list is silly, but this article has value to some people. Just like an article about Glass-ceramic-to-metal seals has value to some people. Keep the article, and if you really have a problem with, then help to improve it.--hunterhogan (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you !voted already above. It would be easier for the closing admin (and others) if you kept your top-level comments under on bullet item. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia user User:William M. Connolley has no way to support his assertion that the list of scientists opposing is complete, so that opinion is utter rubbish. The counter argument is that if there is a mainstream scientific consensus, as he often claims, then there should be no trouble coming up with names for this list. It's not like we need to capture everyone, we only need to include people who are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia which leaves out the vast majority of AGW climate scientologists anyway. --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I really don't know which way to jump on this one. When I first saw the page, I thought it had an inherent problem. I started adding the IPCC report authors because they automatically meet the criteria established at the top of the article. I don't think they need to be verified or checked; the IPCC report itself is the evidence you need. If in some cases, there is conflicting evidence or repudiating statements, by all means use it to remove them, but don't presume you will find something like that for everyone. I think limiting the list to scientists notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, as suggested above, defeats the purpose of a list. On the other hand, the usage of "mainstream" implies that the whole thing could be replaced by an article that says "Go look at list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and if you don't find someone, consider them to be on this list", or, more succinctly, "everyone else". gnfnrf (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone were trying to learn about more about climate change and was especially confused by the fact that many politicians have condemned Al Gore, she might turn to Wikipedia for answers. "Oh wise Wikipedia, are there really scientists who think man-made global warming is a lie?" And Wikipedia provides the excellent and concrete answer: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming "Thank you, great Wiki of knowledge. But are there scientists who think Al Gore is telling the truth?" How will Wikipedia answer this important question? Some people here think the answer should be an an abstract and vague: "Lots of scientists support Al Gore and the climate change doomsayers. There are so many that we can't even tell you one. Trust us. Ignore the opposing scientists. We are the majority and you don't need any more proof." I think that Wikipedia should answer with a much more concrete and credible article: List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.--hunterhogan (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would point them to Scientific opinion on climate change, which has a large number of statements by whole scientific societies on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is still not a direct comparison. Furthermore, some people who deny climate change claim that the professional societies oppress individual dissent. A list of statements by societies without a list of statements by individuals implicitly supports this claim (for some people). So now we have two types of claims that this list is redundant. Some people say this list is redundant because a list of all scientist with two legs and a college degree would substitute nearly perfectly. Clearly this is not true because not every scientists has a publicly stated opinion on global warming. Second, there is an implicit claim that a list of statements by professional groups is a substitute for statements made by individuals. Again, this is not a good substitute. The opinions of individuals are of a different quality and value than the blanket statements of societies. The IPCC is a professional group, yet their lengthy statements have not convinced everyone. Statements from individual scientists are valuable in their own right.--hunterhogan (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that statements by individual scientists will convince people who are not convinced by the gamut of national academies and other societies. But anyways, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to convince, but to inform. "So and so agrees with the mainstream opinion" has a low information content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"low information content" is greater than "no information content"--it has some information. I started by adding quotes from each of the supporters. Surely those quotes have information content that is useful to someone. Imagine a student or a journalist trying to find some quotes from individuals who support climate change to balance quotes from individuals you oppose it.--hunterhogan (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am still new to contributing to Wikipedia, but it is amazing to me that this discussion is even happening. A handful of people have said they want to delete this article, but the reasons stated by each editor are vastly different from the reasons from other editors--and they are sometimes contradictory. Should this list be deleted because it might be too long, or should it be deleted because there are only 800 names on it? Should it be deleted because it would be impossible to verify what the scientists think, or should it be deleted because everyone already knows what the scientists think? --hunterhogan (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments are not inconsistent at all. The claim is that it is too long for proper maintenance and verification. The second claim is that despite being so long, it is still painfully incomplete and thus misleading. Verifying if a scientist belongs onto the list is hard and invites original research. Few scientists explicitly state "I agree with the core IPCC results", but many will have references that acknowledge parts of these results in their publications. Let's turn this around. Why do you think it should stay? Will somebody still be interested in this in 10 years? In 20? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument above that it will be too long contradicts the argument above that the list is "almost entirely" made up of IPCC co-authors. In ten years, if an historian were studying the climate change political controversy, she most certainly would need to talk about those scientists who publicly opposed climate change. In her research, she would likely be interested to know what individuals publicly took the opposite view and how they expressed themselves. I have stated why I think this is useful multiple times on this page, but simply put: people who want to know what individual scientists think about this topic will find this page useful (especially in conjunction with the page of opposing scientists). --hunterhogan (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it the List of scientists who publicly endorsed the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. Erm? Are we engaging in politics here, or in encyclopaedic work? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting the article is renamed? ~~I don't understand your question. Are you pointing out that this article would be unnecessary if it were not for politics?~~ --hunterhogan (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Actually, my motivation is religious. While driving through the black stillness of central Illinois, I was visited by a vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He told me to eat eggplant once a week and to immediately make a Wikipedia article titled "List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". But, let's pretend that my motivations are political: I am really a liberal, pinko-commie, tree-hugging, gay-agenda, socialist bent on corrupting young minds with lists about scientists. Now that my motivations have been exposed, how does that help the Wikipedia editors decide whether or not to delete this article? --hunterhogan (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scientists who agree with the mainstream view don't usually say so explicitly; they just go about their business from the mainstream perspective. It would be an interesting exercise to see if we could source Scientists who agree with the germ theory of disease or Scientists who believe the Sun is a star from explicit statements to that effect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if we make an article listing the Scientists who believe the Sun is a star, then we would need multiple sections. We would need to separate the scientists who have two legs from those who don't have two legs (i.e., zero, one, more than two legs, or some fraction of legs not equal to two legs). We could never have the scientists who have a college degree categorized with those who don't have a college degree (blasphemy!). Although, we might not need to separate the scientists who believe the world is round from those who believe it is not round (i.e., flat or some other geometric shape) because, as far as I know, all of the scientists who believe the Sun is a star do not believe that the earth is round. [This argument was stated previously and rebutted previously.] --hunterhogan (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boris is on the list. Da? -Atmoz (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da, comrade Boris is there... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it is restricted to scientists who are themselves notable by having a wikipedia article. The inclusion criteria currently say that the list can contain any scientist (defined by publishing at least one peer-reviewed article) who has made a public statement. That is far too wide. Lists of people should be lists of notable people. They should all be blue links, except for perhaps the odd case that is obviously in need of article to encourage someone to write it. This would involve removing most of the IPCC people. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is an argument for cleaning up the list or changing the definition of the list, it is not an argument for deleting the article. In fact, an argument in this form is a type of blackmail: "make the article conform to my specifications or I will vote to have the entire article deleted." Either the concept of the article is wiki-worthy or it is not wiki-worthy. It is a bizarre argument to say that the article is only wiki-worthy if it uses pretty words or conforms to an editor's style. --hunterhogan (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is only wiki-worthy if it is notable and for lists that means that the persons or things listed are notable. I meant to add that I raised this on the talk page of the list, but if I understand the reply correctly was told that the criteria would not be changed. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your statement matches the Wikipedia article on notability WP:NOTE, "The topic of an article should be notable". . . . "Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content." So the topic must be notable, but the individual people in the article do not have to be notable. Is anyone arguing that the topic is not notable? It clearly is notable because newspapers quote scientists who support climate change. Al Gore made a movie about it. Scientific associations talk about it. Presidential candidates debate it. Senators write press releases about it. The topic is notable: the article should not be deleted. --hunterhogan (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nutshell at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (people) states "Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.". Without this there is no reason whether a person should be included or not and then the list becomes unverified and unmaintainable. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. None of those thing happen about a List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming — they are all about climate change and global warming. And there are fairly decent articles about them already. -Atmoz (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Inhofe 650 and the previous Inhofe 450. --hunterhogan (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RenameUnder WP:NOR and WP:SYN, we shouldn't be defining "Mainstream scientific assessment". Proper title could be "List of scientists supporting the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming", or to use less jargon, "List of scientists supporting the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming". I think this is the most accurate way to introduce the list, and it also avoids editorially endorsing either side. The article also needs to be cleaned up and sourced, but that isn't a reason to delete it.Treedel (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Treedel has also commented above. -Atmoz (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realized that there was a better way to resolve my concerns about editorializing. I struck out and adjusted my recommendation above; The subject is politically charged, and a significant number of climatologists disagree about the conclusions drawn from the data. We need to keep the articles objective and inclusive, while not advocating either point of view, and keeping the titles neutral is a big part of that. Treedel (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't defining the "mainstream scientific assessment" that is adequately handled by science itself. Please see Scientific opinion on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a list of scientists who concurred with the statement "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."? Or is it the list of people who have said that they have weighed the evidence for and against the general idea of "Anthropomorphic Global Warming", and believe that the preponderance of evidence lies with AGW as opposed to "Natural Global Warming", or "Natural Global Temperature Cycles", "Global Warming of an Indeterminate Cause" "Global Warming jointly of Natural and Anthropogenic Causes", or even "Experimental Error Resulting in Spurious Data Trends" Scientific opinion on climate change lists many "Concurring" statements which both implicitly and explicitly reference theories in different categories. Quite a few of the "endorsing" statements explicitly use words to the effect that there is some doubt. Hardly a slam-dunk for there to be an undisputed 'mainstream' viewpoint. Treedel (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that must be your own interpretation of the statements - because i have read even one that supports (or even hints at the possibility of) for instance "Experimental Error Resulting in Spurious Data Trends". They all refer to the IPCC conclusions as fact, not speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is an excellent idea and I completely agree with Treedel's argument. --hunterhogan (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This value of this list can be understood best if you know more about how scientists make an estimate about the value of an article without reading it: You go to a scientific search engine (Web of Science, Scifinder Scholar, Pubmed, maybe Google Scholar, etc.) and then enter the name of the topic. The search engine returns a list of the papers with the author names. Before you choose which paper to read, you look at the number of citations to that paper, what journal it is published in, and which university or institute the author is affiliated with. At that point, you do not really care whether that article was suggested by the national academy of so and so. While it is still up the reader to decide the article is a good one or not, the credential described above are important especially if one is new or not an expert in the field. Now let’s establish the relationship with this wiki article and the scientific way of evaluating papers: When someone makes a wikipedia search on global warming, the list of people and their affiliations would be helpful since (1) the number of people would work in the same way as the number of citations would; (2) the name of the people would be a good starting point for further reading on their papers; (3) their affiliations will give an idea about their reputation (however, this doesn’t mean a paper of a professor from a less know school should be ignored.) Therefore, this wiki article should be kept. The only suggestion would be to include the reference to their article (although it might be a lot of work).-- (talk Mka1919 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most here aren't in doubt of the mainstream scientific view on global warming, thats really not the question - its actually the opposite. Because it is the mainstream view, the amount of scientists eligible for the list, is enormous, and thus relatively impossible to maintain. Exactly because this is mainstream, the opposing list is manageable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my message above, I don't think I've made any comment regarding my position on global warming. Everything I wrote was about how one can scientifically determine the value of any written piece. In this case, the written piece is this list. Also, if a scientist has published a paper in favor of human-caused global warming, then it is an information every person living in this planet has a right to learn. Any act of removing this data sounds nothing more than censorship. Besides, what is better than an online encyclopedia to make the list of experts available to anyone who wants more proof on the topic? Mka1919 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: this users only contributions are to this discussion page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This entire process has been eye-opening and disheartening. William M. Connolley, the user who nominated this article for deletion, has been disingenuous. Mr. Connolley is openly opposed to AGW. See http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/climate_snarking/ and is apparently using this nomination as a way to express his opinions on the subject. So sad. In his original nomination, he asserts that the list would be "inevitably incomplete--the implication is that so many scientists would qualify for the list that it would be silly to even start the list. Yet, in his other two comments, he argues that 99% of the people on the list should be deleted and that adding names to the list would be an onerous process. Which is it, Mr. Connolley? Do you think the list will swell to gargantuan proportions because it is over inclusive or do you think the list will be tiny because the task of verifying names and quotes will be overwhelming? Shame on you. --hunterhogan (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that this one made my day... WMC is a septic (sic)!

