Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 8

< January 7	January 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy close wrong forum, moved to mfd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalajan/John Cradle and User:Kalajan/BWW[edit]

Search does not turn up anything. Obviously fake. See WP:NOTMYSPACE. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe WP:MFD is the appropriate venue for discussing these articles. JulesH (talk) 21:30, 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 delete per WP:CSD#G4 by MastCell (talk · contribs). Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Marshall Hyde, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Marshall Hyde[edit]

This article was deleted before, no reliable sources about subject, just one self pubhlished book. I think this person is revered from a group of patient activists for an illness but there are not good sources for it. RetroS1mone talk 00:21, 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. — Aitias // discussion 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelleda[edit]

Hoax. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the hoax:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, as nominated, and one of the most extensive ones I've ever seen. There are hits at http://www.lyricsmania.com, lyricsmode.com, http://www.911tabs.com, etc. Someone has gone to a lot of work on this one. But the artist's name does NOT show up in the RIAA's searchable database, so if they DO exist, they have NOT been certified Gold as claimed in the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
quack already
Delete It's all a load of rubbish: while the band may exist, they certainly have not charted or gained the gushing reviews that the author says they have. The one link the back the article up leads to the RIAA's database on a totally different artist! It's a very good hoax, but seriously, why bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.130.188 (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a possible hoax. Can find nothing to back up any of the claims that are made. Nothing at Sony BMG or EMI sites. Nothing at RIAA to back up the gold record claims. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:32, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Cutrone[edit]

Actor with tenuous claims to notability at best. Articles on this person have been speedied six times and deleted by prod once under various titles. Author says he's made his best effort to find references--is it enough? --Finngall ^talk 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild delete (a little more than a weak delete). There was just barely enough to avoid a speedy, but all I could find after an extensive search was a passing mention in a NY Times review of a play and the 2002 Theater Association of New York State award. The award is my only reservation -- gut feeling says this isn't major enough to confer notability, but NY is a hotbed of theater so I could be convinced this is a major award.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: looks like TANYS is an association of non-professional theaters[1]. Not sure what this means as far a notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no articles about the subject to establish notability. The mentions are just that, mentions and are not sufficient to support notability. The award is local in nature and also not significant enough to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep, as the ARE articles that specifically address the subject's notability. The article should be properly expanded and sourced, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you point to specific articles turned up by the search that support notability? The NY Times review is only a brief mention, and as as far as I can tell, that's the best source that can be found. All the others are his name in a cast list. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I second that question. If I missed something, I will be happy to revisit my "delete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed (talk • contribs)

Delete- "significant roles in multiple notable" - not yet. "large fan base or a significant "cult" following" - no evidence, and these sort are loud. "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" - no evidence, and it would be covered. Not an unknown performer, but not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinneed (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Isley[edit]

Michael Isley is not noteworthy from an encyclopedic perspective. I cannot believe this super-lengthy article about somebody who is yet to be considered famous has managed to stay on Wikipedia for this long. I personally know Michael Isley, and in no way have his musical endeavors been as successful as this article implies. I've read articles about my favorite bands with far less text. Moreover, it's difficult to come across this article unless specifically searched for, so unchecked vandalism will no doubt ensue... especially when more Drexel students get word of it. The primary writer of the article appears to be a certain StevieJBrenstur. Well, that account contains no information about anybody and I feel this implies that it was created specifically for this article to be written. The most likely scenario is Mike wrote it himself. The quotes have no citations and the only references are links to the band's website and venue affiliates.

Sorry Mikey but you're not famous yet. tbone (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC in the basic criteria. Also fails WP:GNG; no significant, reliable, non-trivial coverage that is independent of the subject. ThePointblank (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources covering the subject. A interview on the campus radio station is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted a search in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, to try to find sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. I found none. Delete unless sources are forthcoming before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rational_Response_Squad[edit]

This article is about a small online community, doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic relevance, and seems to be primarily maintained by members of its own community. For these reasons it should be reconsidered for deletion. Nathan Orth (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I largely agree with the description above, they do appear to have had their 5 minutes of fame and achieved notability. And as notability is not temporary the article should stay. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is something I can see going either way. But it seems to boil down to two guys starting a kerfluffle on YouTube. Not technically a one-event notability, but if semi-successful publicity stunts equal real notability, then the notability policy is open to manipulation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent sources in article provide sufficient depth of coverage to write an NPOV article about the organization. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced from third party sources and eminently notable. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It did make the news, and I came here searching for info on them, so provided references are maintained, worth keeping. Joel.Gilmore (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough references from reliable sources (though need to check for 404's). It is encyclopaedic enough in that it is not in WP:NOT and has secondary sources that refer to the subject. D'oh!.Ttiotsw (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Considine[edit]

Claims of notability (films showed on CNN/BBC.. "published extensively in numerous newspaper and journals across the globe") are not backed up by references.. BBC news clip is an interview (?). Google shows minor coverage from non-notable sources Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I saw the page creator summarised the creation as "This is notable because he is an up and coming film director and scholar affiliated with world renowed Islamic scholar Akbar Ahmed. if there's a problem, then i must be missing something. sorry!" I thought, "now there's not a good opening!". "Up and coming" usually equals non-notable (yet). May be some day. Not yet. I've looked at the beginning of the Noam Chomsky interview "Directed and edited by Craig Considine" posted on iReport and saw "iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post.". Self-published, in other words. And very amateurish camera work, to my mind. I didn't see any mention of him on the BBC clip, which stated "we" interviewed implying the BBC did it. Being viewable on YouTube doesn't exactly confer notability. To me, the article is puff. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I originally speedied), essentially for reasons stated by Peridon. This young man may be notable someday, but he isn't yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought that the claim of being published extensively in numerous newspapers and films showed on CNN/BBC got it past CSD. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't trust 'claims'.... Peridon (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reasoning for not sending it to CSD is based on this from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. A search on WorldCat returned zero entries. Peridon covers the problems related to WP:BIO well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Did some sourcing. He's also a writer and reviewer... but mostly on blogs and special interest sites. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The min element for notability is the "Journey into America" project, and when that is finished, he might become notable. But not yet. DGG (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hope the closer considers userfying the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braves-Mets rivalry[edit]

Delete unnecessary fork Mayalld (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why less intense rivalries, Mets-Phillies rivalry, exists, but the Braves-Mets rivalry is completely absent. The main reason for the last deletion was the bias, which I intend for this time to not happen. This article is important for baseball rivalries in general as it has lasted longer and in a more intense state than NYM-PHI. These teams are some of the largest fan bases in baseball, and the rivalry is intense, yet you feel this article doesn't deserve mention in an encyclopedia which basically includes everything? JuliusNero (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia doesn't include everything. It only includes topics that are notable. Schuym1 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is this not notable but other baseball rivalry articles, with much more trivial backgrounds and smaller fan bases, are? JuliusNero (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you see articles like that, nominate it for AFD or prod it and they will probably get deleted. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - And I never said if this was notable or not, I was just replying to you saying that Wikipedia includes everything. Schuym1 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete-The problem with comparing it to the Philils/Mets rivalry is this- That article is sourced, with multiple sources independent of either one. There's plenty of info in there, such as info regarding the statements by Jimmy Rollins and Carlos Beltran. The Mets/Braves article simply has no sources, and almost no content. If sourcing and content can be added to the article, i'm very willing to change my vote to keep. (Disclaimer: I'm a Phillies phan). Umbralcorax (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the changes that have been made, my vote is changed to KEEP. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a lack of sources on an article that can be easily sourced and improved is not a reason for deletion. The Braves-Mets rivalry is long and notable. The only real reason to delete this article would be if we got rid of the majority of rivalry articles. I'll go dig up some sources, but seriously, go ask a Mets fan what they think of Chipper Jones and I'm sure you'll have your answer. (Not a Mets fan). SMSpivey (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some quick text and references from the NYTimes, AJC, and NY Daily News. Pretty sure those are respectable sources to start with. SMSpivey (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I stated in my nom for the first AFD, this subject is really non-notable as an encyclopedic topic. (Mets-Phillies article notwithstanding, as Other Stuff Exists.) The previous incarnation was deleted "partly because" (inserted for clarity) it had become full of uncited POV rants by both sides, and especially against Chipper Jones. These issues can be better covered on the Braves and Mets pages anyway. As a deleted page, the creator should have requested permission to recreate the page, and as such, this really should have been speedied as a recreation, even though the content was not duplicated. Consequently, a decision of no consensus should result in the page being deleted, not kept. - BillCJ (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for basic notability, the sources I added clearly assert that the subject is notable. People coming in and adding POV about certain players can be expected in rivalry articles and should be appropriately policed. However, fear of vandalism is no reason to not include a clearly notable topic. As for the recreation issue, I'm not sure what should/will happen along those procedural lines.SMSpivey (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously I disagree that it's notable enough for its own article, as did enough other editors that it was deleted previously. As to properly policing and "fear of vandalism", short of a permanent semi, policing the previous article proved to be practically impossible, as anyone watching this new article will soon find out. But that was never the main reason. - BillCJ (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As of right now there are articles referenced that deal directly with the rivalry from the NYTimes, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp, ESPN, and the NY Daily News. These are all sources independent from the organizations, the articles run over a number of years, and they were produced from different regions/countries(not all of which were from NY or GA). As far as I can tell, these confers notability via WP:NOTE. SMSpivey (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amply sourced. Thus, notability is established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's absolutely nothing in the article about the rivalry between the teams themselves. The only example given regards an individual player, not the Braves as a whole. The local articles cited read more like the local papers trying to make something out of nothing, and the national ones don't discuss the rivalry as a whole but specific instances regarding individual players, which do not a rivalry make. As Clara Peller would say, where's the beef? Perhaps the page should be moved to Rocker-Mets fans rivalry. -Dewelar (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is one article from a national organization from 2006 referencing the rivalry and not just specific instances regarding individual players.[2] Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable, as established by the sources aready present. And there is more that can (and eventually should be added), such as the 1999 NL East race and NLCS, the very tight 2000 NL East race, Chipper Jones' remarks during that period and the Met fans reactions, to a lesser extent the Tom Glavine signing(s) and renewed intesity to the rivalry during the 2008 season. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will out myself here as having absolutely no interest whatsoever in baseball ... however ... in the news media one of the toughest "beats" has traditionally been the sports teams, and of those, baseball is heightened further yet. Baseball is an American institution and intertwined in a city's psyche (with fields being a major investment) and fans heavily entrenched in all manner of details. The sports writer covering each team only has one game each week, generally, yet has to write something relevant and interest-ish every day that week. Based on that, I have little doubt that if such a rivalry exists, it will have been written about at least by each city's major newspapers. Also see Category:Baseball rivalries. -- Banjeboi 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, such an article could probably be written about any two teams that compete in the same league, much less the same division, especially if the two teams happen to be good at the same time. The question is, does that make it a "rivalry" that deserves an entire article rather than, say, a paragraph or two in the article of each of the involved teams? For me, a rivalry has to reach Yankees-Red Sox, Dodgers-Giants, or Cardinals-Cubs proportions before meriting its own article. I've been a Twins fan for fifteen years, and I'd argue against even our own "rivalry" with the White Sox. -Dewelar (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I have little doubt that if such a rivalry exists, it will have been written about at least by each city's major newspapers." And it has been. For example:

[3] (oops, that's the Braves own website, not a newspaper) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Multiple independent coverage would suggest that for a significant amount of our readers this is notable enough and the coverage would meet the GNG. It may be true that articles revolving around "any two teams that compete in the same league" et al could be written but we'll have to cross that bridge in its time. As far as I can tell, the challenge here is to write a good enough article so that people like me might read past the lede. -- Banjeboi 10:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Closing administrator, please keep in mind, since this nomination editors have added signifigant sources, and completely rewrote the article.
The nominator should not be patting themselves on the back, or getting any satisfaction or credit from these improvments to the article: Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process states: Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
Also: Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort. travb (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep - I agree with user travb's comment about Wikipedia:Potential. I also think documenting the aspects of this rivalry is a very worthwhile cause, and even in this early stage of the article's history it's clear there are quality references available, and that there are editors interested in improving the article. If someone is going to put in quality time working on a Wikipedia article, I say more power to them, let them go for it. Monowi (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, every two teams that play each other have a rivalry. Sources do not support this very short article--an article that is short because the rivalry isn't worth mentioning. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus massacre[edit]

An editor has blanked this and there seems to be a great deal of heat over whether this event occurred or not. I did a google book search on 1570 and Cyprus and one of the references I found indicates that it did not: Dictionary of Islamic Architecture. An extraordinary claim as made in this article should have extraordinary sourcing. Here, we have no sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google book search returns a number of history books that mention this massacre. Article needs fleshing out by people with full access to such sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've restored some sources that used to be given in the article, as I can't see good reasons for their deletion. I also had a look at the architecture book (which seems like a strange source for military history) and don't see that it denies a massacre. It says "in many ways the Ottoman conquest had simply replaced one group of rulers with another, leaving the Greek Orthodox population largely intact." No direct discussion of massacres or otherwise. As a side note, I'd hazard that this article has been subject to biased nationalistic editing due to original sensitive mentions of Armenians and Turkey, and this should be taken into account in regards to claims of historical fact and source reliability, which are typically the first victims in such cases. Even if this massacre is verifiably apocraphal, it is still notable so an article should exist outlining what the sources say. I'd hazard a guess that suitable reliable history sources will indicate it happened, but either way a NPOV article is appropriate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. —Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on existing sources and the ones found by Ryan. Edward321 (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eric Solsten, ed. Cyprus: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991. refers to the massacre in a fair amount of detail. Google books wouldn't let me see the key bits of Turnbull, Stephen (2003). The Ottoman Empire 1326–1699 (Essential Histories Series #62). Routledge. ISBN 978-0415969130. but that would be worth checking. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:22, 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 speedy delete (A7) by Protonk. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Union (NS2)[edit]

Delete as WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete {{db-org}}. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by last major professional sports championship won[edit]

Interesting list (last time a sports team from each major US/Canadian city won a championship), but IMHO WP:NOTDIR may apply in this case. I can't find a firm WP rule though. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really fit under WP:NOTDIR. I think there is some interest out there as to what cities have lacked a major sports championship the longest, which is why I created the list. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe it does not belong in WP, but I do not know of a rule against this sort of article, and there re many lists which are far less likely to be referred to (e.g. the next 10,000 in line to the British throne). Collect (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original synthesis, not very well done and not very useful. I get the premise-- years refers to how many years it's been since the city had a championship in what the author postulates as the "Big Six" of sports leagues-- MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MSL and (since the NFL doesn't have Canadian teams, the CFL). The original synthesis has other problems too-- San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose are all part of the "San Francisco Bay area" (San Jose won the soccer championship in '03), as are Washington/Baltimore (D.C. United soccer champs in '04), while Green Bay, Wisconsin is its own metropolis. I guess that under those rules, it's mostly accurate, although the Cleveland Browns won several NFL championships after the Indians won the World Series in 1948. Mandsford (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of "original synthesis" would apply to almost all lists, n'est-ce pas? As for utility, is the list of potential heirs to the British throne of much utility? Heck, how many lists are of great utility? Collect (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights were pretty good. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per collect. travb (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear original synthesis and trivial. While I think the list is interesting, it just doesn't fall under our guidelines, and I'm saying this as a person who deals with primarily with sports articles. There are many cities with at least one professional team. Keep voters is mainly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, look at the article and let people who know the subject well, deal with these AFDs. Secret ^account 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't see how this is any less notable than "Canadian provinces without major sports teams". Not that that is a valid excuse on Wikipedia, but it should be! -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, synthesis (deciding what is and isn't a major sports league, why not onclude NLL or MLL for example? Lacrosse isn't considered a major sport?).
- The above comment is mine, I forgot to sign. TJ Spyke 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly original synthesis per above—Chris! _ct 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who made up the term "big six"? If it was the author, then delete. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Big six is listed here, List of U.S. and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I guess it isn't orginal synthesis any more than other Wikipedia-generated lists. Not many of them are graven on stone tablets like the Ten Commandments. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:44, 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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jax Money Crew[edit]

This article is about a counterstrike team. They claim notability, but only have one secondary source - an interview in a counterstrike webzine. My sense is this entry serves to promote their team, rather than having encyclopedic value. Liberal Classic (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason not to delete: (Taken from Jax Money Crew: Talk) I (The article creator) am not representing the organization nor was asked to by the organization or anyone related to it to create this article. Also, here is a list of some professional sites with a lot of visitors (1,000+ a day) having recent articles about this specific team.
- GotFrag.com (English) = http://www.gotfrag.com/cs/story/43606/
- GotFrag traffic stats = http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/gotfrag.com
- hltv.org (English) = http://www.hltv.org/?pageid=35&newsid=1956
- hltv.org traffic stats = http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/hltv.org
- readmore.de (German) = http://www.readmore.de/index.php?cont=news&id=4305
- readmore.de traffic stats = http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/readmore.de
- SK-Gaming (English) = http://www.sk-gaming.com/content/20876-JMC_back_with_Sunman_Method_Volcano
- SK-Gaming traffic stats = http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/SK-gaming.com
- Fragbite.se (Swedish) = http://www.fragbite.se/?newsID=14965
- Fragbite.se traffic stats = http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/Fragbite.se
- negitaku.org (Japanese) = http://www.negitaku.org/news/10036/
- negitaku.org traffic stats = http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/negitaku.org
- cadred.org (English) = http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/47194/
- cadred.org traffic stats = http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/cadred.org
Also, there are at least thirty other sites also having similar articles.
Additionally, other teams of the same significance's Wikipedia articles can be found here: Fnatic (Swedish team) Ninjas in pyjamas (Swedish defunct team) Alternate aTTaX (German team) Mousesports (German team) Meet Your Makers (Danish/Polish team) SK Gaming (Swedish team) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MEgaSham (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, no. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to an appropriate list article (can't see one, we need something like List of electronics sports teams). The sources provided by MEgaSham are fine for verifiability, but I don't think are significant enough for notability, plus they read rather like press releases ("JMC announce that..." etc) Marasmusine (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This "clan" or "team" isn't some group of five kids playing a game for fun. It's a group of adults playing a game professionally, traveling the world playing different tournaments, some televised, with a large coverage- and fanbase to it. More importantly, the fan- and playerbase is not just large but is also rapidly growing. I see no need to delete this article. You who suggest deletion for this article obviously fail to understand the scale of this game as an established electronic sport (That has been played professionally since 2001).MEgaSham (User talk:MEgaSham) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, this article from the Connecticut Post is seemingly about Alex Conroy Jr. (their manager). Can someone with access check if it contains any "significant coverage" (quoting WP:N) about the team as well, establishing notability? --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references seem to be widespread and adequate for inclusion. --Theblog (talk) 06:58, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - JMC has (at least, see comment above) received significant coverage by multiple reliable gaming websites such as Gotfrag. Article needs cleanup, but that's not what AFD is for. --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd keep this based on WP:ATHLETE for their participation in the Championship Gaming Series. Also, there are more reliable sources than is apparent from the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 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 redirect to List of Hustle episodes. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hustle (series 5)[edit]