As for the rest of your comments, please try to understand the inclusion criteria for the sceptics list. You've copied the criteria to this list, but you haven't adhered to it. As far as i can see, almost everyone on the list should be there - but only 4 of them actually are qualified per the criteria. Both of WMC's statements are in fact correct - most need to be deleted, and the amount of people qualified includes all of those deleted + numerous others. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I may be wrong Mr. Connolley, I may be right, but I don't have the endurance to argue it. My statement may be wrong, so feel free to ignore it. Delete the article, don't delete the article--it doesn't matter. --hunterhogan (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin ~~Atmoz is also apparently an open opponent of AGW.~~ http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/09/29/last-word-on-oreskes-chicken-little/ See also cross references to Atmoz at Mr. Connolley's website above. The assertion that the list would contain tens of thousands of names is extreme and absurd. Furthermore, as an active denier of AGW, Atmoz would be immediately aware of my reference to "Senators write press releases about it" as referring to Senator Inhofe and his lists of "skeptics." Atmoz would also certainly be aware of the volumes of ink and bytes devoted to analyzing those Inhofe's lists. When people try to analyze the statements of the alleged skeptics on Inhofe's lists, this article (List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming) would be extremely useful. Shame on you, too Atmoz. --hunterhogan (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

open opponent... [and] active denier of AGW? It's actually the other way around young Padawan. The ones who are arguing for keeping this list are the skeptics/deniers/whathaveyou. -Atmoz (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I may be wrong about Atmoz, I may be right, but I don't have the endurance to argue it. My statement may be wrong, so feel free to ignore it. Delete the article, don't delete the article--it doesn't matter. --hunterhogan (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If nothing else, do we have articles for mainstream theories like List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific concept of general relativity? No. Beside the fact that I agree with the nominator, the observation that most of the list consists of IPCC report authors, this article can be incorporated in the non-supporters article in a form of an external link to the report. --Tone 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I think it should be turned into more like the opposite list, with each scientist getting his or her own little reference. --Theblog (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS the current quality of the article is not listed as a valid reason for deletion under WP:DP so please do not make that argument. I believe the article can obviously be approved upon. --Theblog (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something. The current list could basically be renamed List of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Authors, since that is where nearly all of the names came from. Though it might be pushing up against WP:NOT, I wouldn't mind having such an author list. So a rename/redesign of the existing content to make it into an author list would be okay by me. The other half of the question is whether the list as intended would be useful. In other words, can one construct an appropriate article listing supporters of AGW using the listed criteria or something similar. My general belief is no, at least not one that serves as a meaningful counterpoint to list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It is easy to support something that is "mainstream", and hence that list could easily balloon to not useful proportions (the hundreds of existing names already offer very little information, and that would only get worse if this continued to expand). So, if the goal is to have a growing list with the structure presently presented, then I think that kind of a article is not workable and should be deleted rather than being allowed to fester. However I am open to possibility that there might be some limiting principle that would allow one to identify a few dozen global warming advocates of particular prominence (rather than hundreds or thousands) and group them together in a useful way. Such an article could potentially serve a useful purpose, but it would need a narrower organizing principle than the current one and presumably a different title to match. Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list, by it's very nature, must be synthesis or an author list or a list of people who've published scientific papers. The current list that this article was based on includes the sentences "It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific criteria that do not necessarily reflect skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful." The purpose of these sentences is to communicate that this is not a list of people who necessarily think that the IPCC got everything wrong or who think that carbdon dioxide is not likely to lead to global warming. This matching list up for AFD cannot have the similar language "This isn't a list of global warming advocates" because it is. The current criteria for inclusion says that a person must have published a statement agreeing with the IPCC. Because the IPCC is just a summary of the current state of research and it's conclusions, good scientists acting as scientists don't go around publishing statements that say "I agree with that!"; instead, they look at the consensus of current literature and find ways to test unanswered questions, reject currently supported hypotheses, and develop new testable hypotheses. Essentially, doing science or doing advocacy can get you on the opposing the mainstream list, but only advocacy can get you on the list of those supporting the mainstream. And I just don't think that a "List of people who are both scientists and advocates of the reality of anthropogenic global warmaing" is useful. - Enuja (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider trimming the article in the course of improving it. It's looking like this will be a no consensus, which is fine. I'm not opposed to a list of where scientists stand on the issue. From what I can tell, this is the first article created by Hunter Hogan (and his first experience with the not-very-nice AfD Forum) and he's off to a good start on both. He saw the need to balance out the list of scientists who oppose the mainstream (which has been up since '05), and it's a valid topic. I'm withdrawing my delete !vote. I don't endorse any of the personal sniping made by any of the people who argued for a keep or a delete, something that should be confined to the talk pages of the users. Suggestions I would make for improving would be (a) consider User:Gergyl's approach (List of climate scientists to identifying signers of the four IPCC reports); and (b) since part of the point is to demonstrate that relatively few scientists oppose the mainstream, put in a section to this article that identifies those persons. Mandsford (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Enuja, Short Brigade Harvester Boris. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QLabs[edit]

All references seem like press releases. Article introduced in it's entirety by the company itself (Impetus qlabs (talk · contribs)) and written like an advertisement. --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I don't agree that the article is written like an ad, I do think that the sources provided are of questionable reliability and a brief search for sources turned up nothing better. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources unreliable, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Graymornings_(talk) 11:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please recheck the link as we have made changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.245.130 (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC) _{Moved down --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete Non notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-consumer tech business wants a Wikipedia article. No showing of importance is made in the article. Since speedy deletion is contested, allow this to run to establish a firm precedent against re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, not in neutral tone, orphaned... That can be a long list. The Rolling Camel (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:22, 8 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. Tone 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centrice[edit]

Non-notable group. Can't find any references for them. Article is being made by the group's founder. Could be deleted or redirected to Theodism. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree: Google knows nothing of these folks but this Wikipedia article (and derivatives) and their own website. No prejudice to recreation if they do become notable in the future. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = A look at the versions from last year of the related Theodism article show that groups like this have memberships of around a dozen people. The forum for Centrice on their website has only 8 members, in fact. It looks like this is a group with ten people in it, maybe 20, if it's the largest one in the US. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:36, 6 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 keep. No calls for deletion, negligible chance of reaching that outcome. Maintaining standards is a laudable goal, but little good can come from a deletion nomination of an article that's likely to change too much for a meaningful decision during the time an AfD takes to run its course. --Kiz o r 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 BART Police Shooting[edit]

Very recent news item - Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. This news item could get legs and be noteworthy in the future, but it isn't now. Delete per WP:NOT Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the San Francisco Bay Area Wikiproject discussion. BoL (Talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Noteworthy?

This case is more than recent news -- it has appeared on KTVU for the last three nights as the lead story -- there should be some documentation of what is happening -- as it stands, now five days from the incident, there is almost nothing on Wikipedia about this story. Wayne shoter (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC) *Merge and redirect for now, or until when the officer makes his statement. BoL (Talk) 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Keep per all of the below. BoL (Talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to BART News events aren't notable unless they have actual consequences (apart from the shot person dying). Until then it should be covered in the context of BART. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MGM. The story has some notability, but there just isn't enough about the incident to warrant its own seperate article yet. However I have no opposition, if the story does become bigger, to de-merging. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--This notable event should be included in Bart.--Jmundo (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. It could be split out if the tragedy turns out to have societal implications, or sets a precedent, like giving policemen Tasers they can distinguish from pistols, or other policy changes or legislation, or if it is the subject of secondary documentation or analysis besides news stories, such as books or TV programs it might turn out to be of historic and encyclopedic importance. See also the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and its predecessor the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Edison and Jmundo. Edit Centric (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I have tagged Oscar Grant, a one-sentence stub, for AfD as well; if the result of this AfD is to merge, then I think it fair to conclude that Oscar Grant can be deleted and/or redirected to the merged section in BART. (anon, but since I don't like SignBot, or whatever that bot is called...) 140.247.133.184 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Should be in BART, if it has larger ramifications, i.e. Rodney King beating, then give it it's own article. --Fastsince85 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Merge/Redirect. Of course, if this becomes a bigger story, then we can always recreate this article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. A protest is going on tomorrow, and a statement is coming soon. I think based on these we'll be able to judge if the story is notable enough to stand on its own. Until then, merge to Bart. (Important note: at first I accidentally typed "Marge to Bart") FlyingToaster 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm having second thoughts because Owen is giving voice to my concerns about this - that it doesn't really fit into the BART article. The problem is that the article is not about BART... it's only the backdrop. If we use this as precedent, articles about particularly dangerous streets or train stations would have a series of short stories about crimes that took place in them. A short mention and link to a main article on the BART or Fruitvale stop may suffice.. but for this article I think we should keep or delete the whole thing. For now I'm recommending keep, and would delete only if the issue fizzles in the next few days. Judging by the commotion this is causing here in San Francisco, I don't see that happening. FlyingToaster 05:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with BART. Not every police shooting merits an article, and this isn't notable enough for an article. --Hojimachong^talk 04:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Incident is significantly distinct from BART, and awkwardly placed there. If it needs to be merged later, that's OK, but in the meantime it's in a place that is easily locatable and allows room for expansion. Owen (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, the default should be that the information be included in the main article first (BART) and not having its own article yet. Right now, there is precious little information to put in any article, and the incident has not become noteworthy enough to generate its own article. Now, this may change in the coming days, but we are not a crystal ball and should only keep this merged until there is significant evidence that this deserves its own article. (anon) 140.247.14.85 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has risen to the level of national news, and doesn't really fit within the BART article. Compare: Rodney King and Amadou Diallo. THF (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But making it to the level of national news does not mean it should become a Wikipedia article. The consequences of this are not yet so notable as to rise to the level of the shootings of King and Diallo; as such, this article should remain merged within BART until there is sufficient evidence to deem it noteworthy of its own article. (anon) 140.247.14.85 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep..... somewhere. Merging to BART doesn't make any sense to me. I would have merged this material into Oscar Grant per THF's Rodney King and Amadou Diallo precendents above, There's also Jean Charles de Menezes which is comparable. As it stands right now, both 2009 BART Police Shooting and Oscar Grant redirect to 2009 Fruitvale BART Police Shooting. Whatever we call the article, this is significant, notable, has long-term implications, belongs in wikipedia, and should not be deleted. --Lockley (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Please see my above comments; I don't believe this event to be noteworthy enough to merit its own article yet. Being on the national news does not automatically grant inclusion into a Wikipedia article. We can always create a new article if the events following the shooting make the event into something more significant. (anon) 140.247.14.85 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fit well in BART and seems notable enough for me, at least for now. Tricadex (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Keep Whether or not this will be notable in the future is debatable, it is notable at this point in time. When such a time comes that it is no longer a notable incident, then you can make the case that it can be deleted. Doing otherwise is essentially trying to predict the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.167.114 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That this incident happened on the BART is tangential at best. Suggesting it be merged with Bart is akin to suggesting Michael Jordan's page be merged with Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.183.113 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Stong Keep This is, and will be, a major, notable, newsworthy event on every major Bay Area media outlet during the month of January 2009 and beyond. Reports of BART police officers attempting to confiscate witness cameras, whether to supress evidence or not, is especially noteworthy and newsworthy, and worthy of inclusion here. That the officer has yet to make a statement on the incident is also troubling and notable. From a budgetary standpoint, the possibility of a $25 million dollar civil verdict will have major revenue impacts on the District, it's Board of Directors is already considering cutting night and Sunday service train headways at it's meeting tomorrow morning, ostensibly to save a million dollars a year. This is not a fare evasion incident, or someone caught with coffee on a train. Oscar was shot dead in the back on New Years' Eve with many witnesses standing by, how much more notable does it get than that? This incident deserves its own article with a prominent note on the main BART article.Critical Chris (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Chris, just wanted to acknowledge your great work expanding this article since this discussion started. --Lockley (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comments. rkmlai (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments above. This isn't your typical police incident anymore than Rodney King was. The difference is that we're catching this one as it develops. This is an important article and resource for others. I can't vote strongly enough to keep this and keep expanding it as it as warranted. burnte (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Critical Chris. The article is much too long to be part of BART. --TIB (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as people above said, this is not a BART matter at all and a merge is inappropriate. Besides, this is an event that has gotten plenty of local TV and national news coverage. Ever since 2003 plenty of similar incidents get Wikipedia articles, and justifiably so. This bogus "This isn't Wikinews" argument is getting old, it never made any sense, and still doesn't. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high profile incident. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Tonight this story just developed. A protest started closing down the station. It erupted into a riot and police used tactical teams break up violence against the police officers. --Blackjack48 ♠^t ♣^c 04:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very high profile, widly covered. has sparked violent protests in Oakland. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N/CA. The nature of the incident, as well as the perputrator (officer) provides that this is not common, and is a noteworthy case. Not only the incident is being paid attention to, but the alleged cover-up and civil unrest/near riots that are a part of this whole situation. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 05:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident has already led to violent protests in Oakland and may lead to riots if not handled right. BillyTFried (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(01-07) 21:13 PST Oakland -- A protest over the fatal shooting by a BART police officer of an unarmed man mushroomed into a violent confrontation tonight, as a faction of protesters smashed a police car and storefronts, set several cars on fire and blocked streets in downtown Oakland. Police threw tear gas into the group to disperse it... there were numerous arrests.. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/07/MN2N155CN1.DTL&tsp=1
Keep I'm in Virginia, and I'm starting to hear about it here. So it's definitely gone national by now. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 06:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is as big as Rodney King. Brand Eks (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory Keep There are now riots in Oakland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.147.88 (talk) 10:37, 8 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 Nawlinwiki (CSD G7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cariato[edit]

The article appears to be a hoax.

Only one Goggle hit referencing the appointment of individual. I suspect the reference was taken from Wikipedia article.
Reference to UPS appears to be in actuality lease of retail shipping store.
Unable to find references to support board service.
Reference to co-founding of Chicago Police Youth Exploring Program would have been at age 15.
No article references.

ttonyb1 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been deleted already so I think we can wrap up this process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are reliable sources that reflect the notability of the event, and one may well surmise that given the extensive involvement of the prospective U.S. Attorney-General that it will continue to generate discussion. I agree that there are potential BLP issues with respect to the roomates, and that the article could be edited further there. I also will move the article to Murder of Robert Eric Wone, but that action is taken as a regular editor, and is not a result of this AfD (i.e. revert if you want and we'll discuss). Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eric Wone[edit]

Egregious violation of not only WP:BLP when it comes to the individuals named, but also violation of WP:BLP1E when it comes to Wone himself. He wasn't notable before he died, he still isn't notable. His death is not notable, either. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the names of the other individuals involved are also redirects to this article. I tried db-blp deleting the lot, but my tags were removed. Remove all of them if this is upheld. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:RfD those separately, as there's a specific alternate venue for deleting redirects. If the article is deleted, the redirects should be deleted as routine maintenance, but it's possible that the redirects (from the suspects' names) could be deleted while the article is kept. Jclemens (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and Rename~~ to Murder of Robert Eric Wone, as Speedy decliner on the redirects. I will stipulate that Wone was not notable prior to his murder, but the event and its aftermath are still getting press more than two years later. There are several additional RS not yet added to the article which are referenced in the BLP/N thread--I'll add them soon. Jclemens (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has been substantially expanded and cited per my above promise to do so. It's still a bit rough, but there's plenty more coverage to add, if anyone else wants to pitch in. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per Jclemens. A quick Google News search brings up loads of articles on it in just the past month, and taken together with the stuff written about it at the time that adds up to significant coverage and therefore notability. BLP1E is alleviated by the rename, and the only other potential for BLP concern I can see is that there's no cite given directly to the Affadavit section which talks about their sexual relationships. ~~That paragraph should be sourced or removed~~, but the whole article needn't be deleted for that. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed one statement I couldn't find a source for immediately and cited the rest of that paragraph. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per above - Possibly could be notable enough before murder, but murder is one of more unusal in DC history, so rename at least. Thank you, --Tom 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —- ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not rename - Of course this is notable. It has received considerable coverage in the DC, gay and Asian American press. It should not be renamed as the standard for such incidents where the victim was not notable is to name the victim, thus Rodney King not Beating and trial of attackers of Rodney King and Vincent Chin not Beating and death of Vincent Chin. This case suffers from a distinct lack of coverage outside of DC, LGBT and Asian American outlets, precisely because of the sensitive topics covered by the incident. The nominator has even removed the name of the victim from list of murders in August 2006, which I choose not to contest, but nevertheless object to. This would set a very, very bad precedent which has the effect of helping to keep case like in obscurity, to claim that WP is bound to a "higher standard" where suspects cannot be named, even if they are named in almost every press account of the murder, and every story where Wone is named, they were the ones who invited the victim to their home, were longtime friends and associates and were the first to report the murder to authorities, and maintain their innocence in the face of charges. Please withdraw this nomination.Bachcell (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Matthew Shepherd and Jesse Dirkhising were neither notable before their respective deaths. Consensus in crime victim article naming does seem to favor naming the victim when the preponderance of media coverage has identified the incident with the victim. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting this case has some aspects of the Jesse Dirkhising case, but has not yet been picked up by conservative activists in that the background of the killers is similarly politically sensitive. When created, this article indicated that it had been deleted before, evidently on similar grounds, and I have seen similar instances such as Rozita Swinton (the person suspected of a fradulent phone call leading to the raid of a Texas ranch) where a person with extensive media coverage is claimed to be not notable, with the effect of suppressing coverage on the basis of harming a living person. Bachcell (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, I just got around to looking up the previously deleted version. It was created on December 19th, and the sum of its contents was "Robert Wone was a lawyer who was murdered in Washington, DC."--It was tagged as not asserting the notability of the subject, and I agree with its speedy deletion. The editor who wrote the previous version neither included references (and as we can see, there were plenty) nor asserted that the murder was notable. No need to look for conspiracy theories--fact is, the prior article should have been speedily deleted. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's do a thought experiment. Remove everything about the crime from this article. What's left? About a paragraph in the Life section, after removing multiple bits about his death from there, also. In short, he's not notable, and the article is a coatrack to discuss the investigation of the murder and following legal proceedings. From that point, we could write an article about the murder, etc. but there's not much to go with there, either. It's yet another unsolved murder, the only interesting bit is the accusations of evidence tampering. There's also a lot of undue weight given to pointing out the supposed behaviors of the accused (whom I note are not convicted yet, and should have the consideration of BLP as well). As to the comments about famous crimes, I don't see how this compares at all to the televised assault on Rodney King or the brutal and pivotal murder of Matthew Shepherd. There just isn't enough here to satisfy WP:BLP1E for an article on Wone, and I'm dubious about being able to satisfy WP:N for the murder itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm confused: you say the article should be refocused on the murder itself, which is quite valid, but then dismiss the murder itself as unimportant, despite a track record of two years of major media coverage. How many more WP:RS do I need to add to satisfy WP:N, in your estimation? Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say you misread my comment. I said we could write a proper article about the murder, but I still believe it is not notable. There's no hard number of sources to satisfy WP:N, as I'm sure you're aware. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Coatrack is nothing more than a controversial essay, as the template on the top of the page states: "Heed (the essay) or not at your own discretion." travb (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's nice. Even if the essay did not exist, it would not invalidate my opinion. The article, as written, is not about Mr. Wone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not rename - Enough of this political correct nonsense on Wikipedia, to silence the violent crimes of rape and murder, committed by homosexuals against innocent heterosexuals. Enough is enough. Caden S (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, what? Are you really trying to suggest that this is some sort of plot? I never even heard of any of these people before I made this nomination, and how was I in any way supposed to know, from reading this article, that Wone was heterosexual? Way to assume good faith. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Subject is clearly notable. If Murder of Robert Eric Wone is the preferred title or not, that is a separate issue to this AfD. But this subject (both the murder and the victim) is demonstrably notable as per the large amount of media coverage and the scholarships, fellowships, and other memorials since named for him. That the subject was not notable before the murder is irrelevant, he is clearly notable now. -kotra (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Addendum: if there are BLP violations in this article, they should certainly be challenged and removed as such. But BLP is only a reason to delete an article if there is nothing worth salvaging after the content that violates BLP is removed. I don't see that being the case in this article. -kotra (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have filed a Wikiquette alert against your mentee, CadenS, due to the above comments and the continual such comments on his Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned this here, but thanks for letting me know. Also, he is my adoptee, not my mentee. -kotra (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; It is impossible to have a BLP violation with respect to the subject, though it is still necessary to follow NPOV and Verifiability from Reliable sources. The case is notable, and widely reported, so an article is justified. In some such cases we have dealt with the suspects names by finding wording that will not not include the names in the articles, though this does yield some degree of awkwardness. An affidavit from an official source is not necessarily a document of such reliability that it can be used to justify the names. I may be viewing this too rigidly tho, as the WSJ printed the names. Butthere is no possible reason given the WSJ and the ABA articles to not have one in WP. DGG (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never claimed that the BLP violation refers to the murder victim, but it most certainly does apply to the people that the article bends over backwards to try to make people believe murdered him. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment How does the article do this? Is it giving undue weight to any of the RS used to construct the article? Fact is, there's no really good way to write an article about this murder that doesn't lead an intelligent reader to wonder if the housemates were more involved than they claim. If that is an artifact of how the article is written, then it should absolutely be changed. However, if such suspicion is inevitable, given the bare, RS'ed facts of the events, then that is certainly not a fault of the article, and it would be inappropriate to hold it against them. I've tried to include criticisms of police and prosecutorial procedure to provide as much balance as possible. If you think more is needed, feel free to add it. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Supposedly the article is about Robert Wone when actually it's about the criminal charges against the accused. Robert Wone himself may be notable but now his bio is weighted down with all manner of the murder. Are the charges or investigation or lawsuit notable? Has this influenced some major movement besides a quick effort on Wikipedia to scarlet letter the gay roommates - seemingly because they are gay.[18] All that is problematic but I think going waaay into innuendo about their involvement is certainly breaching BLP as might be discussing the family's lawsuit. With some perspective, maybe after the investigation and lawsuit(s) are resolved this could be seen for what could be an interesting article but I'm not even sure about what at this point. When we have an article it quickly becomes the top search item on Google - we have to sometimes err conservatively when publishing negative information about living people - what we write here has real world consequences. The tone of this debate also suggests a wp:coatrack in process to suggest that three gay men murdered a strait guy. Wikipedia is not the place for this. -- Banjeboi 08:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would vote for deletion Benji. You've shown time after time how your biased POV supports your agenda. You were after all successfully topic banned remember? Not to mention you caused serious POV issues, on both the Jesse Dirkhising article as well as on the E.O. Green School shooting page, pushing your biased views. You clearly can't keep your POV in check. You even filed a bogus ANI on me and another editor in an attempt to have me blocked because you didn't like the fact that I exposed you misrepresenting several of the sources used. Caden S (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments reflect on your editing and are wholly inappropriate here. Please desist from bad-faith accusations and stick to discussing the content rather than contributors. -- Banjeboi 09:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise User talk:CadenS to desist in this line of attack as being uncivil, unproductive and a red herring to this debate. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not actually an encyclopaedia article about the (non-notable) Wone, it's a news story with blow-by-blow commentary from the tabloids thrown in. Wikinews is the place for this. The case is not itself notable, single murders are, sadly, a daily occurrence - all get some passing mention in the press, but few have any lasting significance. It does not look as if this will be one of those, but if it is then we can come back when there is proper review discussion in weighty publications, rather than just headlines in the daily papers. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikinews is for original reporting. There is no original reporting in this article; every fact is sourced to an appropriately reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable for one event. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per ONE EVENT. Not notable in life. There may be a case for an article on a murder case, because of its apparent newsworthiness to tabloids. However, WP is not the news, and the bio is certainly not a worthy one for WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:BLP1E does not apply to this for two reasons: 1. it's about living people, and 2. the subject has not remained a "low-profile individual" after the event. Also, WP:BIO says nothing about a person having to be notable in life. Sometimes, the circumstances of an individual's death make the individual notable. -kotra (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep;if press is still talking about it 2 years later of course it's notable. Though a merge might be better. Is there a compromise here to keep everyone happy?Mccready (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My sole concern is over the apparent attempt in this article to accuse the three people of murder. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a content dispute, not a reason for deleting the entire article. -kotra (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability for one event. Tragic as this fellows murder may be.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question in what way is WP:BLP1E applicable to murder victim Robert Eric Wone that it is not to (presuming she was murdered) Natalee Holloway, JonBenét Ramsey, and/or Laci Peterson? And don't give me WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'd really like a substantive answer. All four cases involved murder victims that were non-notable before the murder, although Wone was more notable than any of the others (with the possible exception of Ramsey). All four have received nationwide press coverage. If it's just a matter of demonstrating that it's been covered in more non-Washington news media, anyone can do that with Google and a few minutes of effort. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONE EVENT says that if the individual remains "low-profile" then no encyclopedic article can be sustained. Mr. Wone, in death, has not remained low-profile, as his murder remains unsolved with many inconsistencies, there is significant media activity covering both those indicted, the prosecutors, and the notable people such as Attorney General nominee Eric Holder who are involved. If any renaming is done, I prefer Robert Wone murder as the name of the victim is the thing folks are most likely to search on. I agree that having "gay" in the lede was inappropriate and unnecessary. Scarykitty (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; This is definitely a notable subject. Three people have already been charged with the crime of obstruction, and this matter has been covered extensively in the media (except for Nancy Grace, who only covers dead young white girls). Some of the people seeking deletion seem to be trying to save the reputations of the three accused men, whose names have already been made public over and over again in news articles and Washington, DC area news shows. Joshellin (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Joshellin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep article has 19 good reliable sources demonstrating a durability of notability, which eliminates ONEEVENT considerations. ThuranX (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now Nothing notable about a scrapbook collection of tabloid clippings speculating about an open murder case that will lose interest when and if it is eventually solved. (I had to look up what a "cadaver dog" means.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please identify a single tabloid cited in the article. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ohconfucius who pointed out above that ONE EVENT most definitely applies here. Without demeaning the man's life, he's not notable in life. Who was he? What notable thing did he do while alive? As Ohconfucius points out, WikiPedia is not the news, and the bio - being that it's non-notable - is certainly not a worthy one for WikiPedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not to sound like a broken record, but WP:BLP1E/ONE EVENT does not apply to this article because 1. it's not about a living person, and 2. the subject has not remained a "low-profile individual" after the event. There is nothing in the policies or guidelines that says a person's notability has to have been achieved in life. Sometimes, the circumstances of an individual's death make the individual notable. Examples are given by Bachcell and Jclemens above. -kotra (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The BLP concerns do not have to apply to just Robert Wone, but to the three people you bunch are trying to accuse of murder. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - BLP1E is about the subject of a Wikipedia entry. Robert Wone is the subject of this Wikipedia entry. Therefore, I assumed BLP1E was only being cited for Robert Wone. It certainly does not apply to people being mentioned in the article who aren't the subject of the article. That would fall under the broader BLP policy. Regardless, I take exception to being characterized as one of "you bunch" trying to accuse the defendants of murder. I never did such a thing. I do not have an opinion about the defendants, and even if I did, that would be a content dispute, separate from the notability of the article's subject. If you think there are BLP violations in the article, I encourage you to address them, but an entire article does not get deleted because some of its content violates policy. We should use a scalpel, not a hacksaw. -kotra (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin per this edit, User:NurseryRhyme seems to have retired. It is appropriate, then, that his !vote be disregarded. See this ANI thread for context. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we disregard the !votes of retired users? I thought their comments would have the same worth as currently active users. I may be mistaken, though. -kotra (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't rightly know, actually. As nominator, however, I would consider his retirement a de facto withdrawal of the nomination. See my futher response to his argument below. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of arguments for keep (for closing admin)

To deal with TL;DR issues, this is a summary intended for the closing admin summarizing the arguments from a keep perspective. It is not intended to be a neutral summary of the arguments.

Robert Eric Wone is notable in death.

His death has been covered in dozens of reliable sources, many of which--including The Washington Post, The Advocate, The Wall Street Journal, Asian Week, and the ABA Journal--are clearly national publications.
His death has been covered in multiple non-D.C. area publications such as The New York Blade, San Francisco Examiner, and Windy City Times, albeit generally as reprints from sister, D.C.-area news outlets which carried the original stories.
Many of the news outlets that have covered his death have done so throughout the developments in the case to date over more than two years, including The Washington Post, The Washington Blade, The Washington Examiner, and The Washington City Paper.