Delete needless fork from Hustle (TV series) and List of Hustle episodes Mayalld (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful (and sourced) content to Hustle (TV series) and List of Hustle episodes; ditch all the "will there be a 5th series or not" speculation (sourced or not it's irrelevant since there is a 5th series). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - agreed with the above. Needless page which is repeated in List of Hustle episodes. Feudonym (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect based on common naming conventions for tv show articles this is a likely search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana upcoming episode list[edit]

I originally prodded the article, but then realized that it had previously had a prod applied and was removed so here we are. This article, based on the title, is for upcoming episodes of Hannah Montana. Wikipedia is not a Television Guide. Additionally, the article's current content is about already aired episodes which are covered more appropriately in the season articles: List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1), List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 2), and List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 3). Whpq (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete not encyclopedic. Apart from anything else it reads like a copyvio.Geni 03:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article duplication, WP:NOTGUIDE. JamesBurns (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1) Article encourages piracy. 2) It doesn't take into consideration Wikipedia is international and readers might have different views about what is upcoming. 3) Content of upcoming episodes might suffer verifiability issues. 4) This is basically the purpose of TV.com and similar sites. We should just link to them instead of trying to duplicate their efforts. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBurns. Also, fails WP:CSB in the use of "upcoming". Stifle (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 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 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Grave (Killswitch Engage Album)[edit]

A (new) user created an article that perhaps the new album of Killswitch Engage. But until then I did not find anything related to the fact, and the article contains no information, or a release date set, seems a case of crystal ball. Canniba loki 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly. What's the rush? The album isn't due out for a while yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reference to the album title that the article author uses seems to be nothing more than a joke by the lead singer [9]. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 21:17, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/John Cradle and BWW

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

Vincent velez[edit]

The result was speedy delete by User:Iridescent as WP:CSD G2. Non-admin close. JulesH (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 20:55, 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 delete. G7, requested by creator. El on ka 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation of the Republika Srpska[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mayalld (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I summarized the situation and removed undue weight PRODUCER ^(TALK) 21:07, 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 delete under G11. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hucametrics[edit]

A Google search turns up nothing. Appears to fail WP:NEO Ecoleetage (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a COI & OR problem as the article's creator, Scarlettsurveys (talk · contribs), appears to be the owner of the only cited source. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:03, 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 merge to Beanpot (ice hockey). –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Turner (ice hockey)[edit]

Non-notable amateur hockey player who fails to meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:N or the WP:HOCKEY notability requirements for hockey players. Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of the Beanpot, and not having a page on Wayne Turner is a diservice to the tournament. He is one of the most important players in the tournament. He is in the Beanpot Hall of Fame and Northeastern Hall of Fame. Below are links for two books that reference Turner. Google 1 & Google 2 Also see: youtube called the greatest play ever the tournament. Turner is a legend. Any article that talks about the Beanpot and its history, mentions Turner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusportsinfo (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you need to read is WP:BLP1E which as mentioned below I think applies in this situation. He was only notable for that one event of scoring that one goal. He never went on to play professional hockey, not even in the minor leagues. While it might be a big deal to fans of that universities sports, that doesn't mean he is notable on a wider scale. -Djsasso (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hear what you both parties are saying here, but Djsasso I think you might be missing the importance of this tournament and Northeastern winning it that first time. It pretty much changed the landscape of college hockey in Massachusetts, prior to this it was basically a three team game, after the win, it became a four team game. I think most Harvard, Boston University, or Boston College fans, or college hockey fans in general, would understand the importance and the significance of this player. Now the below suggestion of merging it into the Beanpot section has some merit, but personally I believe it is deserved of its own section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.119.5 (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC) — 71.232.119.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and redirect to Beanpot (ice hockey). Google sources make Turner look like your classic WP:ONEEVENT kind of guy. Rklear (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Suggest these readings as well Boston Globe 1 Boston Globe 2 Boston Globe 3 Though mergering might work well, cannot be deleted, that is for sure kabubbies (talk) 04:09 9 January 2009 (UTC) — Kabubbies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Again those still don't help the issue as failing WP:BLP1E. He was only slightly notable for a single goal. -Djsasso (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, only one goal... but the article that would absorb this bio isn't about the one goal or even the one game, it is about the Beanpot tournament generally and doesn't really allow for the proper explanation of the event in a non-awkward fashion. In addition, the significance of the goal lies far outside the scope of the one event and deserves mention in the Northeastern Huskies article and Ice Hockey section as well. In a way, this is similar (though, not as important as this is a more local event) to Doug Flutie's Hail Mary pass' effect on the Boston College Eagles football organization. ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even the goal itself is barely notable and as you say locally notable. Beanpot itself might not be the place for it, but perhaps in the athletics section of the universities page or as is the case for a number of other NCAA ice hockey teams, a start for their own ice hockey team article (ie Denver Pioneers men's ice hockey). But as a bio of a player it utterly fails notability requirements. This article is about the player not the goal which is what BLP1E says not to do. -Djsasso (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is particularly interesting is that neither Turner nor this famous goal are mentioned at Northeastern Huskies#Men's hockey, the place you would expect to see them featured. There's just a sentence about the team winning their only four Beanpots to date in that decade. Rklear (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet Wikpedia's standards for notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move This article (once it is properly sourced) can satisfy WP:N by elaborating on the effect of Turner's goal beyond just the Beanpot to the Huskies Ice Hockey operations generally. It may not deserve to be a bio, but perhaps an article about the specific game? ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article about the 1980 Beanpot Championship would seem to perhaps make more sense, should that be created, or should we let this fully play out?Nusportsinfo-- (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beanpot (ice hockey). It's already covered there and there isn't really anything else to be said. I tried to be bold and go ahead and do it, but it was reverted because the AfD is still open...--Smashville^talk 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Beanpot (ice hockey). Lacks notability on his own, but should be included in tournament history section, which there is currently a small blurb. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:18, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Link, Brisbane[edit]

Seems to not merit an article yet due to WP:CRYSTAL. This is a proposed project, one that has not yet been approved. If it gets approved and is notable itself, such as Boston's Big Dig construction project, then it can be given an article at a later time. Firestorm (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Once again WP:CRYSTAL is being construed to mean it somehow bans any proposed topic. It doesn't. It's to discourage completely un-sourced speculation of topics. If a proposed topic passes WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't negate that. Even proposals that have failed can pass WP:NOTABILITY. Even the in-depth government records cited in the article indicate passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oakshade. WP:CRYSTAL applies to things that will presumably happen in the future, but about which we don't know anything useful because it's so far away. The examples given include an election dozens of years in the future. This is clearly not the same category as a major motorway in the advanced planning stages (with multiple sources giving specific details) with construction scheduled to begin this year. In fact, the Northern Link falls under 'notable and almost certain to take place [with] preparation ... already in progress', which CRYSTAL specifically says is an allowable category of article. Nasica (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that the tunnel is "currently in the planning stage" it is certainly not "almost certain". WWGB (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- The proposal appears to be under serious investigation, and not a mere pipedream. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As a resident in the area I know the project well, and while it's not "locked in", it's not in the "pipe dream" category either. It will probably go ahead, and given the extensive press coverage here, I think it's probably worth an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 snowing. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium[edit]

I'm pretty sure that a city's City Hall is not notable in and of itself. Lynn's City Hall appears to be a historical location, though, so i'm not sure. Opinions? Firestorm (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so that should justify its notability. Swampyank (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment It very well may be notable because of that, I just don't know what the current consensus is on historical locations and city halls. I'm not voting on this AFD; I just listed it to get a consensus. If it appears that its historical status is enough to justify an article, I have no problem keeping it. Firestorm (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NRHP locations are pretty much always kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Walker House, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis LaTour House, etc. (I can dig up more examples if necessary.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The National Register of Historic Places has higher standards for inclusion than Wikipedia does. The nomination form states, "The Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium building is architecturally and historically significant as a landmark civic center that is the focal point of City Hall Square. Built in 1948-49 on the site of the previous city hall, the building combines Art Deco and Early Modern exterior features with an advanced and unique mid 20th century interior plan." In fact, the nomination form tells quite a lot about the history of the building, so it should be incorporate into this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elkman. NRHP has much higher inclusion standards than WP. --Oakshade (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places means a building is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as NRHP listed building per Elkman. The RS coverage to expand this stub eventually is proven to exist. It is a matter of retrieving that documentation. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elkman and others. --Lockley (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recommend withdrawal or speedy keep as this clearly qualifies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:55, 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 keep. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently funny word[edit]

There have been two previous AfD discusssions on this, in 2004 (here) and 2006 (here), both of which resolved to keep the article. Given that over two years have passed and community consensus may have changed in that time, I'm re-nominating it for deletion. I don't have a view on its inclusion-worthiness myself, so I'm taking a neutral stance. SP-KP (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narf! Delete because they left out words like "waffles". Seriously, though, this article is entirely unsourced and full of original research, blah blah blah, yakkidy smakkidy, and radda radda. And if you dion't think my vote is funny, then you're a spooty spoot-head. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} Keep per addition of sources. Still has problems with OR but eh. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a weasel eating my broccoli... ha ha ha I kill me. Umm, I mean, delete. Unless some sourcing is added, I don't know of any way this can be anything but OR. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably the oldest article that I've ever seen nominated, and it illustrates how Wikipedia has changed over the course of time. The history confirms what you'd expect from an article that invites people to share their thoughts about words they think sound funny-- lots of additions and subtractions, heavy on quotes from cartoons. There's a paradox at work too-- a serious article about "inherently funny words" is inherently not funny; and an article about something being "inherently funny" can't be taken that seriously. The turning point for this one may have been when a picture of a cow on a utility pole was removed. The article isn't that amusing, and despite some worthy attempts to show psychological studies that confirm amusement at words with a "k" or "p" sound (plosives) it doesn't really work as an encyclopedia entry. I don't want to be the first to pick up the cinder block, but if the article is deleted, I will look at it as having been put out of its misery. Mandsford (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--. Doesn't seem encyclopedic. There are no sources to show that the phenomena exists.--213.114.184.8 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article contains extensive sourcing that professionals - comics, comedians, comic writers - have reason to believe the phenomena exists and, more importantly, act as if it does. If we have to prove that a phenomena exists in order to have an article about it, then God is in trouble. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wonder if most objections would be silenced by changing to name to something more pompous-sounding, like Theories about inherently funny words. Over the years, I swear a lot of the people who hate this article see the title and assume it's merely people writing about words they think are funny. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a change of name would be a good idea. The title as is does seem to suggest that the article talks about words that are inherently funny rather than words which people have suggested are inherently funny. Basement12 (T.C) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close the nomination. The nominator just reopened the debate because two years passed without providing any sort of reason why it should be deleted or why consensus would have changed. Obviously our rules have changed since the 2004 debate were personal opinion was given lots more weight, but the 2006 discussion still seems to hold. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Objection overruled, motion for summary judgment denied" I'm afraid we don't have a res judicata rule in Wikipedia. In law, one of the requirements is that the parties are the same as they had been in the prior litigation. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been nominated for deletion without any reason offered. The article is well referenced and is a valid concept in phonoaesthetics.
Keep. Over the long period of this article's existence, real references have been added to it. The nomination offers no reasons to delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this article certainly needs a lot of work, it is an article about a real concept, and could most likely be improved to encyclopedic standards with the help of reliable sources, probably exist as many works have been written on the subject of comedy.--Unscented (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concept is definitely an article worthy of inclusion, including discussion of the exponents of the art such as Douglas Adams, Spike Milligan, Monty Python etc, but it may be buried somewhere in all the other unreferenced rubbish that gets added. Basement12 (T.C) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sneep --Mongreilf (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...in heavenly pea-ece, snee-eep in heavenly peace." Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Gnostic Church[edit]

Non-notable movement/organization. Speedy was declined due to "removed speedy, notability asserted per the founder of this movement (Aleister Crowley) having an article; in addition, religious movements do not qualify under A7", but the group was not founded by crowley as the article itself states, plus I considered it an organization and I think they call themselves one. They are listed here and called an organization [10] Anyway, not notable, a few brief mentions in WP:RS, nothing more, most of these 7 mentions [11] are not even about this org, but just happen to use the phrase, others are by the group themselves, or a passing mention in poems, [12] this is the best WP:RS which we can definitely be sure is about them, [13] the mention is one sentence saying the year they were founded. Sticky Parkin 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Sticky Parkin 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This religious organziation is too new, and has not garnered sufficient notoriety, to be considered notable. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sticky Parkin sums up the lack of notability for this religious movement. I've done several searches across a number of websites and have been unable to find any sources that cover this movement in depth. I removed the speedy tag for an erroneous reason, but the tag itself was erroneous because notability was asserted by the The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, a source in the article. Although this source mentioned American Agnostic Church in only 1 sentence, IMO this article asserts enough notability to require an AfD discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems to me that the nom' provides plenty of evidence about its notability (or notoriety for that matter, although that is a not a requirement). Encyclopedias are excellent sources for Wiki and mention in one, however briefly, is sufficient to merit inclusion here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A one-line sentence in an encyclopedia (titled Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions) does not show enough notability to merit inclusion. The nom clearly sums up the lack of notability. Online sources and Google Books only give this movement a passing mention. The movement is not the subject of an article in the encyclopedia; it is only part of an outline. When I came to this AfD, I really wanted to support the inclusion of this article, but after looking at the nom's rationale and doing my own search for sources, I can only conclude that American Gnostic Church doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While being the subject of an article in a print encyclopedia is enough evidence that we should have an article, I don't believe merely being mentioned in an article about something or somebody else is sufficient. Neither of the prior commentators says enough about the sentence for me to know which, and the online link didn't reveal the answer to me. GRBerry 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with the above. It was my hope when creating the article to basically give the Thelema editors a basis from which to proceed. But it may well be that the source book was maybe a bit more thorough than might be reasonably required. If editors more familiar with the subject than I am are unaware of any other claims to notability, as seems to be the case, then I have no basis to think they're wrong. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To John Carter: If the content of this article can be merged to Thelema, I would support a merge/redirect there. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To GRBerry: I've posted the link to the encyclopedia below Michael C. Price's comment. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for posting the link. If else turns up to make an article viable, I'd have to agree with delete. That sentence in a long Chronology is not an article about this group, so it is not evidence that this meets the "other encyclopedia" test. GRBerry 05:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewell Towne Vineyards[edit]

This article fails WP:NN and WP:CORP.

Claims "oldest winery" when it started in 1982. Emphasizes number of medals won, which is meaningless especially when the medals list reveals that they were not for international competitions and predominate in silver and bronze, nothing to brag about, achievable by amateur winemakers. Numerous reliable sources discuss gimmicks and marketing ploys of medal factory competitions.

In spite of the sources referenced, this is a non-notable winery. Sources such as Boston Globe look respectable at first glance, but are actually local-interest coverage. Other sources are minor local papers.

Please also review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Jewell Towne Vineyards before adding your comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At time of time of nomination, the claim is oldest currently active winery, no emphasis of number of medals won or other gimmicky marketing ploys, or otherwise editorializing and first-name cozy language. Sources somewhat exceed smalltown local paper sphere.. It is just about WP:NN and WP:CORP. MURGH ^disc. 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PSTS which establishes WP:Note.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added three more reliable source references to this article (provided below), I believe it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore passes WP:N and WP:CORP.
- "The time is ripe." New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH) September 27, 2004, State, Business: C1.
- "South Hampton vintner wins 7 medals." New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH) August 30, 2004, State, Business: C2.
- Zraly, Kevin (2006). Kevin Zraly's American Wine Guide. New York: Sterling. p. 116. ISBN 1-4027-2585-X. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Sources seem to be local and coverage may not be substantial enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Boston Globe, even the local edition, is a RS, and the Union Leader is about as big of a newspaper as you are going to find in NH. They doen't have any stories in the NY times, but I consider both of those to definitely meet WP:RS and thus establish WP:N. --Terrillja _talk 15:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wines & Vines magazine, the Boston Globe, and Wine East are not local sources. --Jmundo (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are if the article appears in the local-interest section of that paper. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article appears in the Boston Globe's website (national coverage). I don't think Wines & Vines and Wine East are local sources. --Jmundo (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - All websites are global. Look closer, it's the "local" section of the website. Not that it matters anymore... ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient information about a pioneering regional role to merit keeping the article. Tomas e (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has seen significant improvement since initial discussion on the WikiProject Wine talk page and it seems to meet notability guidelines. Camw (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and pass the caberenet sauvignon Checks out in regard to WP:RS and WP:CORP. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jewell Towne Vineyards is a well-referenced article, and the refs are reliable. Captain-tucker has added three more reliable refs. Jewell Towne Vineyards is sufficiently notable to justify a WP article. AdjustShift (talk) 13:55, 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. CSD A7 - subject fails WP:BIO —Travis ^talk 01:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Garbowicz[edit]

No evidence of WP:BIO notability; associated company has also been nominated for deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Also appears to be a fluff page. ThePointblank (talk) 00:18, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Enterprises, Inc.[edit]

No sources indicating notability of this company; does not appear to meet WP:CORP standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:NOTE. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Also appears to be a promotional page, which is of course, one of many things Wikipedia is not. ThePointblank (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Over half of the references point to the company's website, three more are a press release, and others are government public records. Nothing whatsoever to indicate that the company meets Wikipedia standards. —Travis ^talk 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = Not notable, written like an ad, and uses a page on a free press release site as a reference to make statements about a living person (the George Wendt claim, reference #7). Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept-After reviewing the government references, all the names and dates of the company match the state filings. In addition, after reviewing reference (8) which is the IL Birth & Marriage Records, proves relation from the Founder of the company to George Wendt through several last names/ blood lines; Garbowicz, Krieps, Hoth, Wendt. Additional references are a corporate website and a web press release, these are enough to meet WP:COMPANY guidelines listed here:"Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Also, after a Google of the business I was able to find several references including a publishing from "earl stein entertainment" regarding George Wendt using them as his primary agent, which I called to reference and Geoff Cheddy (phone number blanked by admin), George Wendts Manager, said they had agreed to the endorsement.

There is notable information about the company from 2nd and 3rd party sources. The information is limited but that does not make them not applicable for a wiki article. I would recommend some edits on the article though. (Ynights09|talk) 11:50 (EST), 9 January 2009 — Ynights09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I would like to point out to you the very first line of WP:COMPANY, which reads, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Nothing you have pointed out can be considered a reliable, independent secondary source. —Travis ^talk 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:NOTE. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Also appears to be a promotional page, per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete In addition to the remarks from the other antis above, I find the article contains many irrelevancies. What notability is there in an endorsement from someone who appears to be some sort of family member? I mean, could you see Bill Gates using his uncle as a recommender for Vista (even as a last ditch attempt...)? Peridon (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~KEEP~~ They were just posted on the front page of Techcrunch.com and they are in the Crunchbase.com database (Ynights09|talk) 10:36 (EST), 9 January 2009
- That does not show notability per WP:CORP. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias need to have only notable topics. Schuym1 (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Crunchbase is not a reliable source. Schuym1 (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And Techcrunch is not one also. Schuym1 (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And, you can only !vote once. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:49, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Thelemic Studies[edit]

Journal published on the internet, and self published on lulu.com, founded only in 2007. No mentions in any WP:RS that I can find. [14] Sticky Parkin 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is simply no notability for this self-published source that appears to largely reference itself. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like Lulu.com, even worked for them, and I know of several publications that could be made into articles, but this isn't one of them. Lack of reliable sources.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 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. — Aitias // discussion 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clements Caves[edit]

The article fails to establish the notability of the subject, and I was unable to find any reliable sources to establish its notability. Oo7565 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have a varied and interesting history and today they are a well known tourist attraction. MortimerCat (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it does! MortimerCat (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is long-standing practice to keep articles on verifiable georgraphical features like towns, rivers, and mountains. I believe caves about which enough can be written belong in the same group. A basic google search indicates there's a potential for expansion and quite some reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability benchmark for places of interest. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sounds notable to me, but I know nothing of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Books search finds reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:24, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosu[edit]

NN fighting move, couldn't find any google hits[15], Would normally PROD, but the user has been removing speedy templates, and I don't see this falling easily into any of the speedy criteria. Terrillja _talk 18:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadōken Delete no coverage, appears to be fictitious. ALso it's based on the name of the article's lone substantial contributor.Horrorshowj (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. JJL (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax --Nate 14 81 17:47, 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 00:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foxfeather[edit]

Contested PROD. The reason given for the proposed deletion was:Probable autobiography with no claim in article of meeting WP:BIO. Gsearch turns up a number of its, but no independent, reliable sources that show notability; zero gnews, gbook, or gscholar hits. Call me Bubba (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the original prodder and still agree with my deletion reason.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:N. Tim Ross (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable, self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of above. JNW (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woollyback[edit]

Was an expired WP:PROD. Restored per request. — Aitias // discussion 17:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The term Woollyback is well known in the Northwest of England but I've found two or three different for its origins and even some hints that its meaning has changed over time. It deserves to be kept as a Wikipedia article for much the same reason as the American term Yankee has its own article. Several editors have edited the article in the past (I am NOT one of them) and it has stood in Wikipedia for quite some time before its presence was challenged. Deletion proposal and deletion also happened over Christmas/New Year when many editors will be away. --Hauskalainen 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)--Hauskalainen 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage guide or slang and idiom guide. ThePointblank (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikitionary where the article has been already been transwiked - because it's a dicdef. Or delete. But not enough for an encyclopedia article. Pedro : Chat 15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see why the term Yankee is deserving of an article and Woolyback is not. They both seem to have contentious origins and contentious interpretations. Which is why I'd like to leave Wooleyback up on WP to see if we can get more sourced material. One cannot reflect the contentios nature of the origin and meaning in a mere dictionary entry.--Hauskalainen 15:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My original rationale stands. This is not an appropriate title for a discussion of the relationship between a city and its environs; and this is not even the meaning of the word. This is a downright false article written based not upon sources but upon ignorance. This is just a general slang name, not a class of people. I encourage all of the editors who worked on this to please read a dictionary, such as Wiktionary. The correct meaning, as can be found in dictionaries, as well as (indeed) the correct spelling, can be found at woolly back, which I fixed up when this was first nominated for deletion. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G I'd certainly question your condescending attitude towards what the phrase means. Are you a native of Liverpool or the surrounding regions? I come from the city I can attest that it is an extremely commonly used phrase towards those from areas just outside the city. It has a similar meaning to 'plastic scouser' only with a less derogatory background and is commonly used in banter when talking with non Liverpudlians (e.g. No wools allowed). Now personally I'd question whether it deserves it owns article because after all it is simply a slang phrase (and nothing more). However your attitude of 'what I say is the truth and everyone else is stupid or lying' doesn't help. Whether you like it or not the phrase is far more common in this region than anywhere else. --Daviessimo (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not what I say. It's what Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, and Terry Victor say, on page 706 of their 2008 dictionary of slang (ISBN 9780415212595). In the 2006 edition (ISBN 9780415291897) on page 1350, Paul Beale contradicts the claim that this is a Liverpudlian slang term, tracing it to a railwayman's nickname instead. I encouraged you to read a dictionary and learn. I already had. Indeed, I explicitly referenced it in my original rationale. Please read a dictionary. You are building upon ignorance, not sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well given that Eric partrdige died 30 years ago I fail to see how what he says can be seen as definitive truth. The world changes, languages change, people change. How many 30 year old science books are now recognised as wrong? How many 30 year old theories have been disproved? The very fact that you seem so adamant in your belief that this word is a universal slang expression, yet from my experience (any many 1000's of others) the phrase is used in such a localised manner in Liverpool makes me believe that an article is necessary --Daviessimo (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not a local and had not heard the term. However surely the origin relates to the IMport of wool, not EXport. England imported Austrialian and other wool in the 19th and early 20th cneturies to feed the Yorkshire textile industry. The content of the article seems to me merely to be a dictionary definition, and thus non-encyclopaedic, which would suggest deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Tavix (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless it can be merged into another relevant article, perhaps here An index of metals (talk) 21:17, 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. — Aitias // discussion 15:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Leigh[edit]

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. This actor has only appeared in three television productions in minor roles, does not have a large fan base or "cult" following, and has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. A Google search for "'Jonathan Leigh' actor" returns only 891 results, most of which are unrelated to the article's subject; searches using Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar return nothing relevant whatsoever. As such, no reliable sources have been found that can demonstrate notability. Unscented (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nice footwork on nom's part.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ENTERTAINER. There is no evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that would help establish notability or allow for a full, neutral article to be written. Cheers, CP 23:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A former child star, with three minor roles, who has seemed to have disappeared from the news. Notability is not temporary, but it has to have happened first. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Morrell[edit]

Appears to be a self-promotion article written by individual named in article.

WP:COI issues
Professional Career Consists of Less Than 1 Round
Unable to find any Google hits for amateur career
See Article talk page for additional comments ttonyb1 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However short his career was, he was a professional athlete, which meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. JulesH (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page Brian Morrell is and should be a notable page, Morrell still continues to be involved in the Fight game ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrmorrell (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JulesH is correct that, if it's verified that Mr. Morrell's 1990 bout was sanctioned by a major professional boxing organization, then WP:ATHLETE would apply. I can't tell from the source (boxrec.com) what level of the sport this was at, and even that site lists this as unverified. Balancing against WP:ATHLETE is the problem of conflict of interest WP:COI, and I think that would squarely apply here. Being middle-aged myself, I wish Mr. Morrell all the best of luck in pursuing his dreams. Being mentioned in Wikipedia is near the bottom on a list of honors, however, because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The "professional" fight in question cannot be verified. Sorry. In the interest of "full disclosure" I nominated the article for AfD. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verified ???clik/chek any of the other fights, the main event was real as the entire fight card, BoxRec.com is in conjunction with Wikipedia themselves, a sort of brother (sister) site...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of the requirements of WP:ATHLETE just like all of the notability guidelines is that the sources must be verifiable, independent, third party sources. The cited source is not verifiable, so it is not a reliable source. This means it cannot be used as evidence that this person meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE and deletion is in order. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's the problem with the cited source? It appears to have a reputation of being at least mostly accurate (although somewhat incomplete), from a scan of comments about it on google. JulesH (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete even if fight can be verified it would still fail to meet the threshold of WP:ATHLETE. "Competion of equivalent standing for non-league sports" is a bit higher threshold than a grand total of 1 round, or being a sparring partner. Pretty much anyone can get 1 fight somewhere, he hasn't done anything notable.Horrorshowj (talk) 03:41, 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) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vereniging Basisinkomen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Vereniging Basisinkomen is about a not notable Dutch organization, it is from Dutch language sources and unverifiable to English readers. It is a not notable organization, most every thing in the article is about basic income, and that has it's own article all ready. The article was selfpromotion by a community banned editor the organizations officer. Its deletion was blocked by the officer before he was community banned RetroS1mone talk 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are more than adequate to establish notability. There is no requirement that references be in English, and editors who cannot read Dutch can get a good idea of what the references say by using Google Translate. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how those references establish the notability of the organization. Sure, they establish that the issue of a 'basisinkomen' has been on the agenda and in the press, but there is no coverage of the actual organization. Ref. 4, to an article in Trouw, could possibly one such reference, but searching the archives on www.trouw.nl delivers nothing--the organization is only mentioned on their blogs. I looked through ten pages of Google hits, and the only hit (nothing from any of the Dutch papers or magazines, just blogs and press releases) is in a book, where the organization is cited for a definition of 'basisinkomen.' That is not in-depth coverage. In short (and I don't care for any bans), the organization is not notable, and the sources don't establish it as such. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Blogs are only unreliable when they're created by hobbyists or people of whom the identity cannot be determined. Since Trouw itself is a notable and reliable source, it should follow that its website and blog are too. Textbook example of a blog that can be considered a reliable source. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that blog is reliable, it doesn't help much, in my opinion. The problem for me is that none of the newspapers have EVER written about this club, as far as I can tell. That confirms my suspicions--it's a fringe organization with laudable goals, but fringe. Not notable. And while I created Basic income in the Netherlands for this purpose, I don't see much in this article that can be merged. I'll be glad, if "merge" is the outcome, to do so, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per investigation by Drmies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the article and its references should therefore be moved to Basic income in the Netherlands, or merged into Basic income. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to that; if it is condensed to one paragraph, it could fit under the 'advocates' heading, esp. since Saar Boerlage is mentioned in there, and her name comes up in this article too. But esp. some of the references need to be cut, I think, or moved--it would be best, in my opinion, to merge it into an article 'Basic Income in the Netherlands,' since it's a bit too much for 'Basic Income' and not enough to stand on its own. Besides, these references might actually make it fairly easy to hammer out a stub for 'Basic Income in NL.' Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Income in the Netherlands: done. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add a sentence to Basic income when people find a notable source for it. RetroS1mone talk 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or to be merged into an article on 'Basic Income in the Netherlands'. "Basic income" is way to general to accomodate these informations. G Purevdorj (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough has been said on this non-topic. Miami33139 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - during the first AFD I initially !voted keep, based on the presence of a large number of sources. I then reviewed the sources in greater depth, and found them lacking and changed to !undecided. Mentions were either brief throwaways that couldn't be used to justify any text (i.e. essentially stating that VBI exists but not staying much else beyond address and phone number) or were from themselves extremely dubious notability sources (and here I'm thinking of the nomination of one VBI member for an award by a tiny political party, that no longer exists and never received a parliamentary presence, from another country in a non-Dutch/English language source, for which their work, of which VBI was only part - that may be notability for the person, at a stretch, but not for the organization). After re-visiting all my previous analysis and discussions on the organization and the references/sources, and checking the history to see nothing has changed since my last edit bar the addition of a category, I am quite comfortable with a !vote of delete. Discussion is minimal and insufficient to pass the guidelines of WP:CORP. I am comfortable with what minimal information that exists being merged into the Basic income in the Netherlands page as a section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge According to the previous commenter the sources are lacking in depth to support an article, but he ends by saying that it could still be merged. Since it is still verifiable, a brief mention in the already named article is warranted. To nominator: while English references are preferred, they're not required. Please read the rules, so you can base your nomination of common practice rather than your own opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanky legg[edit]

Delete barely comprehensible WP:MADEUP dance. Mayalld (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod, wikipedia is not a guide or a manual on how to do something. --Terrillja _talk 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated after revision: Still not a notable dance. --Terrillja _talk 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable dance WP:NOTGUIDE. JamesBurns (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis dance is an underground phenomenon, evidenced by the number of people performing it in homemade youtube videos as well as Yung Joc signing the GS Boys to a record deal in response to their "Do Da Stanky Legg" single. This is simply not a "made-up" dance. This is also not an instructional page, but a verbal demonstration of the dance itself. To meet criteria, I have excluded the step-by-step description of the dance itself.

--Offchance (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also attempted, in a second edit, to delete the AFD notice. Please don't do that again. Mayalld (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologize for deleting the AFD notice after misinterpreting the wording. It will not happen again. --Offchance (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, surprisingly. http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/dc9/2008/12/even_the_portland_trailblazers.php shows the Portland Trailblazers' rookies doing it at a pre-season scrimmage, and searching "Stanky+legg"+-video+-lyrics+-ringtones+-mp3 www.google.com/search?q="Stanky+legg"+-video+-lyrics+-ringtones+-mp3 gives a fair number of hits - not reliable ones, but the quantity is indicative.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 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 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Code (2009 film)[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a future film. No reliable sources provided, none found. No bias against recreation once more info is known and there is less need for a crystal ball. TN‑X-Man 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Googled for the Hindi and Telugu versions of the film's title and came up empty. There are also no relevant hits for Aamir Khan Productions combined with The Code. Therefore, I agree that WP:NFF applies. The article's author, who has had a fair amount of experience with having articles deleted on the grounds of non-notability (or even unverifiability) is surely on notice by now that he needs to provide sources to support his articles. Since he hasn't, and since he is surely the person best positioned to provide them if they exists, I feel confident that deletion is in order for now. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:38, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of funny animals in the media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of "funny animals" in media

No place in an encylopedia. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dynamic list with no definition of funny. Unmanagable and unencylopedic. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmanageable, for one thing, plus they didn't include Sassy the pug from America's Funniest Home Videos. :-) Hermione1980 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 1-4 and 8-10. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note- Article has been nominated for deletion before:--Jmundo (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Serves as a supplement to the Anthropomorphism and funny animals articles, where the term is well defined. --Jmundo (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I kinda have to agree with Jmundo, there is an article at funny animal where the term is defined. JuJube (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone realize that Funny animal is actually a defined term and not just someone's interpretation of what's "funny"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do now! Sorry. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, a list of animals arranged by the corporate identity. It's not really a list of funny animals, so much as it is a list of cartoon films and television shows grouped by animator, with only the title to suggest what type of animal they were. For instance, contrary to popular belief, Cow and Chicken is not funny. This is like making a list of popular zoo attractions from around the world, and saying "The San Diego Zoo has Mala and Kumquat and Ding-dong and Foofur." Yes, I know it's been up for two years, but it was useless from the beginning. Kill it and start over. Mandsford (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cow and Chicken not funny??? Sir, I take that as a personal insult!!! MuZemike (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Funny animal is a specific defined term, which has nothing to do with whether individual editors find any specific example humorous. The fact that some pro-deletion editors are mentioning real animals as examples when funny animal is a cartooning term shows they have not understood the topic at all. Edward321 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not stupid. The arrangement of the list is stupid, but most of us figured out that this is a vague list of titles of shows that have talking animals, even if we don't normally use the phrase "funny animal" to describe the concept; it's kind of like calling the comics section of a newspaper the funny pages, something done by people who wear rubbers when it rains. The article is uninformative and useless, however. As the AOL Time Warner rabbit said, it took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. Mandsford (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a list of animals at all. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or thoroughly revise (no, I'm not volunteering!). As Brownsnout and Mandsford say, it's not really a list of animals. It's more the habitats of the fictional animals - their films etc. Peridon (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny animals:"cartooning term for the genre of comics and animated cartoons in which the main characters are humanoid or talking animals."--Jmundo (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough. A confusing expression, then. Perhaps there should be two lists - or none? Peridon (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split or Delete The list in its current state is not meaningful since it does not only contain specific funny animals but also whole T.V. series, games, etc. Splitting is possible, but further complicated by the fact that some articles are about both the series and its main hero. --Shishigami (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 05:41, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule rmx[edit]

Delete non notable album Mayalld (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a mere statement. Please expand on your reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be decently notable in foreign music scene. Good number of ghits that arent wikipedia or myspace. I see no reason to delete this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Album by notable Japanese group, capsule. the wub "?!" 16:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the notable acts related to capsule, I'd say the band itself (and thus the album) is notable too. It would help if the article on the band was referenced, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to band article. Unreferenced. Nothing more than a tracklisting. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 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. Meets basic notability requirements; notable in films documented at IMDB, even if they are not in English seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yūko Itō[edit]