Nothing in WP:GNG or WP:BIO requires Wone to have been notable in life. Even so, his life prior to his death has received some coverage, including in college papers, a New York Times wedding announcement, and the websites of organizations with which he was affiliated.
Anything in the article having to do with the inclusion of the names of those accused of crimes in relation to Wone's death is a content dispute, and not basis for deletion. As I compose this, there are zero tags placed on the article asking for improvements in NPOV, sourcing, citation, or the like.
BLP1E does not apply to this article. In addition to the coverage of Wone's death, there is separate media coverage of the one-year press conference held by the family, the arrest of the first housemate in Florida, the arrests of the other two housemates, the subsequent charges against all three, and multiple separate memorial/scholarships set up in Wone's name after his death. That is not one event, that is one topic, which has been arrived at by following WP:BLP1E's advice to "Cover the event, not the person."
Those arguing against deletion have made arguments not made on the basis of the article's contents:

JzG, Ohconfucious, and Cuddlyable3 have made references to "tabloids". None of the sources in this article is a tabloid; the criticism is inapplicable. While the details of the crime may seem tabloidesque, a review of the sources will show high quality sources throughout.
NurseryRhyme has incivilly argued that this article disparages "the three people you bunch are trying to accuse of murder". Again, that is a content dispute and not cause for deletion.
HandThatFeeds argues that undue weight and coatracking are issues in this article. That, too, is a content issue and not cause for deletion.

Thus, since so many incorrect and inapplicable arguments have been raised by those favoring this article's deletion, a rough consensus should exclude those inappropriate rationales, rather than merely counting noses. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Kept, Move to Murder of Robert Eric Wone per WP:ONEEVENT. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or move to Murder of Robert Eric Wone if this well sourced article can be deleted, practically any article can be. Ridiculous nomination. How can the nominator say he still isn't notable? I just don't understand some editors. travb (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Travb makes a very good point about the claims the article should be deleted on coatrack grounds. As he or she points out coatrack is merely an essay -- not an official wikidocument. The essay does raise some interesting points -- points that, in my experience, are universally ignored by those who call upon its (non-existent) authority. The essay does not recommend deletion as the solution for a concern over one of the issues it addresses. It recommends deletion be a last resort when attempts to reach consensus through civil discussion fail. Talk:Robert Eric Wone shows no one brought up coatrack prior to this {{afd}}, which I think makes claiming the authority of coatrack for deletion highly questionable. As I wrote above, essay does raise interesting points. But, in my experience in other {{afd}}s I find those who argue for deletion, based on its authority, have not proven willing or able to return to the essay and specificly cite the passages from the essay they think the article lapses from. This disappoints me. The essay lists close to a dozen different sections, each devoted to a different type of argument the author thinks is an example of the use of an article to discuss issues that are off-topic. It seems to me that anyone who is serious about their concerns should be able to be specific, and say something like: "I think the advice in the coatrack essay is worthwhile here. Specifically, the space devoted to issue XYZ is an example of what the author of the coatrack essay called "Wongo juice", because..." Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- most of the concerns raised by those who argue for deletion are not grounds for deletion. If valid those concerns are merely arguments the article should be revised. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would appreciate if those who argue for deletion, because much of the article is about the murder, not the individual, would address the suggestion raised by others that the article be renamed Murder of Robert Eric Wone. Presumably if it were renamed Murder of Robert Eric Wone then discussions of the murder would clearly be on-topic. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Lots of good WP:RS establish that this topic is remarkable, and worthy of coverage here. How many murders are there in the USA in a single year? 20K, 80K 200K? I dunno. Somewhere in that range. We don't try to have articles about all of those murders. We couldn't, even if someone wanted to, because insufficient WP:RS would exist for the bulk of them. Most of the remainder would not merit coverage here, because they were open and shut cases -- there was nothing remarkable about them, because the US justice system functioned as designed. So, instead of covering 20K murders per year we only cover those that have a remarkable controversy. Is it possible to cover the topic of Robert Eric Wone, and his murder, using the sources found so far, while strictly complying with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:BLP? I don't think there is any question that this is possible. If the article is kept, and participants here think contributions are creeping in that violate policy, they should feel free to take them out. It they think a clique of contributors who are not committed to complying with the wikipedia's policies are conspiring to insert material that does not comply with policy, they can ask for protection, third party review, etc. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by Jclemens, Bachcell, Travb, Geo Swan, and others. Does not violate the one event guidelines and clearly has more than sufficient RS on the murder and aftermath, including from the legal community, relating to Holder nomination, and from the national press (including The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal) to more than satisfy notability. Any other content issues, including BLP issues against those accused, should be handled through normal editing and discussion. Renaming is also an editing process, not a reason to go to AfD. The only intellectually valid reason to delete is if the subject is intrinsically non notable. Anything else can be fixed and verified with work and research, and should be, per WP:DELETE. — Becksguy (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

Delete The person does not seem to be notable. The crime and its investigation might be worth an article. Borock (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please articulate which notability guideline you're referencing and how you believe Wone fails to meet it. Note specifically that there is no particular cutoff at death for sourcing about a person. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the comment above and per the comment by user:The Hand That Feeds You:Bite. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The event was notable. The sheer number of sources in the article makes that unquestionable. The question is whether or not it should be covered as an article under the man, or under the event. Personally, I'd go with a rename to cover the event, but that's just me. Either way, I see no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:57, 6 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 and protect, it's snowing in here again. BJ^Talk 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jett Travolta[edit]

~~Delete~~ Merge to John Travolta#Personal life. Jett Travolta is not notable in his own right (WP:NOTINHERITED). His unfortunate death constitutes WP:ONEEVENT. This was a contested speedy delete. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is covered internationally in newspapers around the world, thereby providing no shortage of Wikipedia:reliable sources. His death, which is among the main news items for several days, is already having various effects, including raising awareness for epilepsy and Kawasaki disorder. Shaliya waya (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protect to John Travolta.[19][20] This is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEEVENT: the only reason that his death is getting this much press coverage, as opposed to the average person who suffered from Kawasaki disease or died from a seizure, is the notability of the parents, not the child. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protect to John Travolta Zzyzx11's reasoning is very persuasive. No other notability. --Bejnar (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protect to John Travolta as above. Other than occasional references to his health issues, Jett was largely out of the public eye for his entire life. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protect to John Travolta Zzyzx11 basically said it all. He's only known because he died and that is only a result of his parents being notable. Children without any notability of their own are regularly merged in article about their parents.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protect to John Travolta, not inherited. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protect to John Travolta, ditto. Ndenison ^talk 15:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and the affirmative consensus of this discussion. Those who feel bold are welcome to rename or rewrite the article. (Non-admin closure) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mother I'd like to fuck (MILF)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mother I'd like to fuck (MILF)

This article is fit for the Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. Yes, it is notable, but only as a dictionary definition at best, and certainly not in its current form that serves merely to defame a few people by name. The vast majority of sources it cites are blogs, flunking WP:RS. The remaining non-blog sources can't objectively source the claims that so-and-so is a MILF/VPILF/GILF, because they are mere opinions, and because MILF contains the first person term "I". When a columnist or blogger calls someone a MILF, that is a statement about the author, not the subject lady. Wikipedia can't objectively repeat it, or refer someone's "MILF status" or call them a "notable MILF" (unless it is somehow plausible that WP would also "like to fuck" the named individual). This term does not merit an article, and should be deleted, and redirected to a list of acronyms or expressions containing the term. Reswobslc (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be total madness to delete an article that is clearly notable and the sources are better than in most of the porn star articles (in fact most of the sentences and sources are straight from the porn star articles). There have been many users trying to destroy this article because of reasons that cant be accepted in wikipedia. MILF-genre is one of pornoraphy's most rapidly growing subculture that must be noted in Wikipedia if Wikipedia tryes to be an encyclopedia. As you can see Notable MILFs are in that section because they are famous MILF porn actresses and have received MILF of the Year Awards and so on. Seems to me that someone just have problems with that Sarah Palin is mentioned in this article... or well... maybe with his/her moth... Klassikkomies (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this article merely mentioned that some media outlet uses this term in the name of an award, that's one thing. But when the article consists mainly of listing real people's names and photos and refers to them as "MILFs", that is not acceptable. Quite simply, Wikipedia may not refer to an individual as a "notable mother I'd like to fuck", per plenty of policies, starting with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and just plain common sense. I note that most of the content you claim Wikipedia can't do without, is content you have added yourself, and your deletion of others' warning templates and abrasive use of profanity toward others bringing up BLP concerns is hardly appropriate either (seeWP:CIVIL). Reswobslc (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (provisionally): Interesting. However vulgar and repulsive to some, it is part of American vernacular English and does pass WP:N (the term made national news here). Initially, I considered nominating it for AfD. However, the term is a generational icon, is recognizable across generations, and many references can be found (beyond blog reports). WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS notwithstanding, if the subject matter weren't of a pornographic nature, the ongoing debate within the article would be minimized. Assuming the author(s) are willing to work on the wording, flow, and encyclopedic content, a semi-protect should be placed on the article to prevent incessant juvenile vandalism then re-evaluated.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment THe term's notability (as a dictionary entry) is unquestionable, and WP:CENSOR is not the concern here. The concern is the entire article consists chiefly of naming real living people as MILF's, contrary to WP:BLP. Reswobslc (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: There is nothing defamatory. The persons in question star in "MILF-genre" films and win awards for being MILFs. Repulsive as it is, it is passing WP:N and the "MILF" subjects are passing WP:BIO.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sallicio--see below--some of the material in the article originally would not pass BLP--see the now deleted GMILF section, especially the last sentence of it. those people are not porn actresses. DGG (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just saw that in the diff... totally agree to that aspect.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in part The basic MILF material is acceptable , per NOTCENSORED; the mention of individuals is problematic, but I think the porn actresses involved essentially use it as a trademark. I have however removed two parts of the article as BLP enforcement that I consider to be clear BLP violations: First, the VPILF portion. It is possible that this material is defensible as an internet meme, but it would need to be separate. It does not reasonably fit under the general title and description, which is prejudicial. I am not sure what position I would take about it as a separate article--the person involved certainly has no right to privacy, and I'm not going to get involved in the discussion if it is rewritten as a separate article. second, there was material under GMILF, mentioning the same figure, and some mainstream actresses who most decidedly do not use the term. The sources for this were youtube and blog postings. I consider this absolutely beyond the pale, at least with respect to the non-political people in that section. After I removed the VPILF section, Klassikkomies restored it. This is not acceptable as BLP, and it is not acceptable under the arb com decision about articles relating to Palin. I think the net effect of this was to take the opportunity to be nasty even at the cost of making the article very vulnerable, and was POINTy, not good faith editing. I removed it again, and intend to block him if readded unless there is consensus to restore it from other admins. I have never advocated the removal of anything as being pornographic. DGG (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:DGG who have deleted all the mentions of Sarah Palin from the article also gave this to my talk page for devoloping the article with proper sources: "==Warning==

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to MILF, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I have removed clear BLP violations from the article MILF. Including mainstream actresses on the basis of youtube and blog postings is unacceptable. Ditto for political figures. I shall block you immediately if you restore either. DGG (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)." And the picture of one of the most famous MILF of our time, Deauxma, have been deleted from the article among other things... Real nice, real nice... I guess this is Wikipedias neutral point of view... Well... Klassikkomies (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're implying about DGG here, but I'm not sure you fully understand WP:BLP. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject can be covered by adults in appropriate articles such as Age disparity in sexual relationships (where it's already included). I don't think this type of vulgarity is appropriate or encyclopedic. It can be redirected to an appropriate article for thsoe who want to learn about the subject. But maybe I'm wrong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the subject of vulagarity, ChildofMidnight, remember that Wikipedia is not censored. We have an article on Fuck for a reason. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Consensus is clearly against me. Perhaps it's notable. We'll see what develops. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But remove any material that violates WP:BLP. The term is widely used in the English language and is used as a marekting tool by several porn actresses. Jonesy (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split Provided we can keep it in line with wp:BLP there are potentially two valid articles here, one explaining the term - thogh currently we don't have much more than a wiktionary entry and the other being list of Porn Actresses who work as MILFs but both will require constant patrolling to make sure the list only names self identified MILF actresses and to avoid naming people in the main article. Also I agree with Salicio's suggestion that we semi protect. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 10:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MILF is now everyday expression for a sexually attractive older woman therefore notable. Move the porn actresses to a seperate article. Archivey (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a notable expression, I think the article could use some cleanup, and some more description of the term, origins etc. Sources like this one and this Guardian article could help with making the article more encyclopaedic. I think that the Notable actresses in the MILF-porn genre should probably go, however, those sort of lists can just grow exponentially, and the criteria for inclusion are very vague. Replacement with a paragraph about the "Milf-porn Genre" will suffice, the list doesn't add to the article, and just serves to advertise certain selected porn stars. – Toon ^(talk) 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actresses presently listed have I think all or almost all of them good references for using the term as a positive designation of their specialty--some have actual awards for it. I can't encyclopedia how listing a porn actress by declared sub-genre is inappropriate, at least if limited to those with awards or award nominations for it. As for the lead picture of one of them, it wasn't I who removed it, and I in fact consider such a picture appropriate if the reason for using her in particular can be justified. If the expression however is considered mainstream otherwise, as acceptable designation for a sexually attractive older woman (which iI rather doubt), then probably they should be in a separate article. DGG (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the inclusion of a list of porn actresses who are noted for being Milfs is a little too specific. The article isn't about porn actresses who have been presented as Milfs, but the term itself. I think that we have to take this list out; whether it's to a separate page or wherever. This is, however, a content dispute; and should take place at the article's talk page, since I've already argued my point for the article's existence. – Toon ^(talk) 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep possibly Rename. The subject of the article is obviously notable, as this term is now within wide usage. We need to keep a close eye on WP:BLP violations and make sure nobody subjectively lists famous women on here for giggles. I'd also like to suggest moving the page to MILF (slang) as "MILF" (though an acronym) is the term in question. Stretching out a slang acronym (see LOL for instance). CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename Well known, often used term, [21] (although some of those mentions are of a terrorist org called MILF) [22] but MILF (slang) would be more of the type of title we have on Wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Rename MILF (slang) sounds so much better and this is very notable. ReverendG (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlyle Research[edit]