I think this person is some kind of actress; the page resembles a long line of credits in bulleted form, but the whole thing is a horrible mess, really quite spectacular. The whole "article" was added in a single edit back in July and has gone virtually without improvement since then despite desperately needing it. In my view, it's gibberish without a hint of context (and of COURSE there are no references) and I can't see how there's any value to keeping it around with the expectation that maybe, someday, someone might want to spend several hours or days cleaning this thing up into something usable. But the user who removed my speedy thinks it's fine as it is, so here we are. Propaniac (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - of course, I never said it was fine as is. I rejected a "gibberish" tag because it's nothing of the sort. It's perfectly obvious that it's a biography of an actress listing her work written by someone with moderate English or low wiki-markup skills. Declining a flatly inappropriate speedy deletion request and saying something is "fine as is" are different. WilyD 14:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed you would have added some sort of cleanup tag if you thought it should be kept but was in need of improvement. Propaniac (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a strange assumption. In any event, speedy deletion is really only for cases where ~100% of commenters at AFD would say "delete", with the first three all "keep", it seems pretty clear declining the request for speedy deletion was the correct choice. WilyD 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know not everyone shares my view that worthless articles should be deleted (and nobody below seems to think the existing article isn't worthless), but it seems bizarre to "save" an inadequate article without making the slightest motion towards or endorsement of future improvement, if you agree that it's inadequate. But clearly our perspectives will not be resolved and I apologize for my misunderstanding of your edit summary. Propaniac (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't about whether the article should be deleted or not, it is about whether an article should be speedily deleted or not. I've not advocated either way here on the former, only the latter. If you hadn't slagged me in your nomination here, I probably would've said nothing - certainly there's nothing wrong with taking a lousy article to AfD, whether it's kept (as it seems this will be) or deleted. Speedy deletion is only supposed to be used when an article has no chance of survival. You might consider {{prod}} for articles that you think ought to be deleted but which don't meet any speedy deletion criterion. It's not about an inclusionist or deletionist bend at all (as a matter of course, I do PROD articles with invalid speedy tags when I decline speedies from time to time). Wily D 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. Has an IMDB entry that lists her as an actor in a fair number of mainstream productions, including some that even I've heard of, like Eko Eko Azarak. Probably most of the sources will be in Japanese, but it seems likely that her career can be adequately documented. Move to Yuko Ito if kept; we don't need untypeable diacriticals in the English Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think Yuko Ito should be made into a redirect to this page. Diacritics(sp?) have become common in foreign titles and a redirect can point anyone who can't type them to the proper article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per IMDB link and apparently has been in a notable film, Cherry Girl. Massive cleanup needed. Perhaps remove list and just change into a simple stub "Yuko Ito is a Japanese actress." Then list filmography based on IMDB. Good candidate for expert and/or expand tag. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, if even if mostly foreign. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? She's not foreign; she's in the country where I happen to find myself. But even if she were in some exotic, far-away country (such as the Youess) I wouldn't hold that against her. (But I suspect a well-intentioned and sensible keep vote marred by typo.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: 1) The credits don't give any indication of the importance of the role she had in said productions. 2) Infobox contains trivial details that are prone to change. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs massive cleanup, natch, and while many of her credits are clearly minor some can be seen (by clicking through to articles) to be important, thus making her pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Keep for cleanup, including translation into standard English. No comment on the page name, as the consensus about macrons in romanji article names seems to be in flux. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an egregious waste of time without prejudicing the fate of a future article. She's a tarento who's happened to have had her Japanese-language WP article (or similar) put through poor machine translation. This might have been well intended by the Babelfish (?)-submitter but in effect it's mighty arrogant: "I put mere seconds into this so that others will have to spend hugely more of their time on it merely in order to make it acceptable (let alone good)". I have no interest in and virtually no knowledge of tarento and so can't estimate how notable Itō is among the millions of these (to me) interchangable people who fill space in (to me) interchangable magazines, (to me) interchangable dorama, etc; she's still being marketed in her mid-thirties, which puts her in the minority, but th' missus hasn't heard of her, so she's not stunningly memorable/notable. I'm a strong believer in the notion that anybody who puts up an article in en:WP has the responsibility to ensure that it's at least a decent (if perfunctory) start; this isn't, so unless somebody cares to do a lot to fix it while this AfD is still running, it should go. It should not be salted and a later replacement article should be judged on its merits, probably permitted (without the bother of a second AfD), and even welcomed. If this mess is fixed while this AfD is running, fine: this AfD is on my watchlist and I'm fully prepared to change my vote. -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 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 delete g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tigriss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(a) Article was created solely as spam and google-gaming - to improve rankings of the titlepage's own URL;
(b) the subject fails the notability guidelines Centrepull (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A google search indicates a high likelihood of copyvio, but right now, the particular site is down. Regardless, this is purely self-promotional, is not WP:NPOV and needless to say, completely uncited. WP:CSD#G11 should be applied. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete, probably G11. Tends to violate WP:CRYSTAL.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 C's of Singapore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/5 C's of Singapore

The cited sources do not mention the concept which is the notional subject of the article and do not specifically present the conclusions drawn from them; as such it would appear to be a novel synthesis form those sources. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search for the title turns up 10.8 million hits (granted, not all of them related to the topic). Article could stand to have some proper citations, but appears to be an actual term used. Hermione1980 16:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your efforts, but the 10.8 million hits are webpages that have the words "5" "C" "of" and "Singapore". If you search for the exact phrase in quotes, [16] the number is fewer. In between, "5 C's" and "Singapore" shows up [17] fairly often, so there might be something to this. Mandsford (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It might be more appropriate to actually have an article on materialism in Singapore. In trying to find the 5 C's through other means because the string is difficult to search with, I found this. Note that this version has career instead of country club, and doesn't actually say 5 C's, so a bit weak. -- Whpq (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a better source with this. However I still think it might make more sense to have the topic a little broader as materialism in Singapore and document this phrase as en example of it's reference to materialism. -- Whpq (talk) 22:21, 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. List cannot be adequately referenced or sourced, and borders on listcruft seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Football (soccer) song[edit]

Contested prod. Original concern was: "This article is completely unsourced and covers a topic that is extremely unlikely to have any third party coverage. The term "football song" is not a term used in common parlance. FA Cup Final song would be more appropriate, with a subsection of that article covering the phenomenon of national teams recording songs for major international tournaments" – Pee Jay 09:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 09:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consists of one sentence stating the bleeding obvious ("a football song is a song about football") followed by a a random (indiscriminate) mish-mash of songs used to promote football events but not actually about football (eg "Nessun Dorma"), songs recorded by footballers, terrace songs (already covered in Football chant), and, erm, "Eat My Goal", which seems to have little connection with football other than having the word "goal" in the title...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ChrisTheDude. Giant Snowman 12:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - Rename to a List article I think there is a good idea here, there should be a list article of songs that were released to album/single, produced songs from world cup theme songs. Any song that had a release. The list should contain song names, release date, by whom and what it was associated with. I am sure citation could be found with that in mind. Govvy (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then as we already have a list of songs in another article. Govvy (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have a list of Club-specific songs. Dynablaster (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Official songs recorded and released for a football event, or performed by footballers, are not the same as football chants. If these songs have been included in that article, then that article has the wrong name and a factually incorrect lede section, and any information over there that relates to released songs rather than chants should be moved here. MickMacNee (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Keep per above reasoning. Or a very good merge if someone volunteers.JJJ999 (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Football songs are completely different from football chants. /Yvwv (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peejay and ChrisTheDude. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the article was better written then it should be kept but I don't see the point of it as it is, plus the title could be better.--EchetusXe (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pooktre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

cannot be written from a NPOV view because the primary page author is closely connected to the subject matter; and (by his own admission on the talk page) the method for bending the wood (which is the only real point of interest) is "secret" so cannot be turned into a good article. OTOH, the primary author has shown a respectable amount of Good Faith, as evidenced on the talk page. But it boils down to one thing: without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have litte notability Robinh (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not 100% sure that I followed the instructions properly on the AFD Log. Could someone verify that it's right please? Robinh (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You initially messed up the capitalization of the page, but you fixed that properly. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IAR. ~~Merge useful infos into arborsculpture.~~ Redirect AfD hero (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is more complicated than I thought. Apparently there is no generally agreed-upon name for the practice of shaping trees. Arborsculpture appears to be associated with a single artist's work and book on the subject, and Pooktre is the method of another single artist. The proper course of action here is to move arborsculpture to a neutral name like Tree Shaping (as MgM suggests), and then merge and redirect the Pooktre article there. AfD hero (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a neutral name is used then yes, that would be better. There are other people in the field of shaping trees that would be part of helping if the name is neutral. Blackash (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, neural term is needed, plus some rewriting to give a historic overview & different methods developed. Rror (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping, added in the informations from the Pooktre article, and done some edits. AfD hero (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on I disagree, where is the discussion on the move ? in the afd box of pooktre ? Perhaps a discussion at a afd box on arborsculpture ? or am I missing something ? Reames (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a core principle laid out by the foundation. How do you suggest we can keep this and still meet the rules? WP:IAR is supposed to be applied when following the rules stops us from improving Wikipedia. Adding unverifiable information doesn't improve WP. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tree shaping (especially bonsai) and Tree trimming should be looked into as alternative less secret topics. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect and merge any useable information into Arborsculpture (if any). This is not so secret after all and definitely NOT a streak of 'firsts' and in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world'. Follow the second link on the Axel Erlandson article ([18]) - looks familiar? Rror (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Speedy delete~~
~~The basic consensus seems to be there is not much more than a ad. Just Delete.Blackash (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment I agree with AfD hero,Mgm and Rror that a neural term is needed and would be better than a deleting.Blackash (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally started this page, so that it could be recorded somewhere in history about the first grown mirror standing on its own roots. It is from this perspective that I have been editing the page.

~~:::* 1. Without a discussion of the method used for warping the trees, the article can have little notability~~

2. Not as streaks of firsts

3. Not so secret, and Complete isolation from the rest of the world

4. Merge useful infos into arborsculpture.

Here is my rebuttal of above points

~~1. To suggest that this page would have little merit without the tree shaping methods is under rating the value of the historical achievements.~~

What else is left then? Some guys are shaping trees and roots - the rest is an advertisment but no real content. Many others are also shaping trees. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Which leads us to the second point.~~

2.

We have the first recorded trees shaped into people trees. Which were displayed at the world Expo 2005. We do have several first either harvested or growing in our garden. Any of the first listed on Pooktre page plus more can be photographed and put up.

All of Axel N Erlandson's trees except two (which was a chair and ladder) were abstract shaping rather than representational or functional.

Majority of people who attempt to shape trees initially shape chairs or buildings. This certainly leaves a large area of things that are not grown before.

~~This is what I was referring to when I said Pooktre has a large number of firsts.~~

Some guys are shaping trees into people trees. Is that WP:NOTABLE? I can't find any reliable independent sources. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~3. Axel N Erlandson never published, or told anyone how to shape his trees. Some people have attempted to back engineer how he did them but have not had the success that Axel N Erlandson did.~~

"Axel N Erlandson considered his methods "trade secrets."" the quote is from Axel N Erlandson page [[19]]

"Axel never told anyone much at all about how he accomplished it. He considered that his "trade secret," even refusing to tell my mother or me how it was done as he thought we might somehow give his secret away." Quote from My father "Talked to Trees" by Wilma Erlandson page 4

So this knowledge was lost.

For the first 10 years of our shaping trees we didn't know of anyone else in the world who did it. This was an advantage because we didn't know it could be done, so we didn't try to back engineer someone else's work. We developed our own techniques.

~~This is what I was referring to with the line in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world.~~

How can I WP:VERIFY that? Stating that your method is different, but you won't tell is not very interesting for an article. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4.

If you google Arborscuplture and then Pooktre, Pooktre actually rates a little bit higher.

As there is no consensus that Arborsculpture represents the art-form as a whole. I don't think it's appropriate to merge Pooktre with Arborscuplture. They are two very different techniques with two very different results.

~~Blackash (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment I strike though my points Blackash (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't necessarily make something notable. Rror (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to arborsculpture. The article for pooktre is half an ad and half puffery. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Delete Creator of the page has requested deletion.[20] This may even be a G-7 speedy deletion, although I'm not sure. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I started copy-editing the article following a link to a section (grammar ouchies)... then scrolled up and saw the flag... then read the rest of the article. Not notable. Secret method (the method might have made it worth having even though Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Pure advertisement.sinneed (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I've just looked at the arborsculpture article and the salient points of this seem to have been transferred. However, people will probably try to find Pooktre, so I feel a redirect might be in order. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not new in the least, and is pure spam. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiivolution[edit]

The most reliable source the article cites is a youtube video, Google doesn't give anything better, and this seems like pure crystalballing anyway. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly speculation, as the the very flimsy sources make clear. No solid information is involved, at all. Further, the title of the article is even more speculative. Even if the article survives this AFD, the name needs to be changed to something more generic such as "Wii, second generation". Tim Ross (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The news article (not the YouTube video) makes a reliable claim that the Wii will be followed up by Wii HD which deserves mention in the main Wii article. If this particular title is an issue move it to Wii HD prior to the merge. (Wii HD currently redirects to this article, but since the article says "more rarely" and since it is based on a youtube video by a non-reliable individual, this is a violation of naming policy) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. I don't even think there is salvage value in merging. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL there is nothing to be salvaged here. JBsupreme (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought I'd seen the worst of crystalballery when an article was created for the sixth Harry Potter movie in 2006, but this takes the cake. Hermione1980 16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to be pure speculation with no verifiable or valuable information. Nathan Orth (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, a bit too premature, based only on rumors. This thing about the next Wii having HD should be added first to Wii#Hardware, and the article created when a reliable source gives an official name, even if it's only the development codename. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G3) Blantant hoax. I mean "It will have HD, which means you do not need a Wiimote" makes no logical sense whatsoever. Yes there is a "news story" link on the page, but it's purely speculatory and is not a reliable source. The history reveals a lot of other crap that was removed from the article, including flip-flopping of names. --.:Alex :. 15:38, 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 List of D.N.Angel characters. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krad[edit]

Delete. Fails the general notability guideline for fiction, lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources and all that. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of D.N.Angel characters. Without any references or indication that this can referenced to actual available non-pirated episodes a lot of the in-universe content is unverifiable (contrary to what some believe, I think a certain level of in-universe content is crucial to describe fictional characters). However, the lead section and the first part of the section after that is likely sourceable and could be placed in the character list. At the very least, the redirect is warranted to point readers to actual coverage of the character if this particular bit of material is deemed deletable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list like its already slated to be. Didn't we just deal with this with TTN?? Merging has already been discussed and approved and is in progress. This AfD is nothing but a complete waste of time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, a whack with a trout to the nominator for nominating for deletion an article (one of several) that a consensus agreement on the main article's talk page should be merged, and history logs show that other articles were being so merged. Trampling on other editors' toes = not good faith. Second, reaffirm that consensus to merge to List of D.N.Angel characters -- and let the editors involved do so at their own time, instead a rushed merge by the closing admin. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Obvious Merge~~ Speedy close The article is already slated for merger into the character list and the nominator did not give a reason as to why this merger should not be carried out. We've already been though very similar AfDs about characters within the same fictional series and the merge consensus formed at Talk:List of D.N.Angel characters has yet to be overruled. --Farix (Talk) 15:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per consensus before abd after this nomination. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical Identification and Authentication[edit]

Non notable and poorly written, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of DLL articles (WP:NOT), etc. If a single reference can be added pertaining to some kind of notability then I'll be more than satisfied. Verbal chat 08:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark for cleanup. Article lacks context, but describes an important technology that allows Windows to use logon authentication mechanisms more secure than the usual username/password combination. JulesH (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's not at all well-written. At the very least it needs a short introductory paragraph (which I am not capable of providing, or I would do so). The topic, though, has at least modest significance, and an article on the subject is useful. Tim Ross (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A secure login mechanism is notable and neither bad writing nor the indiscriminate list are relevant for deletion. Bad writing is specifically excluded as a valid reason for deletion, and the article is not a list, let alone an indiscriminate one. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my (probably too short) proposal. The poor quality of the article is not why I thought it should be deleted, but is not a good reason for keeping. The reason for deletion I proposed is notability, and I don't see why a secure logon process is inherently notable. The reference to WP:NOT was to the fact that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information - we don't have articles on all DLLs. Now, if I4m wrong and this DLL is notable then I have no problem with it having an article - but since it apparently is no longer used in Vista and Win7 I think it's unlikely. I could easily be swayed to a keep if any references to notability are presented. Thanks! Verbal chat 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not intolerably badly written. This is a description of an optional security feature in Microsoft Windows, apparently. The fact that this software is apparently from Microsoft weighs in its favor, since Microsoft doesn't really need to resort to inserting bogus Wikipedia articles for marketing purposes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page seems to have been substantially re-written from the version that was nominated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete. Just to make it clear, Wikipedia is not censored and I fully respect that. It is also not a dictionary, and this "article" is just a dictionary definition of a sexual term poorly disguised as an encyclopedia article with a bonus dumping ground for trivia ad nauseum. Hopefully we can finally obtain a consensus this time around and do the right thing. JBsupreme (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Unless you want to lose Cum shot, Facial (sex act), Fellatio, Cunnilingus, 69 (sex position) and countless other articles which could also, by your standards, pass as dictionary definitions. Its been done to death for God's sake, let it lie. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - With respect and thanks to MuZemike for striking his comment, allow me please to clarify what I mean by my statement above, since this could be construed that I am threatening deletion on the articles I mentioned. My intention is to point out the fact that by listing Pearl Necklace for an AfD, it could *potentially* open the gate for a lot of other articles which could be seen as dicdefs to hit AfD. I did not intend my statement to threaten removal of any of the mentioned articles, merely to show the side effects of an AfD of this nature. Thanks for allowing me to clear this up. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS ~~as a threat? That's a new low.~~ MuZemike (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Stricken per [21]. MuZemike (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — the sources display at least a minimal amount of notability; however, it needs more so that it can be better established and avoid further scrutiny AFD-wise. MuZemike (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the last AfD was leaning towards merge, but no one could agree what to merge it with. This has seven refs, it does have the potential to become a dumping ground for trivia, but when that happens it is quickly removed, and the article has been stable for months. Looking at the recent edit history and the talk page it seems that there is disagreement over the picture and this AfD has been started as the nuclear option. As is stands it is slightly more than a dicdef. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the current state of the article is rather poor, it is a noteworthy enough subject to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Wanting to "do the right thing" is not justification enough for the deletion of an article. How many times does this discussion need to be had? In law there's a thing called double jeopardy. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability as an encyclopedic subject; seems to be basically a dictionary definition and the few references given seem to be examples of usages of the phrase rather than in-depth discussions of the concept itself. Properly belongs on wiktionary, but not here, per WP:DICT. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And expand, subject is definitely notable and while I think it's more than a simple dictionary definition the article could benefit from some expansion. Raitchison (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sufficient references for notability and although the border between dictionary definitions and encyclopedic articles may be fuzzy at times, this one seems to be sufficiently on the encyclopedic side to merit keeping. The argument to delete based on potential trivia magnetism is not policy based and should have absolutely no bearing on the close. Frankly, I think an appropriate amount of popular culture references enhances the value of an article, places the subject in a cultural context, and is a necessary and important service to our readers. I agree that the article does need work, but we fix problems with articles (other than intrinsic non-notability) by improvement, rather than deletion, per WP:BEFORE. — Becksguy (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or find somewhere more suitable for the subject to be dealt with. This is a culturally significant if rather small topic. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Less notable than fellatio, but notable enough for its own article. Its use on Sex and the City made it go into mainstream sex. No seriously, it has. See here "fashion trends, sexual vocabulary and dating rules established on Sex and the City soon found their way into mainstream fashion, sex and dating rituals" and on the page before the author is using as an example a piece of dialogue about pearl necklaces. I'm tempted to add this into the article :D It also appears on university press books, it made its way into a New Zealand University book about prostitutes activites and AIDS prevention [22] (pages 125 & 127) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best its a dicdef, at worst it is a slang definition. There are other websites whose primary purpose is listing slang definitions and anyone interested can look it up there Pearl Necklace on urbandictionary.com Nathan Orth (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Mammary intercourse has slang definitions included too; tit fuck, titty fuck, French fuck...should these be taken out? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Struck my comments, realised I was using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And improve. Here's 600+ books that may help. It's a notable sex act and the article has been targeted for all manner of censorship. We should treat this encyclopedically. Also, IMHO that added illustration is more harm than help. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not just merge it with the previously linked cum shot and facial articles then? All three articles describe the same thing (ejaculation on another person) they just differ by location. Someone wanting to censor this article for the wrong reasons does not make it not a definition so it still needs to be merged or deleted. Nathan Orth (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of them should be summarized in ejaculation or similar articles but each separately can be notable even if the articles are stubby. -- Banjeboi 04:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Google book search is evidence of the notability of the subject. Article can be expanded with those solid sources. Wikipedia is not censored. --Jmundo (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a non-slang term for this act? I'd like to say Merge, but Bukkake and Facial (sex act) both seem like porn jargon, which might make them overspecific merge targets. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bukkake is about a group Facial (sex act), and, as you may surmise, a facial is about ejaculation on someone's face. This is about ejaculation around someone's neck. The non-slang term remains ejaculation for all of these terms as well as money-shot and a host of others. -- Banjeboi 14:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: "Bukkake", "Facial", and "Titty fuck" are not equivalent to "Pearl necklace". They all are specific sex acts involving ejaculation onto a person, rather than into a person (via oral, anal, or vaginal penetration), but clearly different from each other. And here are some additional reliable sources:

Davis, Peter, ed. (1996). Intimate Details and Vital Statistics: AIDS, Sexuality and the Social Order in New Zealand. Auckland University Press. pp. 125, 127. ISBN 978-1869401399. Retrieved 2009-01-09. From Enric Naval's post above. University press source, need we say any more?
Eric Partridge; Tom Dalzell; Terry Victor, eds. (2005). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Taylor & Francis. p. 1455. ISBN 978-0415259385. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Partridge is a well regarded dictionary. From Benji's list.
Morrissey, Gabrielle (2006). A Year of Spicy Sex. Marlowe & Company. p. 39. ISBN 978-1569242629. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Another from Benji's list.

The subject is clearly notable. — Becksguy (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-W're not censored, and the act is certainly a notable one. And a trout to the nom for urging us to "do the right thing". Umbralcorax (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've been here before; the main change since earlier is that the term appears lot more in themainstream, and even shows up for comparison in Wikipedia in discussing other articles, generally in a context like "of course we have articles, on things like p.n., but [whatever] is purely imaginary. " DGG (talk) 05:07, 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 keep. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Cox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There's no assertion of notability and while I don't deal with PORNBIO very often, she does not seem to meet the guidelines listed there. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs expanding, but there are some reliable sources in the external links section. Epbr123 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epbr. David in DC (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epbr. Dismas|^(talk) 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Pulsifer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

As Wikipedia's popularity grew, more and more newspapers and other media outlets wanted to write pieces about the site. Using a common tool, the profile piece, they picked a random "high profile" editor on the site and talked not only about Wikipedia but also focused on the editor himself, to give the article a more "personal touch." This is a pretty standard journalism practice.

Subsequently, editors created an entry on the editor, claiming that he is notable due to his coverage in various newspapers for being a Wikipedia editor. Quite simply, this article does not meet our accepted standards for inclusion. The subject is notable for one item: editing Wikipedia. He wasn't a founder of Wikipedia or a member of the Board or anything like that, he was just a regular editor / admin who was featured in news stories during Wikipedia's growth.

Similar to the recent David Gerrard article debate, this article doesn't cut the mustard due to its surrounding facts. For background, Gerrard acts as Wikimedia's spokesperson and has frequently been cited in the press in articles about Wikipedia / Wikimedia. Like Pulsifer, that does not mean that Gerrard himself is notable.

I believe it is time that we delete this article and I hope that the community agrees. After eight years, it's time to start re-examining some of our entries to determine whether they truly meet our inclusion guidelines and whether we want to be creating a free online encyclopedia that contain entries like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Unlike Gerard, Pulsifer is the subject of the sources. It may be a journalistic touch, but it passes the GNG nonetheless. Whether it passes BLP1E... I think it may, just. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable as an early public face for Wikipedia, and as Sceptre points out, he actually was the primary subject of several news articles. In addition, the article was unanimously kept in late November. Zagalejo^^^ 06:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, there is no lasting encyclopedic notability to be seen here. JBsupreme (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again, like last time, no new reason has been presented for why this person is not notable. Given the coverage given to this person, he passes WP:N and WP:BIO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pulsifer is the subject of multiple publications which makes him notable through WP:GNG. The reason he's known for one thing only seems to imply the nominator wants to invoke WP:ONEEVENT, but that is supposed to be applied for single events, not long term stuff. (If someone is known for his role in one film, you wouldn't invoke that rule either), it was specifically designed for victims of crimes, trivial coverage and copied coverage between publications. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Looking at the name, I knew it looked familiar, then checking through the past afd's i realized i'd voted keep in the previous one, which was little over a month ago. (That's not my argument for keep btw, the following is.) Fact is, notability is clearly established by the references in the article. There really isn't much else that needs be said. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ultimately he is NOT the subject of many published sources, wikipedia is. He's just the media's chosen case study. Perhaps merge the article into soem article on wikipedia and the media. The bottom line is that he's not famous, and whatever he goes on to do next is not encyclopedic by virtue of it being him. Thus he should not have an article. He's less that BLP1E - he's "BLP1Case study"--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Pulsifier isn't notable for events outside of Wikipedia, and anything covered in the article refers to the exclusivity of the user as a "high-profile editor", which at the time must've been rare for such reporting. Additionally, as Scott correctly states above, it appears that the editor is only referred to as notable in the context of him being an administrator early on in Wikipedia; not forgetting that BLP1E hasn't been fulfilled in this instance – "the fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry". Caulde 19:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he wasn't profiled just for being an administrator. At the time, he was the most prolific editor on the entire site. Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Navel gazing stuff, and the fellow does not warrant an entry by himself. Therefore, he is considerably below Joe the Plumber. He's incidental. Geogre (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Like it or not, notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. This discussion should not be about questioning "journalism practices" or why Times Magazine decided to write a feature about him and not Wikipedia. Does the subject meets our criteria for inclusion? The answer can be found in WP:N, the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's quite simple, really. --Jmundo (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was featured in Time magazine and I feel that's fair enough-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 13:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is slightly ridiculous. This is a "human interest story" and despite the usual mantra that "notability is not temporary", yes it bloody is. The article is totally unencyclopedic as it stands. That SimonP was at one time in Time might be a fact worth recording in an article on wikipedia and wikipedians in general, however it does not mean the subject should have a biography. Will those arguing to keep this please read the damn thing, and consider a) chances are that Simon will never again feature in the media - there's no reason to believe there will be any continuing interest in him. So, if articles are not temporary, you will have a bio that will be unchanged in 40 years. "His mother, Diana Pepall, works at the Ottawa Public Library, acting as manager of collection development services. His younger brother, Andrew, was a member of the Ottawa area band, Place, before leaving for the Toronto scene." Even today, we've no way of verifying whether that continues to be true (unless we do OR and trudge through staff directories), and it is not encyclopedic anyway. Since passing media interest is our only source, the "biography" will never be completed or updated. The fact is that single incidents or news cycles where they give no lasting fame to the person should NOT merit articles (hence BLP1E) NOT simply because the subject isn't notable but because the article cannot ever be a biography - there are no sources to complete it or update it. His appearance in Time may be notable - so record that by merging to "Wikipedia in the Media" or somesuch.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like speculation when you say that the article "will be unchanged in 40 years" and there will never be no sources to update it.--Jmundo (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said "the chances are". The point stands, due to the lack of continuing sources, some of the information currently in the article may well be wrong already, and we have no way of checking or maintaining the article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can always date the problematic statements. (E.g., As of 2006, Pulsifer's mother...) Or just remove anything that seems like it might be out of date. I think most of the article can stay as it is, though. Pulsifer was in Time - that's always going to be true. He was born in Canada - that's always going to be true, too. Zagalejo^^^ 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two facts which can go nicely in an article on wikipedia in the media, without the spurious biography.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more than enough significant coverage over several years to establish notability. The coverage goes into the details on the person not just the event (his editing on wikipedia) giving enough information for a biography to be valid and is also spread over several years so personally cannot see this coming under WP:BLP1E. I strongly agree as per our guidelines that notability is permament, people should be able to go back and research this sort of thing. I also do not think that there would even be a debate over the inclusion of this article if it was not for the fact that it is related to wikipedia - just like we should avoid self referencing, we should also avoid deleting articles that we would otherwise keep just because they are related to wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage established notability. A very small percentage of Wikipedians (not me) are notable for their contributions at this notable website, just like a very small percentage of YouTube producers should have articles. Royal broil 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep...er.....he was mentioned in TIME? Sounds significant to me. K50 Dude ROCKS! 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Simon's fame may have been fleeting, the very fact that the media chose to make him a celebrity is very notable. I honestly don't believe from now until the end of time there will be any Wikipedia volunteers that will achieve celebrity in the English-speaking world, solely for their editing. Ryan Jordan and Mr. Puslifer are the only ones who will ever achieve this. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan Jordan isn't notable for his editing of Wikipedia, and you can't help but notice that his association with a notable EVENT is covered in an event-type of article. This biography is not notable either, and should receive passing mention in a another Wikipedia article at best. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GokulNath Babu Manoharan[edit]

Possible Autobiographical article of a non-notable person -- Tinu Cherian - 05:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 05:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's great that he is "most commented one among his friends". Unfortunately the article does not come close to meeting WP:BIO. Candidate for early close. Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was speedy deleted under A7 and was recreated. Abecedare (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines for people. Matt (Talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article makes no indication that the subject meets WP:BIO, and nor does Google. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. I'd tag it for an A7 deletion but running a full discussion makes it more likely that we can use G4 later. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean MacLeod[edit]

Likely hoax. rootology (C)(T) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. JavaTenor (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything that would suggest what the article says is true, per WP:HOAX. Matt (Talk) 06:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. I can find no evidence Boy Meets World character Minkus actually had a brother let alone one with that name and to top it off we have a copy of this at instapedia under another name (http://instapedia.com/m/Sean_MacDermott) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Majorly talk 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, come now, everyone knows that failing comics who deal with Mob bosses named after hand tools are all real, even if Google has never heard of them! To repurpose a quote from the article, "After a failed assassination attempt, Sean's Wikipedia article was cancelled." Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:09, 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. The copyright status of these stubs is dubious. Rücker and Artel don't actually assert any notability, making them eligible for CSD A7 also. Sandstein 12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt[edit]

Housekeeping nomination of Faberge "workmasters" per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Victor Aarne. All of these articles were created by the same user, Bramo (talk · contribs), who apparently created a bunch of copyvio articles. I don't have any proof that these articles are copyvios so I didn't CSD them, but you can read the previous AfD for more information regarding this. Besides being potential copyvios, delete per WP:N as they are not notable. Tavix (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Four articles have been speedily deleted because of incontrovertible evidence of copyvios. The deletion of the remaining articles remains under discussion.

I found this in a search for Rappaport, but that may well been taken from the WP article. In that previous discussion, MuzeMike seemed very confident on the copyvio issue--perhaps MuzeMike can weigh in here and explain how he was "assured." I did find a lot of mentions of Julius Rappoport in a Google Book search, though they all seem to be very brief. Mind you, I'm not arguing against you, Tavix, I'm just wondering how deeply we should look into each individual article; in other words, I would like to know how strongly you feel (if you don't have direct evidence) that these are copyvios. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, thanks for singling me out, especially after both DGG and MacGyverMagic both agreed that it was a copyvio ;). (Note that I inadvertently left out the word "not" in my statement in that AFD; I meant to say that the "original content is not GFDL-compatible). If you're questioning my judgment that the article was a copyvio, I remember that the content I saw in the article was very similar to the content in that website to the point that it I thought (as well as a couple of others) that is was a copyvio, hence my rationale for G12. MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, good faith, my friend! I did not doubt your statement at all and only picked up on yours because...well, actually, I don't recall. :) I have faith in your judgment (and MGM's, below), and only wondered what it was based on so I could have a better-informed opinion on the rest of the articles. Your and DGG's commments (below) confirm my suspicions. I do have the same sort of reservations that Deor marks also, and was unwilling to speak out on a mass nomination; still, DGG's suggested solution appeals to me. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's OK. I just felt second-guessed there for a moment. I know I'm prone to making mistakes, as well. No worries. MuZemike (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment. Despite the outcome of the AfD cited by the nominator, and the apparent vagaries of the articles' creator, I am uncomfortable with recommending the deletion of articles that seem, at least in basic identifications, to be supported by apparently reliable sources. I'm welcome to persuasion in either direction, but I see no reason to advocate a blanket delete at this time. Deor (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with the CSD of the cited article because of the creation date of the article in relation to the supposed source. Often it's not clear which came first. In this case it was crystal clear. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete several (no opinion on the others). The same blog that demonstrated the prior publication in other sources for Johan Victor Aarne has entries for a number of these individuals:

Karl Gustaf Hjalmar Armfeldt created November 2007. http://the-antique-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-was-karl-gustav-hjalmar-armfeldt.html created June 2007. Text largely identical.
Henrik Wigström created March 2006. http://the-antique-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-was-henrik-wigstrm-wigstrom.html created June 2007. Text largely identical.
Julius Rappoport created May 2008. http://the-antique-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-was-julius-rappoport.html created June 2007. Text largely identical.
Avenir Ivanovitch Sumin created May 2008. http://the-antique-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-was-avenir-ivanovitch-sumin.html created June 2007. Text largely identical.

The the odd one out is Henrik Wigström. To me this all strongly indicates that there is another source from wich both the WP articles and the blog were copied. Bongo matic 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not obvious, delete Henrik Wigström. The circumstantial evidence that this (despite being created prior to the blog entries) is copied from (as-yet unidentified) common sources is overwhelming.

It is too bad that the person who copied these items into the blog and into Wikipedia doesn't identify the source. While each individual is probably not notable, the Fabergé workmaster article could be expanded including some of these colorful details. Bongo matic 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all unless specific copyright violations are indicated for specific articles. The cited AFD resulted in a speedy delete, not because there was consensus that the individual was NN but because the article was a copyright violation. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, there is specific evidence of blatant copyright violation for three of the articles:

and an overwhelmingly strong inference for a fourth, Julius Rappoport.

Bongo matic 14:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though for technical reasons. I think it's very likely that the same person entered it here who wrote the web page--I can't really imagine someone else just happening to come across them at the time. At present, the earlier publication gives it copyright, status. He could assert that he owns the copyright and give them to us also under GFDL, & it would be legit--if we could reach him. He has however been notified of the deletions. I a little bothered by these, because he was editing last December 15--see his user contributions--I think he will come back, and then the response must be to assert copyright to OTRS or by placing a GFDL notice on the blog, and restore the articles. DGG (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just speedy deleted the three which were unquestionably copyvios however I am leaving this AfD open to decide the fate of the less cut and dried cases. For what it is worth my !vote is to delete as although it has not (yet) been proven the probability that the rest are copyvios is very high. Nancy ^talk 19:11, 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 nomination withdrawn by nominator. On its own merits, this discussion is no consensus leaning towards a keep, and appears to be header further in that direction. lifebaka++ 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nordine_Zouareg[edit]

I wasn't completely sure about this one, but it looks like the vanity/publicity page for a NN bodybuilder/coach. The biggest problem is in the sourcing-- claims are made that this guy won Mr. France, Mr. Universe, etc., but these all link back to a web site that happens to contain some rankings-- and only one is even vaguely close to the claim (the "Mr. Universe" claim does connect to a winning rank in the 1986 W.A.B.B.A. World Championship). It would be an obvious delete, except I was wondering about the importance of a positive review of his book in Publisher's Weekly. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any confirmation that he won those titles--at least none in sources that I trust. If someone knows this subject matter better I would gladly be shown the evidence. That Musclememory site, that's not so authoritative for me. As for the review, to pass muster on the book would require a bit more than a Publisher's Weekly review: do publishers pay for these positive reviews? Drmies (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spent a bunch of time cleaning up and trying to rescue this article back in the middle of last year. At the time I started it was a complete pov vanity piece. By the time I hacked out everything inappropriate, the remainder was contradictory hence my comments on the talk page. It was me that tagged it for the issues that have not since been resolved. There is too much conflicting info without accurate sourcing for it to exist as a WP:BLP. On a side note, where is the original AfD discussion if this is the 2nd nom? I can't locate it. Mfield (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment re "2nd" nomination." Hmm, I think I did everything right, and at some point I put "afdx" in a template and do not recall explicitly trying to make it a second nom. So I guess I thought the 2nd nom designation was automated. As you may guess, this is somewhat new to me. I removed the 2nd nom box, so at least it no longer "looks" like a 2nd. I suspect the appearance of two more prior AfDs can bias results. A more experienced person could help, maybe? It sure deserves at least a first nomination, at least! Thanks. Jlg4104 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--His book "Mind over body" has been reviewed by Monster and Critics, Entrepreneur.com and Publisher Weekly. --Jmundo (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jmundo's input. And to answer Drmies' question: no, publishers don't pay to be in Publishers Weekly -- that's actually a prestigious trade magazine for the U.S. book industry. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers Weekly (note lack of punctuation) is certainly a prestigious trade magazine, but at 7,000 reviews a year, being reviewed there is hardly a guarantee of notability. Bongo matic 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree on that. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Inadequate notability as an author--a short review in PW of one book is not sufficient for notability and the other claimed reviews are not significant or reliable.. Notability would have to be as a bodybuilder, if that is actually considered a sport. I think there is no particular standard for who counts as a professional, so i would want to see evidence that the competitions he won are considered notable. DGG (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur.com is the online site for Entrepreneur Magazine, which is a rather prominent U.S. business magazine. Monsters and Critics is a highly regarded U.S. popular culture site. Bodybuilding is considered a sport and it has very distinctive requirements regarding who can advance to the professional rankings. And getting a book reviewed in Publishers Weekly is no mean feat! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just what prize did he win exactly? I do not see him listed for Universe Championships, which seems to be the main one, or for [[World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships], nor do I find him on their web pages. I remain skeptical of how well this sport is organized. I ask for considerably more than these reviews for notability for the author of a single book. I see it is listed in worldCat as present in 258 libraries, but again, its only a single book. There are some claimed professions where I am very skeptical about notability, and "life coach" is one of them. for notabiity in that profession, I think it wise to require multiple mainstream sources. DGG (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response above has been challenged a number of times on my talk page, but examining the further discussion, I continue to see no evidence that I consider reliable for the prizes. But I'm not exactly an expert in this subject. I do however know that one can claim whatever one cares to on a book jacket, and uncritical media sources copy it. Even news sources if based entirely on such material or press releases should be discounted. The prior bios of authors of books is not a field in which I consider most newspapers at all reliable. DGG (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHe won the 1986 World Championships for the WABBA, among other titles. I assume you are not familiar with bodybuilding (it is a niche sport, admittedly). In that sport, not unlike boxing, has several different leagues. Arnold Schwarzenegger, arguably the most famous bodybuilder, was the champion in the IFBB (where Mr. Zouareg participated towards the end of his sports career). The sport has been around, in its current state, since the end of World War II -- the notion it is not well-organised is not supported in the real world (nearly every country has at least one bodybuilding league -- as an example, check out the article Afghan Muscles to learn about about both the Afghanistan and pan-Asian bodybuilding competitions). And don't rely on Wikipedia for bodybuilding information -- I am part of WikiProject Bodybuilding and it is probably the flabbiest place on the project (the articles need a major overhaul). As for Mr. Zouareg authoring a single book -- yes, and it was published and distributed by a major publishing company. "Life coach" is a euphemism for personal trainer -- nothing unusual about that (it helps sell books, too). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG; on the information presented, he does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep in addition to the refences above, Zouareg has been in the Arizona Daily Star and eMaxHealth.com[23] and in 5 books.[24] Zouareg is a former Mr. Universe for gods sake.[25][26][27][28] Publishers Weekly#Book reviews has been printing for the past 136 years, and targets not the pulbic, but publishers, librarians, booksellers and literary agents.

When there are 172,000 books published in the US alone a year, being one of the 7,000 is pretty prestigious. travb (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Travb, please...Bongomatic rocks in my book. Just because we have a difference of opinion here doesn't mean his views don't carry value. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored the comments out. travb (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the book refs are in as much dispute as the complete lack of third party, non self published refs about his body building career. If he won all these titles, particularly Mr Universe in 1986 as claimed in the article, why is he not listedin World_Amateur_Bodybuilding_Championships or the ref that supports that article. I am not saying for one moment that he did not win the title of Mr Universe somewhere, its just odd that there are no refs to support it, nor have there been since this article was flagged ages ago and this really needs clarifying as this is a WP:BLP. Mfield (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer As stated earlier -- he won a WABBA title. The article in question is about the IFBB competition. That's a different bodybuilding league. Ecoleetage (talk)

Well, Googling WABBA Mr Universe gets zero results, except for to mention that the IFBB was renamed to WABBA, something that appears to have happened in 1976, well before he supposedly won so he should be in that one. All other Mr Universe results seem to come up as NABBA, that would be Universe_Championships which he also isn't listed in. Why does [29] this search produce not one single listing from an official site of any sort? Mfield (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting quotation marks around Mr. Z's name when you do a Google search, like this: [30]. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the four citations? Three books and a magazine article?

WP:INTROTODELETE states that "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." We are now talking about some content issues, which can be resolved with cleaning up the article. I suggest the nominator close the AfD.

travb (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO as books verify that he won the Mr. Universe competition, which is indeed a notable title, and yes, bodybuilding is considered a sport. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are hardly books on bodybuilding! (To put it another way, I have little faith in them.) Ecoleetage's Google for the WABBA title gives references that I don't put much stock in, and despite travb's derogatory comment on Bongomatic's remark, I'm personally with Bongo on this one. A short paragraph in a trade journal doesn't cut it for me. Call me a self-appointed deletionist if you will, but if one wants to keep everything, referenced or not, it's almost disingenuous to look for references. I'll shed no tears if this article is kept, and MQS (always good at finding a reference for an obscure celebrity! good work!) may tip the scale for some of you--that's fine. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are nevertheless published books that verify that claim and that are also found on amazon.com. If something is covered in multiple published books, it is worthy of inclusion in some manner or other. Do magazines like Flex or Muscle & Fitness have online archives, because if they do, that's where we should also look. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only title that third party refs support is 1986 WABBA "Overall Winner". The "Mr Universe" (and "Mr. France, Mr. Europe, Mr. World") claim is entirely supported by his own books and website or sites affiliated to him. That's the odd part. These would seem to be big titles that would merit some kind of mention by someone else. Mfield (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These three books call him a a Two-Time Mr. Universe winner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is precisely one of my problems with them. First, I simply don't put that much stock in that type of publication (which aren't known, let's face it, for their body-building expertise) to do that kind of verification. Note also that those books have him as "a two-time Mr. Universe bodybuilding champion"--that's not what the WP article claims, or even the MuscleMemory site. Then, the author of the first title Dr. Dharma Singh Khalsa states Zouareg is his "own personal trainer," and Khalsa is also the author of the second, where he says Zouareg is his "good friend." The third book has the exact same phrase, "my good friend and two-time Mr. Universe winner"--so really, I don't put that much stock in any of these books in that regard, given what looks like collusion. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exacty - only the NABBA competition claims the title Mr Universe, and he never competed in that. It is very odd that the only sources that use the term are his own book, or reviews of his own book or are written by his "close friends". If that term was ever used by the WABBA, there would be a mention of it somewhere else. Mfield (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact still remains that the subject of this article is covered in multiple published books. Whether these books are ideal or not doesn't chance the fact that multiple books and as indicated elsewhere other publications have covered this man in some manner or other. References in multiple non-self-published books meets our notability criteria. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I found which cannot be included in the article, is a soloflex blog on the official Soloflex webpage, which also mentions his Mr. Universe title. travb (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just found a nice article about him in the Tucson Weekly and added its sourcing to the article. The article itself is still a little spammy, but that's a matter for WP:CLEANUP and not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator Many new sources have just been added to the article, resolving many of the issues the nominator originally brought up.travb (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This now looks like quite a good article. Johnfos (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per travb - article is now sourced and reads well. If I wasn't on a wikibreak I'd probably have closed this accordingly myself Glen 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't buy the notability argument yet. The "source" on Google books is really an author saying that Zouareg is a two-time Mr. Universe. But there's no independent evidence that Zouareg ever was. It could quite easily be a ruse, which to me seems more consistent with the self-promotional nature of the piece (which included a list of dubious links). I don't believe that every "source" is of equal value, and in this case, I still don't see notability. As the nominator, I have been asked (or at least I think it was suggested to me) to withdraw the nomination, as if the discusson has achieved consensus around "keep." Well, I don't see it. And, if an admin believes I'm not right, I'm willing to be corrected-- but I will leave it to a closing admin to do the close. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He even made the cover of a magazine. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess I'm just following the notability guidelines more strictly than the keepers. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which he meets: of the millions? of body-builders a fraction appear on the cover of magazines, plus his writings are reviewed in multiple publications, and cited in a couple of other books. We don't need more than that to justify inclusion on a paperless encyclopedia. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure, if you're an inclusionist. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. I came across the page and checked into the references. I found what was there to be wanting, that is, so I did some further research and came up with very little to justify notability. People here have worked diligantly, I readily admit, to improve the sourcing, but I still have doubts. I am becoming convinced that this is more a philosophical debate than an AfD discussion. In any event I may withdraw the nomination shortly so as not to belabor the issue. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the phone with Nordine Zouareg, we are trying to find proof of him being Mr. Universe. Zouareg was on the cover of a magazine. In French is says Chapion Du Mone (spelling), champion of the world.[31][32] He also won Mr. Universe in Guadalupe in 1988. Another magazine with him on the cover.[33][34] He brought up a good point, this was 20 years ago, so it is hard to find coverage. travb (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - ok, here's what I wrote to travb, with whom I've been having a useful discussion: "I think inclusionism has its merits. I certainly do not hang out in AfD so I can tear things down. To me, AfD represents the spirit of discussion and negotiation that goes into the creation of a high-quality articles. Plus, I enjoy doing the research that can result in a "keep" whenever possible. Moreover, I have done my best-- even though I am new-- to RTFM and continue to do so. So I hope you understand that my M.O. is to help make this wonderful thing called Wikipedia even better. This whole bodybuilder case strikes me as a really important kind of "test case" for the development of WP's whole raison d'etre in light of its users. That's partly why I was primed to respond negatively to any call to close it-- the discussion itself helps to clarify not only the case at hand, but also related concepts such as verifiability and notability." That said, I am worried that what's happened here is that an inclusionist wind blew through the debate and skewed the outcome a bit. But since I cannot be 100% objective at this point, and since at least some progress has been made on the notability and verifiability fronts, I am respectfully, and in good faith, withdrawing the nomination. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O. P. Schnabel Park[edit]

Article does not assert notability and does not cite any sources. Unless there are separate criteria for city-run parks that I don't know about, I don't think this belongs here. Firestorm (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to fail WP:NOTE. The article fails to stress why the park is notable in the first place (is it a major landmark? Did something historic happen here?). From Googling, it also appears that the park is not exactly that notable except for the fact it has oak trees... ThePointblank (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree that nothing notable is mentioned yet, I feel as if it should be marked as a stub. Those 202 acres were named after 'O. P. Schnabel' for some reason - it's just not written down. I've searched online and found this place to be real, and references do exist which discuss history. Tevonic (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Chances are that it was named after that person because, like most namings of buildings or parks, etc, he donated a significant amount of money to its creation, or donated the land. That doesn't make any claim of being notable - thousands of buildings and parks have been named after the people who paid for them. Firestorm (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the notability of the person the park was named after may be questionable, but a ~200 acre area of any city is something notable. Nearby residents will certainly view this page at some time or another. This article could be expanded with coordinates, images, and a more detailed history. That being said, my position is fairly neutral. I'll add what I can to it for now. Tevonic (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This park doesn't seem to be historically notable, but it is apparently one the 'most popular parks in San Antonio' for what that's worth (http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.aspx?trailid=HGS458-026) Esc861 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the new additions to this article do make a good case for its being kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esc861 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 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 20:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Pie: Book of Love[edit]

Contested prod. Despite what the prod rationale said, the following text has been added in the same edit as the deprodding: Casting has not begun, thereby confirming that now is not the right time for an article on this movie. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Victor Lopes (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:38, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of InuYasha locations[edit]

Unnotable list of fictional locations used in the manga and anime series InuYasha, however bulk of contents are very minor locations that are not particularly relevant to the series itself, much less having any real world notability. Their use/appearance in the series, such as it is, is already better covered in the episode and manga chapter summaries, while this list is primarily repeated plot from those, with a ton of added WP:OR and unsourced claims. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:V. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss proper content on the talk pages. Not a;ll locations in a fiction absolutely need to be mentioned in a list--they are not quite as important an element in most fictions as, say, named characters. But to ask to delete an entire list because some of the contents is too minor to include is not appropriate. DGG (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the contents are major at all. All of the locations are minor, with some being really minor. At best, the Bone Eater's Well is the only one that might be slightly less than minor, but even then it doesn't need more than a one sentence explanation: its a well that acts as a gateway between Kagome and InuYasha's world. The list is unnecessary, unnotable, and should be deleted. Nothing to discuss regarding the content at all, none of of it is appropriate nor important. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The list seems somewhat crufty and I question the importance of locations as a concept. When/How do we determine when the locations of a fictional work are important and encyclopedic enough to create a list for them, in-article or stand-alone? Do we even have an article or list on Dragon Ball locations which are no more important to the series then they are for Inu Yasha? Can a location list ever be anything more then a regurgitation of plot information? These is the basic issues I have with any location list. --Farix (Talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2-4 and 8. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IIRC there are only like three recurring locations in the whole series, there's no point to this. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:53, 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 merge to Greenhouse gas. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy from various fuels[edit]

User took data from this table and made an article. The title is something that wont be searched for. Mblumber (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article because I was searching for the information myself and couldn't find it on Wikipedia. I think many other people will find this information very enlightening and useful. This article also provides a good connection between various fuel, co2 emission, and environment related articles. If the title is a problem, then someone can create a new title, but that is not grounds for deletion. Especially since articles can be found through indirect searches too. (for example: simply typing in "co2 btu" in Wikipedia's search bar puts this page right at the top! Yaki-gaijin (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything belongs on Wikipedia. If you can find it elsewhere, simply including an external link somewhere rather than copying the material would make for a better option. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - appears to be useful (even more useful if metric equivalents could be included). Will be found by linking William M. Connolley (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Btu is an obsolete unit and has no place in the definition of an article on a scientific topic. If somebody wants to change it to KWh, MJ or some other metric unit, I'd change my opinion. JulesH (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Greenhouse gas (which redirects from "Carbon emissions") after converting data to metric. The information is useful, and that seems a likely place for readers to look. Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tim Ross. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stumbled across it the other day, and found it useful. -Atmoz (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 4 and 10. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify please? The information is verifiable (4) and does not require original research (10).Yaki-gaijin (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. It duplicates a single primary source, which is presumably based on a single study, and as such to infer that the data is true of all such fuels is unverifiable original research. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emission coefficients might change due to fuel quality etc, but this article isn't implying that all types of gasoline in all situations release the same amount of co2.Yaki-gaijin (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tim Ross. Tevonic (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly encyclopedic content that can be verified. The nominator does not specify any valid criteria for deletion. I agree, however, that the article needs a better name—but that is never a valid argument for a deletion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tim Ross. Scyrene (talk) 00:57, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scramble-b![edit]

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable, unlicensed series. Article can't even give info on serialization, volumes, etc. Unlisted in Anime News Network as well. Fails WP:BK and does not meet the additional criteria allowed at WP:MOS-AM of being "licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan." either. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per ja.wiki (which article's existence suggests that in the country of origin there's some notability) the series was collected in 4 volumes, and followed by a 3-volume sequel which seems to be the story continued. That's not exactly a flash in the pan. Withholding actual !vote to see if I can't find more information supporting notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't gauge the notability of any article based on the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia, per WP:OSE and WP:ININ. For one, the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for inclusion then other languages. ---Farix (Talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but if said international entry has solid references (I can't tell because of a lack of Japanese language skills) that would be a good reason to keep it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not great referencing. Going by machine translation, the article on the first series has more plot summary than anything, and for the sequel series little more than a stub list of characters. This in addition to basic publication info, that is. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further research discovers that in addition to the 3-volume sequel, there's a second 1-volume sequel plus a 1-volume sidestory -- in total nine volumes of monthly serial numbers (in Ciao), which suggests ... something. Have not yet anything that fits the letter of the law, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's evidence that demonstrates the letter of the law of notability, I'm not finding it. If I were finding hints aside from what I've already cataloged, I might argue for a keep anyway, but the above on its own isn't enough to make me confident the solid evidence exists. A reluctant delete without prejudice for recreation if reliable sources come to light. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 08:43, 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 merge to Inu Yasha. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel of Four Souls[edit]

Unnotable fictional jewel from the Inu Yasha manga and anime series. It isn't a character and article is almost entirely WP:OR and plot summary. The jewel has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and its relevant role in series already better covered by main article plot summary and individual episode and manga chapters summaries in their respective lists. Tagged for various issues since June 2008 with no major change at all. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inu Yasha as likely search term. I don't see anything worth salvaging that isn't already in the main article. --Farix (Talk) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Farix. Although I can't speak for the content of the page, if my memory is correct it's a prominent plot point and is definitely a likely search term. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually even called Jewel of the Four Souls anywhere in the English licensed versions? My recollection may be off, but in the anime dub, it is called the Shikon Jewel or The Sacred Jewel, not the "Jewel of the Four Souls". Ditto the manga. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not entirely sure. It was several years ago I watched it, and only for 26episodes. The japanese is actually more familiar to me then the english name, but Viz state "Jewel of Four Souls" on their web site [35] Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inu Yasha. Central maguffin of the entire series. Edward321 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge usable material (which may amount to a redirect) to Inu Yasha. Definitely at least leave a redirect as it's a plausable search term as one of the official translations of the main plot engine of the series. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:59, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreshMen[edit]

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licensed for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable one-shot. Not even listed in Anime News Network's encyclopedia, nor JA Wiki. Fails WP:BK and allowed additional criteria at WP:MOS-AM of "Has been licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding evidence that this is anything more notable than any other series of its kind -- neither reviews nor that it'd been licensed in another language. That ja.wiki doesn't have an article strongly suggests no notability. Looks like it fails WP:BK, which means delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:49, 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. Cirt (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuiguru Mix[edit]