I don't believe this page to be notable per WP:ORG. A google search returned only the company's website, and a google news search returned nothing. Another editor tagged the article for speedy deletion just after creation which was removed based on the unsourced line Carlyle Research is one of the leading executive search organisations. A prod tag was then placed on the article. I took WP:BITE to heart and decided that the original author really did not know what was going on (based on conversation on my talk page). I decided to move this here, for his sake. Ndenison ^talk 04:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easy enough to dig up sources that establish notability. From Google news, this publication works to establish notability, as does this news report. WilyD 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first link is to a company financial report. The second is to an advertisement in a newsletter. Neither are valid proofs of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that could be considered significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Ndenison ^talk 15:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually in their supplier directory http://www.thegrapevinemagazine.com/search.php most of the articles their likely to have been in are specialised and considered notable. Their Editorial content in that article was below their advertisement.82.24.116.208 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely sure what that means -- The Grapevine is clearly some sort of magazine related to the executive search industry, and the listing of Carlyle Research in that directory is hardly notable -- any company supplying information to the magazine in the form of editorial content or advertising can get listed on that directory. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The "editorial content" at [23] is clearly labeled as an "advertorial". I.e. an advertisement posing in the guise of actual editorial content. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely even an assertion of Notability but just enough to have escaped speedy. None of the sources suggested offer reliable, substantial coverage. Springnuts (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Close discussion and Delete 82.24.116.208 (talk) 18:21, 8 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. Vandalism Protonk (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggers from Mars[edit]

Unsourced, no Google hits, notability not established. JNW (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had this tagged for SD. Still think it should be. Ndenison ^talk 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed; originator's edit history suggests vandalism only: [24]. JNW (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this hoax article off the top of my head just to reach auto-confirmation so I could move pages. On the other hand, keep for the lulz. — Mario Mendez Olague (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the SD Template back. Ndenison ^talk 04:43, 6 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 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hunter (author, journalist)[edit]

Somewhat borderline - the man has had some accomplishments, and seems to be a known figure in the Columbus area, but he's also of purely local interest, from what I can tell. No mention, for instance, of any national journalism awards won. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems very little to this article. The subject, Bob Hunter, is stated to have written a book about Ohio State football. That's about it. There is one ref, and that only indicates he will be signing copies of that book. Not notable. Tim Ross (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly notable on a wide-scale, if one of the books was a best-seller, or even slightly popular...but they don't appear to be. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Magilow[edit]

Some searches indicate he fails WP:PROF. If kept, the article could do with fewer capital letters (usually reserved for resumes). Biruitorul ^Talk 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not yet notable. DGG (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On his way perhaps, but far from notable just now. --Crusio (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Being a book series editor is probably not enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal).--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is more information from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (via Google cache): [25] which confirms he is an assistant professor at the beginning of his career. Google Scholar finds few or no citations for his works.[26] Book reviews editor of an academic journal is not equivalent to Editor-in-Chief. I can find no evidence that the subject meets WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, fails to meet either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Tim Ross (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Diane Barnes[edit]

Nice little resume there, but with nary a Google hit and zero Google Scholar hits, it seems she can wait a bit before earning a berth here. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep co-editor of a major Yale series is sufficient for notability. I assume they know what they are doing and are better qualified to judge than we are. DGG (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You really think that's enough for notability if there isn't a single source? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The editorship and authorship can be verified from WorldCat, and that is sufficient for notability--but changed to Weak keep. .DGG (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are saying that who, exactly, has "judged" that she is notable? Yale? 98.122.44.244 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Probably meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Arguably meets WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal), although I am not sure that the Ohio History is that type of journal envisioned by criterion #8. Her book Artisan workers in the Upper South, in a very specialized area, is in 102 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand--Meets criteria # 8 of WP:PROF: "Ohio History" is an academic peer-reviewed journal, published by Kent State University 1. --Jmundo (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Expand" using what sources? 98.122.44.244 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encrypted Title Key[edit]

I couldn't find any independent sources to confirm notability, and in any case, we are an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. WP:NOT A MANUAL. This goes to wikiHow. K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing a case for deletion. If it's wikiHow material, it should be transwikified, otherwise a reduced amount of rewritten material can be merged with an article about encryption.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Advanced Access Content System. You have an encrypted title key on every single DVD and Blu-Ray disk you own, so it is certainly notable. However, as it is simply a functional component of AACS it doesn't need its own article. —Noah 06:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Detailed articles on the workings of common consumer electronics seem like a reasonable topic to me, and this one particularly as it is notable for being a technology hackers are currently attempting to break (as doing so would enable Blu-Ray discs to be decrypted, thus allowing the implementation of open source software players). See BackupHDDVD, a piece of software that requires such keys as an input. JulesH (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep informative article. I dont like the deletion argument above we are an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual - this calls for a fix, not a delete. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you adduce reliable sources demonstrating notability in order to effect this fix, keeping in mind WP:NOTMANUAL? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm guessing that about a third to half of these would make excellent references. :-) (seriously). —Noah 05:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be more helpful, here are three from the AACS article and a couple new ones: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. The subject matter is notable and referencable. It is really only a question of whether we clean up the existing article or merge it into the main AACS article. —Noah 06:06, 8 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. Having a bunch of AfDs on the same topic is hard to handle. Closing this as keep for now, no prejudice on a consistent nomination. Tone 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adventures in Odyssey sagas[edit]

Delete: unsourced, unencyclopedic WP:OR WP:FANCRUFT, accumulated solely from articles already under AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Allen (Adventures in Odyssey) (making the creation of this article an act of questionable good faith). No third-party acknowledgement that these self-proclaimed "sagas" even exist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Premature listing, speedy close suggested One AFD on the same material at a time, please--doing it this way is a sure route to confusion. After it is decided what to do with the other articles, we can deal with this one. I consider it totally inappropriate to try to foreclose the possibility of dealing with another set of afds via merging, by trying to delete the article they would be merged to while the others are still under consideration. DGG (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would note that you also demanded the closure of the underlying AfD, because of American Eagle's 'proposal' (as part of which he illegitimately attempted to denominate the articles that have been aggregated to this one). As that AfD had already become complex, and as this article contains not a shred of notability, I nominated this article separately to avoid complicating matters. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would further point out that it is not this AfD that is premature, but the article's creation, which is a clear pre-emption of the decision of the underlying AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep/Speedy Close This, as it is a list of fictional works. Sources for fiction are few and far between, but that does not diminish notability, similar to the plot summary of a film article. It is not original research, it is all factual information, not "fan cruft" as you say. All content here is notable and verifiable, but I'd probably need a few books to do that (like Adventures in Odyssey#Further reading... anyways, Very Strong Keep, no reason to delete. And, I am trying to work on these articles. ♥ American Eagle (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No third party notice of the even the existence of these sagas = no notability whatsoever. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the two works at Adventures in Odyssey#Further reading are published by Tyndale House (the publisher of the AiO 'Eugene Sings!' albums) and Focus on the Family (the radio show's broadcaster), neither has any intellectual independence, and thus do nothing whatsoever for notability (either of the show or of these "sagas"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am right to assume you will soon be AfDing Minor characters in The Circle Opens, List of The Clique series characters, List of Dimension X episodes, Dark Adventure Radio Theatre: At the Mountains of Madness. Dark Adventure Radio Theatre: The Dunwich Horror, The Brighter Day (soap opera), The Radio Adventures of Dr. Floyd, The Thirteenth Floor (comic strip), and List of characters in The Chronicles of Narnia? If not, why so? ♥ American Eagle (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where (i) there is no third party coverage of the subsidiary topics & (ii) the notability of the base article is marginal in terms of third party coverage, I will most certainly contemplate nominating it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would further point out that even the series' own website only lists two of the sagas in this list (Applesauce Saga & Novacom Saga, plus a third unlisted saga: Darkness Before Dawn), this leaves even the existence of the Blackgaard saga, Eugene's Search for his Father, Eugene and Katrina, Eugene's Conversion saga, Connie's Conversion saga & "Trandy" saga as pure WP:OR (in addition to being non-notable). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not true. First of all, it isn't "the series' own website," it is run independently (at the bottom it says, "...This site is not in any way affiliated with Focus on the Family..."). Their official website is WhitsEnd.org, which doesn't have very much information on it. Secondly, "Darkness Before Dawn" is the Blackgaard saga, it is just the name for the main episodes in it. Thirdly, AIOLib.com is an outdated website ("New Stuff: 7/19/2008"), so doesn't have things recent. AIOWiki.com has articles on all these sagas, which is updated and recent. TheAE talk/sign 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If AIOLib.com is not the official website, then it is hard to perceive it as being a WP:RS. If it were an official site, it could contribute (as a reliable primary source) to WP:V if not WP:NOTE, however a self-published fansite would most certainly not be a WP:RS and thus could not contribute to either -- leaving the entire topic as one of WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps it might have been a good idea to have simply proposed a search for further documentation of the unlisted or borderline material--and then a merge of those portions with inadequate support--rather than the course taken of trying to delete everything. What can be easily accomplished without much controversy should be done first. Trying instead to do everything at once leads to difficulties. and the explicit statement that one is considering the nominating the base article also, even though there is some 3rd party support for it, can lead to an unfortunate impression--but I cannot see calling it a bias against Christianity. AE, it never helps to take proposed deletions as a personal attack. DGG (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. TheAE talk/sign 18:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep program is notable, and thus information on individual installments are ok. It does need more sources and needs worded in a better tone. Tgreach (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that List of Adventures in Odyssey episodes already exists, which provides "information on individual installments". Do you think both a list of episodes and of sagas is needed? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the wording, I have to work on that. When I merged them, the original articles had much more like it. Plus it can be expanded – there are many more large sagas. TheAE talk/sign 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teknologkollegiet[edit]

Non-notable student dormitory. Sgroupace (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outside of being designed by a notable architect, I see very little to convince me that this dormitory is particularly notable. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being a near-orphan article, and a non-noteable dormitory. I still think you could mention it in another article, like that of the architect, but besides that, chuck it. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it or at least give the article time to expand. It provides useful information for students going for scholarship, and there similar articles concerning other dormitories in Wikipedia, such as: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantoft_Studentboliger http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resid%C3%A8ncia_d%27Estudiants_de_Fantoft http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9sidence_universitaire_de_Fantoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomektadla1 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Punkmorten (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing particularly worthy. Punkmorten (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per inherent notability of school and university buildings. It seems there is a growing consensus to include WP articles on individual dormitories as seen by the hundreds of articles in (Category:University and college dormitories in the United States), (Category:Halls of residence in the United Kingdom), (Category:University and college residential buildings), etc. This is not a one-off type of article which fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Although this article should be excised of the fluff and absurd trivia like "phraseology", the page should be kept. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've whittled down the article to remove the obvious chaff and fluff to see if can stand on its own. If not, I would suggest merging into the Aarhus University page which can always be expanded to include a list of residence halls. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is NO inherent notability of school and university buildings User:CactusWriter's outrageous statement cannot be allowed to stand. This unremarkable dorm is just that. No sources attest to its notability whatsoever. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Actually, it was hardly an outrageous statement. The active proposed Wikipedia guideline for notability of buildings includes reference to inherent notability specifically for schools and universities. And the largely populated WP categories for university buildings appears to support a consensus for that guideline. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Designed by a notable architect, and article is based on a reliable source. There is no reason to delete this except overzealous application of notability guidelines.--ragesoss (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable architect Power.corrupts (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being designed by a notable architect doesn't confer automatic notability, and being one of 22 halls of residence of a university certainly doesn't provide "inherent notability". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 8 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 G7 per user request. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America[edit]

Non-notable recent book Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, why do you think that it is non-notable? Schuym1 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - could somebody direct me to the WP guidelines, if any exist, on the inclusion of book summaries? Is Wikipedia meant to include all books that may happen to receive coverage in reliable sources? I have nothing against this book. The thing is, I'm not sure I see yet how such a book merits inclusion, but I don't really see a clear reason to exclude it, either. Are all books meeting minimum guidelines going to be summarized in WP? Maybe this is a grey area in the notability criterion (Wikipedia:NOTABILITY isn't helping me here). Jlg4104 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done got it! WP:NB. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTABILITY should have helped you out because of the first criteria. Schuym1 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - and thanks, people. The book notability criteria are "bugging" me a little, but I get it. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- This was a lame contribution on my part, so I'm scratching my pref above. I still can't decide whether this is a case where simply applying WP:NB is the thing to do, or there's something wrong with the idea of including every last book that gets press. Books get press almost by default, unlike people, who must do something notable to get press about themselves. Jlg4104 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a noteable non-fiction source per WP:NOTE. It can be expanded well and be very noteable...someone with the book just needs to put more info on it's page. K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed two sources that shouldn't have been added, but there is still Science News, Houston Chronicle, Star Tribune, and Northern Winds. Schuym1 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Science News is a press release and the Northern Winds link looks like one also. I will tag this as CSD-G7. Schuym1 (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - After a long time of searching (earlier before and a few times during this AFD), I can't find any sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk{) 04:24, 6 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 Milk Junkies. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone You Can Do... I Can Do Better[edit]

A non notable anime series as there aren't any/enough reliable sources that deem it notable per Wikipedia's general notability policy. Tavix (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help a lot if you explained why you don't deem it notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nominator responded to my request it's no longer relevant. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I haven't checked for sources on this one, but my understanding has been that animes that have been translated to English are normally presumed to be notable. I don't see why this one would be any different? JulesH (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof to verify that? I personally haven't heard of that and can't find any policy/guidelines that say that. Tavix (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANIME has no such guideline. Wikipedia in general has decided that a nationally broadcast television show is notable, but OVAs pretty much have to be judged by the general notability guidelines, i.e., demonstrating that reliable sources have noted it. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Comment I notice this discussion is a redlink on the page itself...? How to fix so that everyone can participate in this discussion? Also, merge to Milk Junkies if its the same series. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's some random Wikipedia bug. All you have to do to get around that is to click on the redlink and then hit "sav epage" Tavix (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge up to the main series article, Milk Junkies, as this is in effect an episode article that does not (at the moment) demonstrate its notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Milk Junkies per WP:MOS-AM and lack of notability on the individual episodes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 8 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 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Deng[edit]

Non-notable cinematographer. No references, no claim to notability. Working in low-level positions in not notable, even if the films are notable. Maybe if some aspect of that work is innovative, influential, or ground-breaking ... but that's not the case here, and the article makes no case for it. Mikeblas (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As currently written, the article is one sentence and then a list of Paul's projects... not even a complete list... and unsourced. Though Deng has worked on a number of notable projects, I am in agreement with the nom as there is no assertion of notability... and nothing explaining why his camerawork or assistant camerawork is specially notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - insufficient notability. The page view stats show a max of 8 views in a day, and that is the minority, on average 0-2 views. Article is around 18 months old and still in a limited state. I don't believe there is sufficient info available to expand and/or warrant inclusion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:19, 6 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 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microchakras[edit]

This article appears to be mainly a spam piece; but I was unsure. Therefore, I submit it the community.There are references which mention Chakra Pyschology; although, most appear to be based on this this website (from where some of the information is taken verbatim). There is this journal which cites the Chakras; however, I am unqualified to judge its use as a reliable, third party source. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable neologism, and given the apparent existence of commercial conflict of interest from the apparent only sources, original research as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fringe, need pruning and other fixes, but deletion is not appropriate Power.corrupts (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has such great problems in terms of OR, sourcing, neutrality, notability and even conflict of interest that it is very doubtful if it will ever meet Wikipedia standards. Nor does not seem likely it is a suitable basis for an eventual acceptable article. Tim Ross (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles reflect coverage in reliable sources ... - Eldereft (cont.) 06:19, 10 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 Taz-Mania. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus Brothers[edit]

Non-notable characters, absolutely no secondary sources, written in-universe with OR aplenty. Nothing worth redirecting or merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable third party sources are provided. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taz-Mania as rds are cheap so it is indeed worth doing so; merge anything of value. JJL (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge including a good deal of the content. They seem to play a role in the story. 3rd party sources are not necessary to verify merged fictional description. Not in universe, by the way, since it says it's a cartoon. DGG (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge and redirect. They're not just some background characters. They actually did play a pretty large role in the show. It's clearly not in universe. It describes a fictional character, but it's all from a out of universe perspective, there's a clear difference. On the flipside answering DGG, at the very very least we need a source that confirms they were actually in the show. And if we want to reference any episodes they need to be available on DVD, otherwise the reader cannot possibly verify the information. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't necessarily need to be available on DVD in order to verify... these episodes are available on AOL's In2TV and are supposed to be airing on Boomerang this year. DHowell (talk)
Merge relevant data to parent article. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per DGG and Mgm. DHowell (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Throatee[edit]

Massive triple-N: Non-notable neologism. And honestly, this article's continued existence here is probably a WP:SNOW case. Vianello (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as madeup nonsense. Hasn't he heard the word "neckbeard" before? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MINOR beg to differ. Speedy delete as WP:SNOW, sure, but it's not nonsense, or made-up in the capacity that an existing criterion would make it a hoax/vandalism. But I'm just picking nits so hard I could do it professionally here. - Vianello (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Hunh? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SNOW. But (sigh) now I suppose I'll have to ditch my plans to write up "Nostrache." Jlg4104 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--and it's also the death of my far-fetched 'eard' (my wife says the hair on my ears is like a beard). Drmies (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "eard" -- there's beauty in the simplicity of that one! Jlg4104 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 23:13, 6 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 Krav Maga. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Krav Maga Federation (IKMF)[edit]

I have been unable to find any independent coverage of this organization (I am not saying there is no coverage of Krav Maga itself), let alone any significant coverage in reliable sources. Rather than do a speedy or prod, I am taking this to AfD because of the controversies on related articles. Bongo matic 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: copyvio. [32], [33], et. al. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect: After removing the copyrighted material, there is no information that is not in the Krav Maga article. As per Urbanrenewal, BOLDLY redirected to Krav Maga jmcw (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reverted the redirect while the AfD is under way. Bold is good, but let's let the community consensus process run its course first. Euryalus (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect Per Jmcw37 et al, no harm in a redirect but would lean to deleting & resorting as the material, now removed ,was a copy vio --Nate 14 81 09:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this stub is already effectively a redirect to Krav Maga. From a google search it appears to be a legitimate organizing / marketing body but the organization is not notable, distinct from the fighting style |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. JJL (talk) 15:29, 8 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 keep. It's probably snowing over there (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hjälstaby[edit]

Advertising, A small settlement (from google maps looked 17 houses) in the middle of nowhere. The Rolling Camel (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, still a settlement. As part of my magic trick (gather closely kids) watch as the 'advertising' goes away with the removal of 3 words and the click of an edit button! Huzzam! Ironholds (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article says what anyone that looks up the article would already know, "Hjälstaby is a city in uppsala län." I will change my !vote to keep if the article gets expanded. Schuym1 (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if someone did not know about the settlement, the article is still not useful. Schuym1 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats Right, It is nothing to expand with!! Thats the biggest reason of why it got nominated. The Rolling Camel (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you couldn't find anything on google? Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not my responsibility. Schuym1 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually that was directed at the nominator, my point being he should at least do some basic research before taking it to AfD. Ironholds (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And to prove said point: first page of the google search results for 'Hjälstaby' yielded info I've added to the article. Take a gander. Ironholds (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ironholds, not an advertisement, verifiable settlement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to keep: per article improvement. 03:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuym1 (talk • contribs)
Keep Even absent Ironholds's adding the infobox data, this'd likely, consistent with our practice vis-à-vis geographic locations, have been a "keep" (an argument that, in the complete absence of sourcing for the existence of the settlement and of any content save one sentence, redirection [pending expansion] to Uppsala County would be appropriate might have been sustained, but it is not, in any case, one with which I'd have been in sympathy), and it surely is now. Joe 06:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While short, the article gives the proper context and also shares statistical information about the place. Clearly non-advertorial and useful after edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the swedish article [34]. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a verified, existing settlement. --Bonadea (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - settlements are inherently of encyclopaedic interest. Product before process. Wily D 14:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bonadea. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 6 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 keep. nomination withdrawn, only delete vote no longer applies, further unanimous keep. Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotsunda[edit]

Advertising, a small city in the middle of nowhere pretty near to Sollentuna. The Rolling Camel (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it exists. Not advertising at all, has been stubbed. Long established consensus is that all settlements are notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is an article that doesn't say much and it is not a useful article. I will change my !vote to keep if it gets expanded. Schuym1 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Swedish Wikipedia redirects Rotsunda to Rotebro, which appears to be the same place and a notable one. --Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is short but it gives all the information you need to establish notability and the Swedish article shows it can be expanded. Barnstar to anyone who can read Swedish and expands it (you can claim it on my talk page). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Withdrawn - Alright, Its better with Rotebro, Rotebro have much more inportant results on google etc. I am translating from swedish wikipedia right now. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:52, 6 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. This is clearly going to end as this and given the drama around the user conduct on the page, there is no point in belaboring it. MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of British and Irish footballers who have played abroad[edit]

I find this to be WP:LISTCRUFT as only an extremely small minority of British footballers actually playing abroad. Removed prod (from User:Jmorrison230582) stated "Impossible list to maintain, which is achieved in any case by the various expatriate footballer categories." Tavix (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I find this nomination to be deletioncruft junk which is biased against people interested in the minority of British and Irish footballers who have played abroad. Juzhong (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING. Yeah, not a good idea. Tavix (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you have a policy of not giving a shit who is interested in what. Juzhong (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's someone who is interested in just about anything. Just because there is somebody that is interested in it, doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository of interesting trivia. Tavix (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The country where someone plays football is "interesting trivia"? Juzhong (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, countries are not trivia, in fact we have articles on all sorts of countries and territories. What is trivia is to have a list of players that happened to play abroad their country. And plus, why UK + Ireland?!? Why not then a List of French and Irish footballers who have played abroad, or Spain and Germany together. Imagine if we move to other sports then, how about a list of Cuban and Jamaican bobsledders who have performed abroad!! as you can see, this type of content is highly trivial and most likely not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confirming that someone playing outside their country is trivia? And maybe my geography is shaky but I believe that Britain and part of Ireland belong to a single country. Juzhong (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are only somewhat correct. "Ireland" is a separate country occupying the southern 3/4 or so of the island of "Ireland". Only the northeastern part of the island is part of "The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)" Tavix (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, intersection-type list with no good rational. Might be an acceptable category. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category would just be a list but without any indication of where they played and when. Juzhong (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, in my mind, that would be a good thing. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would it be good for? Juzhong (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The categories exist already. See Category:Irish expatriate association footballers, Category:Welsh expatriate footballers and so on. Punkmorten (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen them, thanks. They look completely fucking useless, I was wondering if someone would care to tell me what they are good for. Juzhong (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft and synthesis. What's next, List of British footballers named John? - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bad analogy. A list of footballers called John would obviously bad because there's no encyclopedic value in such a list and it would be stating the obvious. If referenced, the country someone plays football in is encyclopedic, the question is whether putting them in a list is a good idea, but it's certainly not as trivial as the John list you mentioned. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my explanation above. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 09:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as this does appear to be listcruft. Also, as Do U(knome) has pointed out, this has the potential to snowball out of control and spawn all sorts of useless lists which, if this was kept, would use this AfD as a precedent if they were nominated for deletion and cause all sorts of unecessary arguments. Best to nip this one in the bud, keeping things nice and civil as we do so! Bettia (rawr!) 10:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you regurgitate hatecruft argument and pretend to be "keeping things nice and civil"? Juzhong (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, LC is not policy but let's see:
1 is a personal attack.

3 is repeating the retarded "the country where someone plays their sport is trivia" argument above.

4 is the same.

7 is a lie. Also it acknowledges that in fact this is an appropriate way to organize sportpeople, confirming that #1, #3 and and #4 are nonsense.

10: I think it's fairly clear what parts of the world are not in Britain or Ireland, so no original research is required.

11 You only need to add an entry when a notable football player starts playing outside their country, this effort is not disproportionate. Juzhong (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also behavivor of Juzhong is atrocious and he needs to be beat with the clue stick. JuJube (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck you. Juzhong (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and thanks for the excuse to call a cunt a cunt. Juzhong (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ugh, still not banned? No-one paying attention? Well any, apart from not being prepared to tolerate your insults any more, you people aren't even pretending this is a debate and not a vote. That leaves no alternative but to build as many sockpuppets as possible as a replacement for reasoned discussion. Juzhong (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this uncategorizable nonesense.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Real place, sources prove it, merger is not suitable. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAMBO, Brooklyn[edit]

Proposed for deletion, deleted by me. Author contacted me to ask to restore it, so I did, and automatically placed it on AfD. No vote from me, this is a routine nomination. JIP | Talk 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge in a suitable target. The article is verifiable by multiple independent references. It might be too short for its own entry, but that's really a good reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. It's a criterion for expansion. Wily D 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the article should be expanded or possibly merged, though there is no obvious other place to merge it. I believe notability is established via the references as well as growing use in real estate (try a Google search of "rambo brooklyn"). Compare with BoCoCa, another stub article about a fairly silly-named (but legitimate) geographical area in Brooklyn. N.b., I live in the area in question (as will thousands more once the bubble-era towers here and nearby are occupied). Martensitic (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in a suitable target.A naming contest on a blog is not exactly an overwhelming source. A small feature quoting a single random person in a weekly lifestyle magazine is not convincing corroboration. Other articles quoting realtors as sources should consider such people potentially have a strong incentive to parcel out increasingly smaller names for sections of existing neighborhoods. There is a case to be made for inclusion within the Vinegar Hill article as Bridge Plaza, and perhaps mentioning 'RAMBO' as an informal name. The existence of other realtor-sponsored neighborhood names (e.g., BoCoCa) are not by themselves valid reasons to perpetuate what may be construed to be a dubious practice. N.b., I live in the surrounding area.. Dream-king (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article needs work but it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.251.61 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Switching Show 2009: With Greg James[edit]

Non-notable show. Endorsed prod was disputed.--Jmundo (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search doesn't even turn up any evidence that this is a real radio show. Even if it is, the article would require a complete rewrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A crystal ball of unsourced unnotability and speculation.

A person might be popping around?
Sometimes he might go to a Football,Rugby or a Tennis match and do half an hour reports?
And my favourite: He Might do 4 hours and half hour sometimes if no people are doing it? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Current article is pretty much just nonsense.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as zero evidence of notability, lots of evidence of improbability (one of the fill-in hosts is the current Doctor Who, guests may include "the two people from The Beatles"). - Dravecky (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Switching Show 2009: With Sara Cox[edit]

Non-notable show. Endorsed prod was disputed.--Jmundo (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search doesn't even turn up any evidence that this is a real radio show. Even if it is, the article would require a complete rewrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show is clearly non notable. It lacks any sources as well. --Stormbay (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is clearly not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ped Admi (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A crystal ball of unsourced unnotability and speculation. In December? 2009? That's quite a bit off. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 9 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Vorobyev[edit]

Nominated for speedy but hasnt been speedied for 5-6 hours, Its not sure it qualifies for speedy either but it qualifies to Afd because there is ~~no notability~~ or the notability is not included in the page. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was given less than one minute after creation before being tagged with speedy deletion. If User:Ndenison want to keep new users away from Wikipedia, he is doing a fine job. Vodello (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barnstar to that one that can expand and find the notability of this article. I know its notable but i can't read russian and i don't have time to fix it myself i someway.

Since you know it's notable, then there is absolutely no excuse for your AFD nomination. There is no deadline. Motion for Speedy Close per nom's comments above. Vodello (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i forgot to write that. Of cource its a nomination withdrawl. The Rolling Camel (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Not giving time for an article to be developed is absolutely pathetic. Heaven forbid if that the person who started the stub planned on working on it, only to see less than 60 seconds later it has been put up for speedy deletion. A search would indicate some degree of notability, along with interviews, etc. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:52, 8 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 redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZP Theart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previous AfD resulted in redirect. A single anonymous IP insists on removing the redirect. Another pass at consensus is necessary to determine if the redirect is appropriate. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DragonForce. Only probable assertion of notability is singing in a notable band and in another not-so-well-known band, Shadow Warriors. But I don't believe this is enough to assert his individual notability. Besides, the article is written in the form of several paragraphs, when all of them could be mixed in two or three bigger ones. I mean, it seems as if people were trying to make the article look longer. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. While a redirect is a possible outcome of a deletion debate, AFD is not the place to intiate such discussions. Since the anon editor undid the redirect without providing any reasons (besides calling the editor who had placed it there as a result of consensus a possible vandal), I've reinstated the redirect and protected it. The correct place to challenge the previous AFD is WP:DRV and discussion about a possible undo of the redirect should be on the talk page of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volker Lechtenbrink[edit]

No indication that this is person is notable Oo7565 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this Google News Archive search. There are plenty of reliable sources that allow this person to pass WP:BIO. Specifically, this entire new story (a several paragraph news story from the Hamburger Abendblatt, machine translated version from Google here), another news article from Hamburger Abendblatt (machine translated version from Google here), this brief news article (from Netzeitung, machine translated version from Google here) are enough to establish this individual's notability. I don't know German, so I do not feel comfortable sourcing and expanding this article. Hopefully, a German-speaking contributor can improve this article. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cunard's references show he meets the WP:GNG. I get the general gist of the text, but I'm too unfamiliar with the terminology in the text to do any expanding or referencing myself. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the obvious notability shown by the Google News archive search linked above. It gets very tiresome when people nominate articles for deletion when it only takes a few seconds to do such basic searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per easily found sources of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 9 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 keep. The band received several notable awards and had charted hits which meets WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Nominator did nothing to explain why he believed it to be non-notable. Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F.T. Island[edit]

non notable bands. Yung Dong-Kung (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Yung Dong-Kung (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Interesting how the first act this user does is to list this page for deletion. Anyway, you can check Google news results here and the references at the bottom of the page in regards to album sales (at least two of them went top 10, one of them on the year-end list). Notability is clearly not an issue here (although the page itself needs cleanup). SKS2K6 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a fishy nom given it was user's first edit, but still. There are multiple sources and multiple albums that have apparently charted in a major country. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Mount Barker[edit]

This is an article about a proposed suburban church and is essentially an advertisement. It is not notable. Grahame (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources in the article are either not independent from Trinity Mount Barker, are postings on an Internet message board, or do not have the church as their subject. There are no reliable sources which can be used to show notability. --Megaboz (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--really a kind of crystal ball (and no promise of future notability) with self-published references. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources attempting to demonstrate notability include a forum and Wikipedia itself. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - required independent notability not yet clearly established. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 9 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 Hero (Mariah Carey song). History retained - there is some sourced material there, so editors can discuss at the talk page for Hero (Mariah Carey song) what to merge back in. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hero (X Factor release)[edit]

Completely unnecessary split of Hero (Mariah Carey song). Individual covers do not normally receive individual articles, and I see no justification for making an exception in this case. Attempt to restore standard format was reverted with a demand to "take it to AFD", so here we are. No history to preserve, because it was all carved out of the parent article, so simple deletion is all that is necessary. "Merging" would be counter-productive when all that is necessary is to undo the split. —Kww(talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note I am the editor who split the articles. There was a brief discussion on the talkpage about this during a separate discussion about an edit-war. (well I said I was going to do it and no-one objected.) This is an extraordinary cover that is taking an extraordinary amount of space in the original article: a cover version is not relevant to the original artist. A cover that sells 500,000 copies is notable in its own right. This cover has received a lot of media attention, meets general notability requirements, is verified and I see no reason to delete this article. Woody (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Note: left notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#AFD for Hero (X Factor release) (Woody (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, per nom. It does not warrant its own article. SKS2K6 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warrant? Is there a policy regarding worthiness? Woody (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cover charted #1 in two different charts, which makes this independently notable according to WP:MUSIC. Also, there is sufficient material to sustain a separate article. Keeping this tucked in the original article gives too much weight to material that isn't actually by Mariah Carey in an article about her version of the song. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article isn't about "her version of the song", it's about the song originally performed by her. That's a significant difference. All "Mariah Carey" is doing in the title is to distinguish this from Hero (Chad Kroeger song), not to restrict the article to material about Mariah Carey's particular version.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect and use the {{splitsection}} process. This AfD could go both ways as it's still the same song, even if notable, but this is not the place to count heads of separatists vs. mergists. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, this is quite a good place for it. If this is deleted at afd, then realistically, it can't be recreated through the splitsection process. It already has been split, I was just bold and did it. Woody (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it be recreated through splitsection? Anyway, my point was that as deletion always needs to be discussed to be successful (except speedies of course), and splitting is not, a mergist or deletionist is always in the disadvantage when trying to undo a bold page split. The bold split is being opposed, and by bringing back the status quo and forcing parties to discuss before splitting, it's all fair again. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted, then if any discussion afterwards says "create new article" then that new article automatically qualifies for speedy deletion under G4 as the reason for deletion would still not have been addressed, it is the same content. This AFD is to me, effectively a referendum on the split, though I am yet to revert the re-addition by Kww on Hero (Mariah Carey song). Woody (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take G4's "that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" to mean that if this article gets deleted as "it was split without discussion", and then gets recreated as "discussion showed it should be split", G4 no longer applies. Even if my interpretation is wrong (who knows), feel free to interpret my !vote as just redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song charted at number 1; you can't get any more notable. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The song is notable, no question, that's why it's got its own article at Hero (Mariah Carey song). Is a split still justified? Maybe, but it hasn't happened with other highly notable cover versions such as of e.g. Stand by Me (song) and With a Little Help from My Friends. (Just pointing this out; feel free to ignore me). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I recommend "other stuff exists" that it is a cover is not the only reason this song is notable; you also have to consider the wider social impact of this song. Look at the Hero (Mariah Carey song): a third of the readable prose is about a cover version. This is a notable performance in its own right. Woody (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd observe, as the individual who made the comment, that the section really kicked the arse out of the required detail. My inclination would have been to cull the detail rather than break it out into a different article with an excessive level of detail. From a pure policy perspective the article can probably be kept, but my inclination would be that it doesn't deserve to.

I will acknowledge that I prefer the Signal to Noise ration of written communication to be high and that's not a style that's all that common in Wikipedia.

ALR (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. To the covers section on Hero (Mariah Carey song) as they are the same song, just like the Leona Lewis version on Run (Snow Patrol song), as they are both the same song also. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hero (Mariah Carey song). Same songwriters, same song - this is a cover version. JamesBurns (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that it is a cover, I don't think anyone is. The point is that the cover itself is independently notable per WP:MUSIC and per our Verifiability. There is, as far as I'm aware, no policy that dictates all covers must be included on the original article. Woody (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy stating that, but it is the established convention, and you haven't presented any reason for this song to be an exception. Covers are frequently more successful than the original, and frequently take more space in an article than the original. There are a handful of cases where the article barely mentions the original.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Other stuff exists, what is your point? You haven't provided me with a policy or even a guideline that this article breaches. I have pointed out how successful this cover has been, the influence it has had regarding the Help for Heroes campaign amongst others. Whilst the lyrics may be the same, the song as a whole is different and I don't see why they should be lumped together awkwardly on one article. We are not stretched for space, we don't need to conserve the server space. There are more than enough sources for the cover article to meet notability requirements no matter what you think convention is. Precedents are made all the time. Woody (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly precedents are set all the time. What makes this one a precedent-setter? Why is the whole convention of titling songs by "Name (original performer song)" worth disrupting in this case? I Get By with a Little Help from My Friends discusses the original for about 25% of the article. Got My Mojo Workin' intertwines the discussion of three different songs, and barely discusses the less famous (although certainly best) version by Ann Cole and the Suburbans. Route 66 (Cheetah Girls) has spent most of it's life as a redirect, although pre-teens occasionally attempt to redirect it as a separate article. All over Wikipedia, single articles are built around the different versions of a song, and I can't find an example of a cover version being split out. If there's a problem with dominating the article, that's easily fixed: eliminate all the reviews of the television show it was on, the discussion of chart trajectory information (disparaged in WP:Record charts), unnecessary hooplah language like "The single stayed at number one for a second week and managed to fight off tough competition from Beyoncé Knowles, Britney Spears, Leona Lewis, and Alesha Dixon. It then continued its reign at number one for a third week fighting off competition from T.I. ft. Rihanna and The Killers (although these entered the UK Singles Chart on downloads only).", etc. If the information in the article was focused on the song, it would shrink by 75%.—Kww(talk) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst some of it could be cut down, in the same vein, it could be expanded with a lot more information. That an article needs work is not a reason for deletion or merger. You still have not provided a policy-based reason, the only reason I can gather is: don't shake the boat. Woody (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't rock the boat" is a major component of consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a component of consensus, in fact it's probably the antithesis. It's suppression of dissent, essentially if you don't agree with majority then shut up, go forth and procreate...

ALR (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean it in that fashion. If the boat is stable and going in the desired direction, there isn't much call to rock it, though. It's Woody's obligation to demonstrate that the boat will go in a better direction if we change course, and he has not done so.—Kww(talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I believe I have: their is more than enough material to warrant a separate article, especially considering the special circumstances surrounding this single. There is more than enough material for a GA here. The article meets all notability requirements and all policy requirements. What is does not meet is your personal opinion of what Wikipedia articles on covers should look like. The reasons are all laid out here, you just don't accept them as valid reasons, which is your prerogative. Woody (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There should be some sort of policy for covers, as this issue keeps coming up all the time. Someone already mentioned Run (Snow Patrol song), notably covered by Leona Lewis. Current Wikipedia consensus dictates that articles are for songs, not for versions. No, it is not policy, and nowhere does it say in WP:MUSIC or WP:SONGS to do so. However, if this changes (for example, if it becomes policy to write separate articles for different versions or covers), then a very strong line has to be drawn. It should be obvious that one-time performances or album tracks shouldn't merit their own articles (i.e., "Last Christmas" redone by Ashley Tisdale or Billie Piper), but what about covers that charted? Or charted well? Or, in this case, went #1? User:Woody, I understand your point in that this version is a notable cover, and I respect that. In other words, I'm not saying that you don't have a point. You do. However, the page, as it stands, is all the page is going to be, because there won't be additional information on the song. What I mean by that is: it's released, it's charted at #1, and that's pretty much it. Moreover, there's information in the page that, frankly, is quite trivial. It doesn't really matter that certain contestants got jammed behind a door, or that other contestants were sick, or that certain contestants had certain parts. Also, listing consecutive weeks' positions is in violation of WP:CHARTS#Chart_trajectories. The remaining notable information could easily be merged back into Hero (Mariah Carey song), in its own separate section, neatly and cleanly, which it already is. (And I guess this is an explanation of my vote earlier, as Woody requested what I meant by "worthiness".) SKS2K6 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DSC-S750[edit]

Delete not every model or subtype of every electronics product is notable; this one in particular has no references showing its notability and seems little different than anything else on the shelf at BestBuy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be more notable if it DID have the Zeiss lens... Drmies (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a Sony Centre catalogue. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's bags of material on this toy (here for example) as on most others, but Camerapedia is better geared to putting out good articles on this kind of thing. -- Hoary (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIVIT[edit]

A new Finnish IT company, founded in 2008. Tagged for speedy deletion. After reading the official site, I understood this is not just a software company, but instead a computer science research company founded by over 40 companies and organisations. This should perhaps set it apart from other Finnish companies. Weak delete unless it can be rewritten to remove the advertising. JIP | Talk 20:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless notability can be established. The main problem is not the advertisement-like language, which is not egregious and can be toned down, but the lack of independent reliable sources. As it is now, the article appears to fail WP:COMPANY. But perhaps there are independent reliable sources in Finnish that can be used to verify the essential content concerning TIVIT's operation and activities. 88.235.147.36 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,to have a page break rulles Ghndfcnjgjgndnhtdh (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking obvious troll vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:58, 1 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) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per 88.235.147.36. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 6 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. Centric CRM = keep, Michael Harvey (software executive) = delete as there has been no showing of notability, nor do independent sources showing notabiliity appear to be available. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centric CRM[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Deleted twice in 2006, for lack of notability. At least the second submission was by Mdh98368 (talk · contribs), who seems to be identical with Michael Harvey, an executive of the company. A few months later, the article was recreated by Telmnstr (talk · contribs) (an SPA just like the former), along with a biography of Michael Harvey (software executive). Both articles later edited by Mdh98368; none of them are based on independent sources. In short: Enough of this! If no uninvolved party is willing to write an article about this company/person, then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating also:

Michael Harvey (software executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--B. Wolterding (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I believe WP:NOEFFORT applies here. If this is deleted it should be based on lack of notability or verifiability (in other words, the merits of the article) rather than who is editing it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Centric CRM, although the article really needs work. Useful sources: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Definitely seems to be a notable product/company. However, delete Michael Harvey (software executive), as I see no reliable sources that are about him, rather than the company he works for or its products. JulesH (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just edited the article to make it a bit more neutral, wikify and add some refs. Not great ones (trade journals) and still reads a bit like an ad, but notable - as good as the related product articles. Article still needs work. But Delete Michael Harvey - no refs. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Concursive and keep per improvements by Aymatth2. Jfire (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Michael Harvey (software executive) however; no evidence the article meets WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 00:03, 4 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) 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability well established with sources used. Move isn't an AFD outcome, can be discussed at leisure. Wily D 14:27, 6 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 speedily deleted (G11) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime Adoption[edit]

Nothing indicating that this is a notable organization Wadeperson (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. Sources can be added and the article expanded. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 04:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - This is blatant advertising of a organization that fails WP:CORP. Trusilver 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trusilver. Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. Rockpocket 02:50, 5 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) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy or Normal Deletion G11, can also be deleted for failing WP:CORP or just a normal advertising deletion. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Building Industry Association[edit]

Only non-trivial sources mention this group in passing--nothing that is actually about the group. COI issues as well--author is Cbiait (talk · contribs) Blueboy 96 15:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article about a related group for deletion, for the same reason:

DeleteCOI, and not notable--Wadeperson (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Major trade associations of this sort can be notable--usually, only national ones, beut beause of the size, this could be a reasonable exception. I would, however, like to see some better sources. As for the Conference, I think its a notable trade show, but it too needs sources--perhaps it should be merged into the article on the Association. DGG (talk) 06:51, 3 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) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the currently used sourcing is a little dodgy, lots of good sources exist that can be used to demonstrate notability. This article, about someone inducted into the CBIA's hall of fame contains some nontrivial discussion. [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-17921152_ITM A news report on some legal action the group took. News report establishing notability for the Pacific Coast Builders Conference, and the CBIA. News report on CBIA's executive selection. While a lot of the 2200 news stories one can dig up through Google News merely quote the CBIA as a source of information, there's a nontrivial amount of coverage on the organisation itself. Wily D 14:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both on the basis of significant coverage. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Baicker[edit]

Non-notable; not sure whether article can be properly fixed Imperat§ r^(Talk) 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article was updated with additional information and references. Sarah Baicker is a feature editor with NBC universal, a blogger and published a book with WetFeet for women in business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmanjk (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no articles about the subject. The references provided in the artilce don't establish notability. And in some cases, they don't even pass verifiability. In particular, LinkedIn is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article creator has removed much of the material. See this version in the history for the edition I was referring to. -- Whpq (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:08, 2 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) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing presented or apparent through google regarding subject to meet notability or wp:creative --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lack of reliable sources for establishing notability. --Megaboz (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mabci and school sources don't mention the subject, linked in isn't reliable and the shop that lists the book doesn't even list the author's name. Serious lack of sources for verifiability (a small amount of sources doesn't immediately make something not notable, there's a whole list of other criteria we use for that). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 6 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. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Planes and Planets[edit]

The article is extremely bare bones, and the subject matter hasn't improved since the article's creation in July of last year. A search for external links has thus far turned up nothing citable on the surface, nor have Google News or Google Books. Proposing for deletion or at the very least a redirect to the main Neverwinter Nights article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no demonstration of notability. Single independent reference (IGN interview) could support an article on APS/NWNX. If CoPaP is verifiable, then it could possibly be mentioned on such an article. Marasmusine (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And this has been talked about before and voted on to keep. How about we read through the notes before we start the same old topic again. Terryrayc (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'll do the work for you

This project page was nominated for deletion on 17 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Yes I know I sound ticked off, I just hate having the same discussion all over again.

This isn't for that article however.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's for part of the article, we murged several articles into one to make it a more worthwild piece. Terryrayc (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge parts of it into Neverwinter Nights#Custom content - the best way to get a more solid Keep vote is to introduce some reliable secondary sources. BOZ (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly Merge) per BOZ and the AFD for Avlis, a spin-out from this article. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum I had it merged with Avlis but someone undid the murge..ah the guy who started Avlis undid the merge..avlis should be merged with copap to ensure everything meets the requirements Terryrayc (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avlis could always be merged back in, since that was a Keep; would then lend its notability to this one. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 5 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) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sometimes people nominate articles on fictional topics because they're excessively detailed; nominating the others as being bare-bones will suffice to eliminate every one of them one way or another. (FWIW, this actually seems about the right level of detail to me.) Fortunately, neither case is an argument for deletion. The possibility of a merge or redirect should have been discussed elsewhere--even the nom accepts it as a possibility and I see it was never even attempted. (Nor is it likely to be, since its already a merge of some other probably unsupportable articles). Notability plot elements and settings in games are appropriate for a spinoff combination article. Dealing with fictional topics by first merging, and then trying to delete the merged combination article, does not strike me as a reasonable compromise way of doing things. It strikes me as an aggressive approach to removing content that only makes sense if the true argument is IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the world a favor and assume a little good faith DGG. The article just doesn't strike me as establishing notability, nor in any of this have I seen someone bring forth enough sources to suggest it. It's effectively seems to be a repeat of a few previous AfD's where "sources are said to exist", but yet none are really provided and the article remains stagnant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being 'bare bones' is not a valid reason for deletion and the nominator only discusses the sources already in the article without making any sort of attempt to find more per WP:BEFORE. I also agree with DGG that this is about the amount of detail you'd expect -- not too much not too little. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 6 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. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Last AfD in 2007 closed as "keep but add sources" Since then, none have been added except for two unreliable blogs. I have searched all over but cannot find a single reliable source for this act. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sigh Non-material popular culture is hard to reference, in any language. In a foreign language ... —Quasirandom (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK google news archive has this: [41] which looks to be on-topic. And also this [42] which has a link to the wikipedia article, funnily enough. Juzhong (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Publications that took their information from Wikipedia in the first place are not sources. The second article explicitly links to Wikipedia, but the first turns out to have taken its information from Wikipedia, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know quite what sources are expected to be found on this, especially since it isn't an English phenomenon. Even the Japanese page only has four links on it - none of which are national news sources (and are all in fact in English), but obviously it is still notable and does exist.Tom (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination, and indeed Wikipedia policies and guidelines, state reliable ones. So where are they? The Japanese Wikipedia article links to four WWW pages, one of which is merely quoting another WWW page that doesn't exist, one of which itself doesn't exist, and the remaining two of which have no identifiable authors with reputations for fact checking and accuracy (one doesn't even give any indication as to authorship at all and is clearly, from its claim to be a "university", not an attempt to be accurate documentation that can be trusted; the other author hides behind a generic pseudonym, and even if xe could be identified as an author that could be trusted, xe hasn't actually written anything other than an anecdote, not real documentation of a social phenomenon). Uncle G (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Japan, and this is an EXTREMELY common teasing game children play. I did find an entire site dedicated to it though, and added a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takatoriyama (talk • contribs) 12:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Can you find anything in reliable sources like newspapers or serious books? I see there are many hits in google news archives [43] Juzhong (talk) 15:26, 5 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) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE funcraft--Yung Dong-Kung (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)— Yung Dong-Kung (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It seems established enough as a social practice to warrant keeping. But it would help to get some kind of coverage in educational or sociological texts. There's nothing I can find via Academic Search Complete (which includes ERIC and Sociological Abstracts), but I'm thinking there's got to be something verifiable in Japanese, which at least could help pin it down a little better. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like a Japanese version of this, which includes an entry for "Wedgie," would help, e.g. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Article in eight different languages. Notable enough for me. This is a social pratice of
Keep--Sources are available but hard to find. Translated version of a magazine article, 1. Search using the Japanese word: カンチョ --Jmundo (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ash.MVC[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:11, 2 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 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Third-party sources don't seem to exist, as far as I can find. --Delirium (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Third party sources found, but all trivial. Mere mentions in listings of PHP frameworks. Only good coverage is from the project website, and the framework website associated with it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:34, 6 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) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Udo Erasmus[edit]

This article contains no secondary sources and has been tagged for this reason for longer than a year. I performed some researched looking for reliable supporting sources, I found only that this author's works are controversial (http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/fat_kills.html) and could find no peer-review. The advertising links formerly on this page have been removed, but the page appears largely to be promotional in nature. E8 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Weak Keep: There are quite a great deal of questionable sources out there for this gentleman. Many of the sources appear connected to Erasmus himself, or the company he is associated with, Flora, but in all that noise I see some that might be valid. Plus, the guy has published several books. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extended coverage from many different reliable sources. I firmly believe this article has potential, and that's all I need. Vodello (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the Talk page for updated information.--E8 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My advice is for you to be bold and fix it yourself if it's such a big concern. Vodello (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would argue that the controversy surrounding him adds an additional, verifiable reason for notability, if the sources exist to prove the things you (E8) have noted in the talk page for the article. Therefore, I'm in agreement with Vodello that fixing the article would be the best choice, rather than deletion. In this instance, I'd rather keep the article so people can easily find the criticism of the individual, which in itself is a grounds for notability if properly sourced, rather than delete it and make that information harder to find. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying concerns about this page, it's based entirely on self-published sources. I've removed portions of it as the page was unduly self-serving. The Google search link pasted above doesn't lead to any reliable sources other than court documents (everyone has a publicly-available record, so this can't establish notability), and given that the page was tagged for greater than a year for lack of sources and still, no reliable sources have been found, there's a bind in keeping this page. WP:QS is clear that such articles should not be based primarily on self-published sources (#6), the only sources for this article. There is a bit of an impasse, in that this subject (and the controversy/criticism) appears to be notable, but lacks one of the primary requirements of Wikipedia, verification. If reliable secondary sources can be located, it makes sense to keep this article, but I see at least 3 contributors here that have looked and found none. Perhaps a researcher, better than I, can locate some specific sources.--E8 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I can't find any reliable sources about this man. A few newspapers quote him in passing in stories about other topics as a "nutritional expert", but there are few or no articles that deal with him as a subject. Quite a lot of promotional press releases, but that isn't independent of the subject. The closest to notability is Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill, but again I couldn't find any reviews of the book in reliable sources - it seems popular on alternative medical webistes, but low-quality sources like that can't establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no article. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 11 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 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vasiliev (martial arts)[edit]

Delete: Article does not come close to notability per WP:NOTE. All of the sources are to his own school, violating both WP:RS and possibly WP:ADVERT. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - One of the most important figures in RMA; other sources can be found and replaced. --Mista-X (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Can you please mention what sources these are? I've tried doing simple google reviews and can't find any reference do this guy per WP:NOTE, other than his own books. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems somewhat notable, but there may be some COI issues--Wadeperson (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with my mind open to change if any independent sources that discuss the subject in a meaningful way are added. (I couldn't find any!) --Stormbay (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - questionable notability, and looks too like an advert to be a good starting point, e.g. it uses an online shop as a source... edit: looked back in the history & there was some good material on the fence though may need stubbing to be kept.--Nate 14 81 10:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also the Martial arts project essay on notability

Keep This article needs work, not deletion. The 'Aikido Journal' article, the 'Black Belt' article and the 'Meibukan Magazine' article are good quality references and should be enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability#Martial_artists. jmcw (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep widely known, essentially the system's head (at least for the West), appears in a substantial number of magazine articles and documentaries, has books and videos out. JJL (talk) 12:38, 5 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 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GemDemo[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. It doesn't look like anyone's used that software in years. Theymos (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:34, 2 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 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find evidence of notability. No third party non-trivial sources. However, how many people currently use software is irrelevant to notability. Nobody has used Multiplan in years, but it is still notable, and if this software had the requisite sources, it would be as well. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, lack of sources. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:58, 6 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. Icewedge (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Hearing Labs[edit]

Non-notable medical supply company. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party coverage. Web results show majority mention through advertisement or forums. Overall, fails WP:CORP. ^LeaveSleaves 16:50, 4 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 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any non-trivial mention anywhere that could be used as a reliable source. --Delirium (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of reliable, independent sources. Appears to be an advert. As mentioned, fails WP:CORP requirements.--E8 (talk) 00:17, 6 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 00:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Husband[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Possible concerns relating to the Biographies of living persons policy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Would appear to be notable based on his membership in a prominent band, but can't seem to find too many sources about him. However, all bets are off if the BLP concerns are valid--in that case, it would be best to blow the article up and start afresh. Blueboy 96 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment what Blueboy96 said, perhaps a redirect to Level 42 would be the way to handle this. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see no BLP concerns here. All we have is a user (who claims to be the subject) preferring his own version to the current stub. Neither version contains negative or obviously objectionable material. However, given the low notability and the appalling absence of real sources, a (protected?) redirect might be the best solution for now. But I'm none to fussed whatever.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be independently notable, so it's an easy delete or redirect. Add in that the BLP subject wants it gone, there's no reason to keep it based on the notability standards we internally have to adhere to. rootology (C)(T) 16:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject appears to meet three factors of WP:COMPOSER - influence being the most precise. It is well cited and verifiable. What's the problem? Bearian (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Apparently not as influential as claimed. The article states that Sean Reinert and Tomas Haake "cite Husband's playing as a primary source of inspiration." If you check the refs, though, you find that Reinert only names Husband as one of many "favorites", and Haake just claims to have discovered him as an adolescent, only implying that he likes him. Tim Ross (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't appear to have neutral/independent sources to verify claims. JamesBurns (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He has received plenty of press, especially in the UK, for his jazz piano career (although the writers typically do make note of his work as a drummer for Level 42). I've added a sampling of the sources just now. There's more than enough for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:31, 10 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.

^ http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report

[ipcc4-1] ttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report

[1]

v t e Law of the United Kingdom
Common fields	Parliamentary sovereignty Constitutional law English law Law of Northern Ireland Scots law Welsh law Civil liberties Company and insolvency law Competition law Labour law Commercial law Retained EU law
Parallel fields	Scots delict and English tort law Scots and English contract law Scots and English land law Trusts Scots and English administrative law Scots and English criminal law Scots and English family law Scots and English civil procedure
Related systems	British Virgin Islands Australia Canada European Union Hong Kong India Ireland New Zealand United States Anglo-Saxon law Common law Equity English case law
See also	Legal services in the United Kingdom British penal law
United Kingdom law category