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable, unlicensed series. Fails WP:BK and does not meet the additional criteria allowed at WP:MOS-AM of being "licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan." either. Not listed at Anime News Network either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that there's articles on both ja.wiki and zh.wiki, with the series licensed in Taiwain/Hong Kong. I strongly suggest that a search be done in the rest of east Asia before concluding that it has not, in fact, been licensed by another publisher. Frankly, it looks like the sort of series that would be, either in Veitnam or Indonesia. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the ZH one give a source for the claimed licensing? So far, all I've seen for it are scanslations with no actual coverage, not even on ANN. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From zh: [36]. —tan³ tx 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't gauge the notability of any article based on the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia, per WP:OSE and WP:ININ. For one, the English Wikipedia has much higher standards for inclusion then the other languages. --Farix (Talk) 04:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't demonstrate notability, no, but they do suggest notability exists -- especially articles in languages outside the country of origin. Enough of a suggestion, that I hestitate to !vote straight out based on not finding anything in English, until further research has been done. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Needs substantial independent coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, according to WP:BK, substantial independent coverage is not the only way to demonstrate notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found discussion of what is apparently this series on a Korean chat board, which leads me to conclude that it has been licensed in South Korea. I cannot at the moment prove this with reliable sources, and my linguistic (in)abilities make it unlikely that I will be able to. As this would make this a second licensing outside of Japan: keep and remand to the relevant WikiProject(s) (Manga and Japan) to search for reliable sources to demonstrate notablity; if none are found within, say, six months (period suggested due to language barrier) revisit the issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like desperate reasoning there. Besides, a books is not made notable based on the number of languages it has been officially translated into. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at WP:MOS-AM#Notability. It's a criterion that creates an assumption of notability -- if it's popular enough to have won an award or be mulitply licensed, we can reasonably assume there's material out there about it, even if we don't have it on hand at the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, a manual of style can't set criteria for notability. That is well outside of its scope. Second, that criteria does not have consensus back from other editors. If it did, it would be in WP:BK. --Farix (Talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BK claims to not apply to comic books. There was a long (and involved) discussion by WikiProject Anime and Manga editors that resulted in formally saying that WP:BK does indeed apply to manga with this additional possible criterion. (The discussion is somewhere in the WT:ANIME archives -- I'll have to search to find it.) It's documented in the AM MOS because, at the time, it seemed like the best place to put it. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject's shouldn't come up with additional notability criteria. Instead, they can only interprate and apply the existing notability guidelines. If they did create additional notability criteria, then we would be in a real huge mess since all that is needed is a small group of editors to come to gather, form a project, and then state anything they create is notable under their "criteria". --Farix (Talk) 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Lovers (Manga)[edit]

No reliable third-party sources could be found to establish notability. Also fails WP:BK. I believe the only reason the article was created was because it was licenced for translation into English, which is not a notability criteria. Original prod was disputed by an IP editor. Farix (Talk) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable two volume series. While this one is listed at Anime News Network, at least, it still fails WP:BK and does not meet the additional criteria allowed at WP:MOS-AM of "Has been licensed by at least two publishers outside of Japan." either. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the series was reprinted by a different publisher hints at a certain amount of popularity, which suggests notability, but I'm not finding any other evidence (such as reviews). That there's no ja.wiki article is suggestive that it's not notable. Pending actual evidence that it passes WP:BK, delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If it's notable in Japan, it's notable anywhere.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given there's no article for it on the Japanese Wikipedia, what makes you think it's notable in Japan? Got any reviews from reliable sources for it? If so, please share. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't do much research. This yaoi manga is available in every major book store in English (and Japanese, of course). Just do a quick Amazon search and you'll find it.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon does not constitute every major bookstore in English, and that does not make it notable. See WP:BK. And also WP:CIVIL. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it's not on the shelves of the Barnes & Noble around the corner from me -- I just checked. Either they're not major or you've got some facts wrong. In any case, being available does not mean notable or every book published would pass WP:BK (and they don't). Please show some evidence for your initial assertion that meets the relevant notability guideline. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The IP editor above has a recent track-record of vandalism,engaging in random personal attacks, and general trolling. --Farix (Talk) 15:43, 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 a3, no meaningful, substantive content. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

߄[edit]

Unremarkable and non-notable unicode character Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Romantic[edit]

This movie is wp:nn with no source (beside the movie website) Mblumber (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This film has not been completed, and does not appear to have any coverage in independent sources. It doesn't meet the notability requirements. --Megaboz (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N, subject to re-creation when it is released commercially. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Dennis O'Rear. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaires (band)[edit]

Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, No one cares about your garage or MySpace band. ThePointblank (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability at this point in their music careers. but hopefully they'll make it big and be back! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They pass WP:MUSIC, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show". But that criteria also says "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)". So Delete or keep seems like Wikipedia:ILIKEIT or Wikipedia:IDON'TLIKEIT. I have added them to the TV Show they have performed the theme song for. Probably delete since there's no info beyond that. Dendlai (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of tune in regard to WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Doesn't even come close. -- 128.97.245.18 (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While name alone is hard to source, check Google and Google News for "Millionaires" and "Breathe Carolina". Extensive coverage of touring. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Like ThePointblank said, this is yet another garage band that no one cares about. -- 71.138.125.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Danzik[edit]

This article came with an impressive list of external links (see this earlier revision for the whole list). I noticed that one link was dead, and tidied it up. On inspection, all the rest of the external links were variously to dead links, press releases, mere mentions in passing, and database entries, none of which appeared to meet the WP:RS criteria, and I have removed these too. Without these, I can't see that what remains passes the WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing verifiability criteria with notability criteria. Notability required multiple non-trivial sources. An article mentioning a subject in passing or in a database can still be reliable even if the coverage isn't indepth. -- Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should rephrase that. The links removed were either dead, not RS, or did not meet the BIO criteria. The patent listings are clearly reliable primary sources, but do not meet the BIO requirements. Otherwise, we would need to have an article on every person who had ever filed a patent. Similarly, press releases are not sufficient; anyone can have a press release distributed by any of the many release distribution services; they are not, in general, then fact-checked by their republishers. The person in question sounds quite interesting, and I'd happily support keeping the article if third-party sources that meet the WP:BIO criteria were available. Unfortunately, I can't see any evidence that they are. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no evidence of notability. Holding a patent does not make a person notable; there is no evidence that any of the patents are notable. The Reuter's EL is a press release, and does not provide evidence that Danzik is notable. — ERcheck (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Patents, especially the first plastic lumber, and a new renewable liquid fuel source is groundbreaking and important work. Also growing Wiki support. Most link destruction was done by unknowns. This can be repaired. It is also impossible to know if the person saying "Delete" is unbiased and not "put forth" by someone with motive. NPSE links were removed, SPE links were removed. Totally unfair to other researchers looking for basis of information in olefin sciences and original inventions and ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventorssociety (talk • contribs) 10:41, 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) 02:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Growing Wiki support? If these patents are so groundbreaking and important, one would expect them to have been written about--but I can't find anything at all. In fact, the only hit I got through Google news was about the house the guy bought for $6 million. I am not sure exactly what links you're referring to above (or what's unfair about previous edits), and perhaps I am also guilty of what you call "link destruction"--since I removed the links to various databases that list patents, without a single explanation as to what those things are, or, more to the point, how they are important. If you want to save your guy, you need to find sources that pass muster to establish his notability (I let the Reuters-thing stand, even though it's a press release: you need better sources than that). Drmies (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope his inventions are successful and become notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the reasons above and he also does not seem to pass the Google test. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome: is a member of the Mormon "Church" and is tied to Mity Lite and has a hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.101.58 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make it Easy: The substantial personal and corporate financial support that is provided will also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.101.58 (talk) 00:44, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Usachova[edit]

Promotion of a nonnotable dress designer Dzied Bulbash (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines or reasoning did you use to come to the conclusion she isn't notable? =- Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a curious question for a user with five-digit edit count :)). There is more than one person with this name: here's another designer with same spelling, more ladies spelled Usacheva at Google scholar, go figure who is who. In the absence of RS, they would amalgamate into a perfect court reporter with PhD in microbiology who sells wedding gowns in LA and designer dolls on ebay :)). Delete. NVO (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The various statements in the article are poorly supported by refs, or not at all. Even if they are all perfectly true, though, I do not see WP:N. Tim Ross (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant advertising and definitely not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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 redirect to Channel-stopper. Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Channel stopper[edit]

Has been shifted to Wiktionary; mere definition, not needed here. Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:SPEEDY#A5. This doesn't need to be proposed for AfD. A simple {{db-transwiki}} tag at the top of the article would have been sufficient. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - I tried and it was yanked, since prods had been removed in the past; so I took it here. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once it's been transwiki'd, the speedy-delete tag is valid. Next time, if an admin yanks it, point out on the admin's talk page where it's been transwiki'd and the admin will likely delete it. I saw this work with Urban Indian, now Wiktionary:Urban Indian, for example. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A5, as it is indeed on Wiktionary. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per rules. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per rules.--Rabbit67890 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Channel-stopper, the technical meaning of the term which is also used w/o the hypen, until the entertainment version catches on. JJL (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per JJL (of Channel stopper, Channel Stopper, Channel-stopper, Channel-Stopper, or Channelstopper: NONE found on Wiktionary). — Athaenara ✉ 04:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Channel-stopper per CSD A5. Matt (Talk) 06:59, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly warrior[edit]

Butterflies are free to fly, but neologisms should not be encouraged to nest here. Fails WP:NEO. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. JJL (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know that it's a neologism, but it's certainly a non-notable non-encyclopedic term. The article also has clear WP:NPOV problems, and lacks citations other than referring to what seem to be primary sources for this term. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Maybe if we start to see coverage of this term being used to describe this group, then it would be OK. MuZemike (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, with a hint of WP:COATRACK peppered into it ever so slightly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A butterfly warrior is any man or woman dedicated to personal transformation. A Butterfly Warrior is an activist that is moved by love, motivated by the possibility of heaven on earth, serves the death of the caterpillar and is the spirit of the new paradigm. Unfortunately, I am a praying mantis warrior. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CleverTexting[edit]

non-notable software Sceptre ^(talk) 16:47, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any notability and not likely to in the future except as the most pointless Java app ever seeing as most mobile phones have had predictive text for years? Nancy ^talk 16:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Almost meets speedy deletion criterion db-corp but doesn't concentrate on the actual company. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewell Towne Vineyards[edit]

This article fails WP:NN and WP:CORP.

Claims "oldest winery" when it started in 1982. Emphasizes number of medals won, which is meaningless especially when the medals list reveals that they were not for international competitions and predominate in silver and bronze, nothing to brag about, achievable by amateur winemakers. Numerous reliable sources discuss gimmicks and marketing ploys of medal factory competitions.

In spite of the sources referenced, this is a non-notable winery. Sources such as Boston Globe look respectable at first glance, but are actually local-interest coverage. Other sources are minor local papers.

Please also review the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Jewell Towne Vineyards before adding your comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At time of time of nomination, the claim is oldest currently active winery, no emphasis of number of medals won or other gimmicky marketing ploys, or otherwise editorializing and first-name cozy language. Sources somewhat exceed smalltown local paper sphere.. It is just about WP:NN and WP:CORP. MURGH ^disc. 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PSTS which establishes WP:Note.--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added three more reliable source references to this article (provided below), I believe it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore passes WP:N and WP:CORP.
- "The time is ripe." New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH) September 27, 2004, State, Business: C1.
- "South Hampton vintner wins 7 medals." New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH) August 30, 2004, State, Business: C2.
- Zraly, Kevin (2006). Kevin Zraly's American Wine Guide. New York: Sterling. p. 116. ISBN 1-4027-2585-X. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Sources seem to be local and coverage may not be substantial enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Boston Globe, even the local edition, is a RS, and the Union Leader is about as big of a newspaper as you are going to find in NH. They doen't have any stories in the NY times, but I consider both of those to definitely meet WP:RS and thus establish WP:N. --Terrillja _talk 15:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wines & Vines magazine, the Boston Globe, and Wine East are not local sources. --Jmundo (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are if the article appears in the local-interest section of that paper. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article appears in the Boston Globe's website (national coverage). I don't think Wines & Vines and Wine East are local sources. --Jmundo (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - All websites are global. Look closer, it's the "local" section of the website. Not that it matters anymore... ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient information about a pioneering regional role to merit keeping the article. Tomas e (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has seen significant improvement since initial discussion on the WikiProject Wine talk page and it seems to meet notability guidelines. Camw (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and pass the caberenet sauvignon Checks out in regard to WP:RS and WP:CORP. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jewell Towne Vineyards is a well-referenced article, and the refs are reliable. Captain-tucker has added three more reliable refs. Jewell Towne Vineyards is sufficiently notable to justify a WP article. AdjustShift (talk) 13:55, 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fly fm - Nottingham Trent University[edit]

Campus radio station. Cannot locate evidence of it passing WP:NOTE. Nancy ^talk 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that all permanent licensed radio stations in the UK are automatically notable but it is not clear that they actually have an FM licence, despite the station name. I can't find a frequency on their website and "fly fm" is not found when I search Ofcom. They seem to be members of the Student Radio Association, and have won awards from them, so maybe there is something there. I would like to give the article the benefit of the doubt, as I used to do student radio myself, but it urgently needs some more references if it is to stand a chance. As it stands, I couldn't honestly put even a very weak keep on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "we broadcast live online from our studios in Byron House on every single day of term. We also broadcast live in Union bars and shops at all three NTU campuses". Doesn't sound like they have a free-radiating broadcast license. JulesH (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable campus station. Doesn't appear to broadcast outside of university. JamesBurns (talk) 01:19, 6 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 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, from what I've looked at, they have no license and have been broadcasting on one of those frequencies that have a short range (which would explain why it is only broadcast on the campus). Tavix (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per information gathered in good faith investigation by various editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:30, 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. Notability has not been established. Photographing other famous individuals does not assert notability. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hill (photographer)[edit]

I removed the WP:prod on this because it has been done and contested in the past. However, I can't find any sources to help prove notability so I feel it should be deleted. Raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hill seems to be no more than one in tens of thousands of rock photographers. He's young; he may go far. If/when he goes significantly further (solo exhibitions, books noted for the photographer as well as the subject matter, critical commentary), he can get an article; till then, 'fraid not. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not independently establish notability. The article merely restates the contents of Hill's website and other self-produced documentation. I agree with Hoary that deletion does not preclude a future article when notability is able to be independently established. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet there, no prejudice to future re-creation if he becomes notable in the end. --Crusio (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established by the notability of the numerous artists Hill has been sought out by to provide key material - such as covers of top selling albums, music books, top selling music magazines, videos etc. Some references are [37], [38] [39] Citizensmith (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources 1 & 2, while reliable sources, only mention him in passing. Source #3 is a book which he contributed to as a photographer, not about him. I don't doubt he exists, and that he photographs notable bands, but none of these sources, or the ones added to the article, appear to cover him in depth, and don't seem to satisfy the notability guideline. User:Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't normally edit Wikipedia but I am an avid reader as well as a huge photography fan so wanted to add my tuppence worth. We study Peter Hill as a photographer on my University course and I don't believe Hill is one among tens of thousands of rock photographers. Just entering 'rock photographer' into google proves that. He's a leading light in the music photography world and notability can be helped proven by some of the biggest bands in the world such as Fall out Boy using him, and only him, to take photos of them for websites such as myspace. [40] ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotphotographer (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Scotphotographer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"keeeeeep" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.111.104 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — 88.106.111.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STRONG KEEP INIT. Hill has photographed a lot of big bands, his work has appeared in ALOT of big name magazines, and his work as a tour manager and live bassist for The Automatic all surely warrants his page staying. Plus he is dead lanky.(89.242.102.216 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)) — 89.242.102.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person has photographed artists who are notable, but there is nothing in the references given to show that he is notable himself. Association with the musicians cited does not give notability. A reference needs to more than just mention the photographer - it needs to comment on the photography. Jenafalt (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We read above: We study Peter Hill as a photographer on my University course. Splendid! Where's the web page for the university course, or better still the lecturer's Powerpoint/Wimpypoint/Slidy slides or even PDF handout for it? -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite SPA voting. Photographer of covers etc for multiple notable albums and artists should be notable. Better to have unified article rather than duplicating text in album articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:06, 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 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AER Amplifiers[edit]

No references, no claim to notability. Mikeblas (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's pretty good coverage of their products on forums, online stores, etc. StonerDude420 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the issue isn't whether they exist, they do. The issue it whether they're notable, and is that notability backed up by reliable, third-party,sources. They're not. Fails to meet WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 21:05, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more needs to be said than what's already been said above. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Nicholls[edit]

Fails WP:BIO - unable to find significant coverage. Also WP:NOT#NEWS. —Snigbrook 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there are plenty third party sources including [41], [42], [43] and [44]. --Patton^t/c 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two only contain one line or two that is relevant to this article, which is not enough, and the other two (both are the same url) are on a blog and appear to be about another person with a similar name. This article could be merged if there was an article about the crime he was convicted of (per WP:BLP1E) but there does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources. There is no inherent notability for criminals (e.g. Ian Huntley is redirected to Soham murders), so I don't think this meets the relevant guidelines. —Snigbrook 15:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Decltype (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 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 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the merge proposal? Can the content be merge and titled appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some support for it to be merged (see Talk:Soham murders#Aaron Nicholls) but I don't think it is worth merging, as it isn't particularly relevant to the article Soham murders, which is about the murders, not about Ian Huntley. —Snigbrook 13:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a one sentence merge and redirect (to the appropriate section) might be the way to go. The possible suicide attempt and tape are already mentioned in the Soham murders article so mentioning that Aaron Nicholls was allegedly involved and what he was convicted of doesn't seem like a big deal. As he is somewhat notable for his own horrific crimes and his involvement in this other incident, I think including him in some fashion seems appropriate, but the whole thing is pretty awful, and so distasteful I don't want to have much to do with it. Too upsetting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" Scapler (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz Ahmed[edit]

Journalist with questionable notability. Prod was contested by the creator (almost certainly Shiraz Ahmed himself), on the grounds that his employer is "one of the leading business newspapers of Pakistan," something that should not need to be mentioned. No sources, and googling that name (specifying that I'm looking for someone working at The Financial Daily) returns nothing of substance. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really get my head around the google new archive results for "Shiraz Ahmed". There appears to be a cricketer with that name and a number of others. Probably just the effect of sticking two reasonably common names together and news searching it. In any case, I find myself agreeing with the nom on this one. Delete unless further notability can be established. If anything, there appear to exist more notable people by that name. Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:28, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relatively new journalist with a bright future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 8 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]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Malik[edit]

Unreferenced journalist who appears non-notable. Difficult to check as a (different) ~~notable~~more widely referenced person exists with the same name, but no claim in the article leads to a different conclusion. Bongo matic 13:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a more notable person exists with the same name, shouldn't the content just be changed to reflect that? Usrnme h8er (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not really notable (changed nom above). See http://people.forbes.com/profile/aslam-malik/4959.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability and article needs a lot of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 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 no consensus. As ever, discussion on whether to merge or redirect the article somewhere can be taken up on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiles of the Hold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

List was previously deleted as nonnotable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold in September 2008. As this list had a little more (in-universe) information than the AfDed list, I chose not to speedy it as WP:CSD#G4 and prodded it instead. Prod-tag was removed with some explanation at the article's talkpage (Talk:Tiles of the Hold), but I am (still) not convinced that his list should be included in wikipedia (nothing significant found on Google Books/Scholar/News), so here we are again. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article has been updated, and although, at present, it does not meet notability guidelines there are at least two forthcoming novels that will use this information. Prior to them, two novels have used this information in an introductory note and practical note. Also, a reason for the lack notability in 'Google' hits is because of the complexity of the series and only a few sites have gone and done work on it. Google Scholar rarely has fiction elements on it. Google News would not have anything to do with elements of a book, unless there is a book review in a magazine, which usually is not detailed enough to give away plot. No information is original research based on primary source material. It is directly from the book although formatted for readability and put into context. This information will be useful in the future. There is no reason to delete it. Thank you, Krmarshall (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note: Krmarshall is the article re-creator.) Articles that were recently deleted through consensus should not be recreated unless the concerns of the previous AfD no longer apply (which is not the case here), or unless WP:DRV overrules the AfD (also not the case). Original research was not noted as a reason for deletion here. If consensus in this AfD determines that this list should be kept, then that's also fine. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 6 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 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If there are forthcoming novels that will make this notable, then when the novels have been published and there is some comment on them, it should be possible to write an article. DGG (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have analyzed this further, below. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep or userfy, editor is obviously making a good faith effort to improve the article. travb (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin, please check the page history for the merits of this claim. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new editor removed the AfD tag[45] and Sgeureka replaced it. I did this the first time my article was put up for deletion too. The new editor had a mere 365 edits before they created the page.

Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept. travb (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete How can you have a "Keep" argument that says the subject is not notable? No reliable third party sources address the subject. The only source is from the book itself. There is no policy or guideline basis for a keep argument. The good faith of the editor not withstanding. As the source for this is the book itself, this is WP:OR at best. There is no point in userfying this. The quality of the keep arguments here astounds me. Dloh cierekim 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add delete per arguments presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold. As this is a mere recreation of material deleted after that discussion, as there is no improvement and no sourcing, as as there is no basis for keep arguments, Speedy Deletion as recreated material is certainly appropriate. Dloh cierekim 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note is taken that the creator of the article is a participant in the discussion. Dloh cierekim 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge as I am about to suggest. I've been asked to reconsider. I think major plot elements in fiction are always notable if the fiction is notable enough. I think these are not major plot elements, but minor ones, just part of the background machinery, and would only be notable if the fiction were exceptionally notable. I see no evidence of anything more. But I do not know the series, so I may well be wrong; I am judging only by the material in the Wikipedia articles, which do not seem of great clarity. If I am wrong, there should be discussions of the books in which these are referred to , and I do not see this. I have my doubts about Deck of the Dragons, but at least this seems to apply to the entire series. This seems to apply to one part of the fictional universe only. Perhaps then they two articles should be merged, unde some such title as Divination in The Malazan Book of the Fallen, with a possible redirect from this title. Otherwise, it seems unduely specialized. As usual, I don;t really think afd is the best place for such discussions. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep On the one hand it's a bit in universesque, on the other hand it's a worthile listing that's relevant to a successful novel. I lean towards including it somehow in a tightened format or even merged into parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and there is nothing to preserve. Userpages are not preserves for indiscriminate, nn info that dose not met notability. Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Useful is not an notability criterion. cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable sources sufficient to establish notability for this thoroughly unencyclopedic list about the minute details of a fantasy series.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep:

I agree with Inclusionist:

Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept.

What harm is there to keeping this article alive. I have added to it, again. And believe there is still more to add. I have a busy life outside of this, so it takes some time to create a full article. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are articles.Krmarshall (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Magic in the Malazan Book of the Fallen (probably along with every other article in the Magic section of Template:MBF), a description of these would obviously be relevant to the main subject but the main body of this article is unnecessary plot detail which does not contribute to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOAP is the first strong argument against this article. The second one is a previous AfD on the topic. And this is enough already. Tone 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of arabism[edit]

Appears to be a list of reasons to dislike arabs, in extended essay format. To me, an unsalvagable collection of opinions. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per CSD G10 and CSD G4. This article is just like so many others deleted before it, created by banned sockpuppet accounts. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of panarabism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Jewish Arabism; those articles contained essentially identical WP:SOAP content to this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with Pan-Arabism Seems to be some content worthy of including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Where? If you can find anything salvageable beyond a sentence or two, feel free to merge what you want. However, this article is essentially the same as the others deleted before it, and the content of those was judged unsalvageable too. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There seem to be a lot of citations and they seemed at a glance to be about this subject. No?ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Please read the other deletion discussions (linked in my first comment above) for essentially the same article that has been deleted multiple times already. Cherry-picking citations to support a biased point of view is not acceptable. Furthermore, this article constitutes a POV Fork. As I said, if you can salvage anything, feel free, but past reviewers in past discussions for this article have not found anything worthwhile to keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there is some substantial coverage for this perspective then it would be good to include in the parent article. A merge is one outcome to resolve a POV fork. Are notable criticisms of pan-arabism included in that article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        One more time: (a) If you can salvage anything useful from the POV-pushing this article represents, feel free; and (b) read previous deletion discussions. This article was deleted multiple times already on solid grounds, and therefore qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G4 policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, soapbox. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very known subject with its criticism, everywhere!!! no reason why wikipedia should be exempt from this data! PS (I suggest if someone has an "issue" with it, he or she should post a substance reason for it. I came across this subject on many sources online/offline. Fadresei (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) — Fadresei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete--Per WP:SOAP and WP:COAT. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:52, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the city streets"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"the city streets"

I don't think this meets the music notability guidelines. Neutrality^talk 07:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be a myspace band with non-notable indie releases WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:07, 6 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 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one cares about a garage band. ThePointblank (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC #2 = "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." !earshot = national music chart. Ergo, keep. Bearcat (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BAND and WP:GARAGE. Canniba loki 21:31, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Alien (film)[edit]

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF; looks like a film that was planned back in 2007 but never found legs. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:31, 7 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 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just as Erik says, this one seems to have died. Nothing new since October 2007. Likely sold a lot of albums after the announcement though. If it ever gets into production, bring it on back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You know what else should be deleted is that supposed Wikipedia documentary that's never coming out. JBsupreme (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 14:14, 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 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University European Union Society[edit]

Non-notable Neutrality^talk 06:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested and required by members of various departments within Cambridge University, and necessary to raise awareness of society itself --RRowbottom (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. Neutrality^talk 07:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Non-notable.--Mitigate & Satiate (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Struck comment by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:59, 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) 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what prompted the AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. No significant coverage in independent, reliable media. Furthermore, I believe that the creating author is violating WP:CONFLICT. ThePointblank (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: A Google check does show some evidence of notability - independent sources referring to the society. But it really should be re-written to back up all assertions from these sources, as opposed to self-published references. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. Second choice would be a merge into the university or a list of student groups there. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. I notice, in passing, that there are a number of pages on equally nn CU societies. TerriersFan (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added a section to the article with 'Possible References', which gives all the independent sources I could find. Very weak ... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:15, 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 delete as a recreation of previously deleted material (G4). Similar material has been deleted in the past following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation. The current page adds no new evidence of notability nor does it address the deletion rationales from the previous AfD discussions. Further recreations of this article which meet speedy-deletion criteria (see G4) can be tagged as such rather than going to AfD.

If there is interest in recreating an article on this individual, then the proper process would be to go to deletion review and present evidence that he meets our notability requirements for individuals or academics. The prior discussions linked above have determined that he did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so an effective argument at deletion review would probably focus on new or previously unmentioned evidence of notability. MastCell ^Talk 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Marshall Hyde[edit]

WP:RS, not notable, deleted before RetroS1mone talk 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of widely cited publications and books. His work in the area of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome has been well recognized . Has been quoted in multiple other news articles. ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50]). ^LeaveSleaves 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Widely cited? A paper cited 47 times isn't that remarkable. Papers of truly notable people get cited hundreds of times. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this in 2007; the histologic articles (including the one with 47 citations) appear to be by a different BM Hyde. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i think you are right there is more then one BM Hyde. RetroS1mone talk 13:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck in light of comments. Poor judgment on my part. ^LeaveSleaves 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Quoted in an article makes a person notable? RetroS1mone talk 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a person's opinion is accepted as that of an expert in multiple reliable sources, that does add to notability and indicates that the person is well regarded in the area. Plus that was just my secondary point. My primary support stems from the publications. ^LeaveSleaves 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your view LeaveSleaves. I thought " trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," a report some one will speak at a YMCA is very trivial and the drug company thing was a press release so not reliable. Are there works about this Byron M. Hyde, that is how I see WP:NOTE? Google searches for publications can be mis-leading like when there is more then one BM Hyde and there is. Your list of five books has just three published books, one is a collection of poems so it is not for notability of a doctor, one has a three-page article from him and the third, he is one from three editors and it is self-pub. Your list of publications has also another BM Hyde who published in peer-review literature and also publications by this BM Hyde who did not publish medline peer-review articles. When it is enough for notability, then every that has publications can be on WP, i don't think that is intent? RetroS1mone talk 05:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Jmundo (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Jmundo (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my rationale when the article was deleted in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byron Hyde. There appears to be no more notability now. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficent notability. Being quoted here and there doesn't seem to me to be enough. Perhaps he can be cited in the appropriate articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, not enough here (or in google searches) to justify an article. Not notable. (Also as recreation of deleted material) Verbal chat 08:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to have enough to establish notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. The edited book, published in 1992, is in only 93 libraries according to WorldCat. This book is the main claim for notability in the article.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0.720

Delete An exact search for the name in Scopus, gives only the one Canadian article, which has been cited by nobody from 1996 to date. DGG (talk) 05:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous Adventures[edit]

The only independent references are from one source; Adventure Gamers site, and appear to be press releases, thus do not satisfy WP:N. Sources posted on the talk page are similarly press releases (and a YouTube clip which doesn't mention this company at all.) During a web search, I did turn up one possible source ([51]), not sure if this is sufficient on its own. Marasmusine (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 18:57, 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) 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. Article needs substantial coverage from independent sources and there doesn't seem to be any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 1 source does show notability as it is from a reliable review site, as the work Space Quest II is notable.じんない 09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that it can be mentioned in a broader article, if this is the only significant coverage, per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3. Marasmusine (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not perform a merge? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that if the concensus is to keep this (verifiable portion of) information. I'm still leaning on this side of delete. Marasmusine (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Sources:

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/19/kings-quest-iii-pimped-out-and-re-released/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news200606kingsquest3
http://digg.com/gaming_news/King_s_Quest_3_(the_remake)_has_been_released_\
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=24729077&union_id=936
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/company/index.php?company=80226P
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/kingsquestiiitoheirishumanvga/index.html
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0186724/
http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/company/80226.html

If you require more than leave a message underneath.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by JMB1988 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the links now, let's see.

Joysiq.com -> Not significant coverage (press release)
Eurogamer -> to quote "And yes I did just rip that bit off Wikipedia..."; we can't reference a source that itself references us, or we get a walled garden.
Digg.com -> Not significant; merely links to the official website
uk.gamespot.com, imdb and gamefaqs -> "official press release", and basically empty directory entries; no significant coverage.

Thanks for searching for sources, but these aren't usable. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Just to clarify, though the Eurogamer source can not be used to cite the content, I believe it still qualifies as a reliable source making note of a subject. Though the rest of sources don't build a strong case. I say weak keep because this is not a work of fiction, but a real-life company. Otherwise, I'd say delete. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pen & Quill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completely self-referenced. Not notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's discussed a bit here [52] and appears to have lots of mentions in various newspapers here [53] according to google news, indicating it is a notable publication in its field. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The book appears to be written by the same people who write or at least sponsor the newsletter. Only a trivial mention in newspapers, doesn't satisfy WP:N the article has to be about the subject in question. Good finds though! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience newspapers and magazines rarely write much about other newspapers and magazines. So while I agree the coverage isn't very substantial, the coverage does seem to assert that this publication is an authority and well repected in its field. As such it seems reasonable to include it. How many well established decades old publications on autographs are there after all? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone with access to the New York Times have a look in the archives? There's this story[54] and this citation included in the article :The New York Times, May 21, 1976 11. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have historical NYT archives. The publication is only mentioned because they talk to the editor of the magazine. The actual article doesn't talk about the publication at all. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment addendum There are also quite a few stories that mention the parent club: [55] ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to addendum As noted in this NYT story [56], "The Universal Autograph Collectors Club, the largest nonprofit autograph collectors' association, lists more than 200 registered dealers," the group appears to be quite notable even if their publication isn't. So a merge to a new article about the club would also be a good option. The more I look into it the less I think deletion is a good outcome. But maybe someone has a different take? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems to be notable, based on what documentation there is. DGG (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jsadserver[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. There was barely any results on two Google searches and no results on two Google News searches and two Google Books searches. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:58, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it has sufficient notability. But it should probably be listed on the appropriate boards so the experts can weigh in as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:08, 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 redirect to Miss World 1973. WP:V is not negotiable - no sources, no article. Especially for WP:BLPs. Sandstein 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylva Channessian[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:V. There are no non-trivial, third-party reliable sources from which a full, neutral biography could be written about this individual. I have searched both contemporary and modern sources in English, but have found nothing substantial. I grant that there could be some contemporary/modern sources in Arabic, but the onus of finding sources is on the individual who creates the article/adds the material. In this case, however, I would love to search for sources in Arabic - I can read enough that I could at least tell if there were sources available, even if I couldn't translate them fully. Unfortunately, the problem is that I have no idea how her name was transliterated in the 1970s and, because no sources have been provided for the article, I cannot search for her name in Arabic, highlighting the need for people who provide material to also provide sources rather than sending everyone else out on a hunt. As for WP:V, even if everything in the article is verifiable, there is nothing more than that; in its current form, the information is nothing more than would be present in a list of pageant winners. If this is the only verifiable information, then it does not merit its own article at this point. Cheers, CP 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss World 1973. There's no real information in this article beyond the subject's placement in that pageant. If we can't find any information about the subject in English (the pageant's home language) or French (the second language of Lebanon), it's unlikely that we will be able to find any in Arabic either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the standard is verifiable, and until sources in her country for the period are consulted, we cant say otherwise. I would imagine the amount of newspaper publicity would be very large. DGG (talk) 21:21, 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) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, the standard is verifiability. But the article has no sources yet. If we turn the article into a redirect, it can be turned back into a regular article once someone actually finds some reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' Logic is sound per discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is indeed sound. The redirect can be undone if references are actually found. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makebelieve Records[edit]

I can't fidn any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:29, 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) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Label of notable bands. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having a roster of notable bands doesn't make the label notable (notability isn't inherited). The label doesn't appear to have been covered in depth by any reliable secondary sources and doesn't meet any of the other criteria at WP:CORP. --JD554 (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a band is notable enough for its own article, then we effectively require an article about the label that releases the band's music as well — because if the label can't have an article, then by definition the band isn't getting covered properly if we can't write about the context of how they got their music out in order to become notable enough for an article. Intermission EP didn't just appear out of the ether, and Redefine isn't going to be magically transported into record stores by Keebler elves. If a band is notable enough to be on here, then writing about that band properly pretty much requires an article about any company, small or large though it may be, that's directly responsible for getting that band's music out onto the market. And since we're talking about two bands that are sufficiently notable for their own articles, then rinse, lather, and repeat. Ergo, keep. Bearcat (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the label isn't notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. It simply means they aren't notable. There is nothing in WP:CORP to support the position that a company is notable because they have had a notable band on their roster. --JD554 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about what WP:CORP says. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that JD554 knew that and just brought it up to show that your comments go against the guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines specifically spell out that they're not inviolable, but are "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Both of which pertain here. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Schuym1 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. A famous person must have had both a mother and father, but that doesn't mean we need articles about those people just because their son/daughter became notable. No, the fact that the band is notable does NOT mean the label producing their music is also notable.Theseeker4 (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person can become notable without their parents being directly involved in their careers. A record label, however, is inseparable from a band's notability, because the record label is the conduit by which the band became notable. It's like saying that a television show can become notable by airing on a non-notable television network: it's objectively impossible, because the television show's notability is wholly dependent on the network that airs it, just as a band's notability is wholly dependent on the record label that distributes its music. It isn't about "inherited" notability; it's about the fact that it's flatly impossible for a record label to be non-notable if its affiliated artists are notable, because the record label is the venue that made the artists' notability possible. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, film companies that produce notable films get deleted in AFD because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. How is that any different? Schuym1 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the TV show and notable channel comparison is stupid because all notable channels has significant coverage in reliable sources unlike this record label. Schuym1 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so; it is possible, and in fact quite common, for a TV channel to have absolutely no significant coverage about it as a topic in its own right, but to get coverage only in the sense of being briefly mentioned in coverage about its individual programs. In fact, more television channels fall into that boat than not. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep One of the criteria of WP:MUSIC is that a band with a notable member is notable too (which is an explicit case in which notability is inherited) Since labels are also in the music industry, I think there's a good case to extend this to labels having notable bands on their roster. The real problem here is whether the information in the article is verifiable . - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC should have nothing to do with it. WP:CORP is the relevant guideline. Schuym1 (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MUSIC has everything to do with a record label. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why does WP:MUSIC not mention record labels in the first line: This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs. I suspect that's because a record label is a business and therfore falls within the scope of WP:CORP. --JD554 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would you vote keep if there was only one notable band? Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One is all it takes, so yes. Bearcat (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:CORP outweighs WP:MUSIC when it comes to record labels. In fact, the only part of WP:MUSIC that addresses labels is this: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." which contradicts Bearcat's interpretation of what makes a label notable. PK T(alk) 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PKT is correct and I was reminded of this in a previous nomination of another label. WP:CORP is more relevant than WP:MUSIC, with music companies/record labels. Label doesn't appear to have siginificant independent 3rd sources. JamesBurns (talk) 05:22, 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 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InnovativeCommunities.Org Foundation[edit]

No evidence of notability. No news references (Google news admittedly, not Factiva) for the current or former name of the organization. Unable to locate "significant coverage" in the rest of the 'net. Bongo matic 19:17, 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) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Schuym1 (talk) 14:11, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan delle Piane[edit]

Notability as an artist not established, nor is family enough to support significance. Unsourced, no Google hits. Both my initial speedy template and a separate prod tag have been deleted. Time for AFD. JNW (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:N – I see no non-trivial, third party reliable sources that could support a full and neutral biography of this individual. Cheers, CP 19:49, 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) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hope he has a successful and notable career ahead of him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet encyclopedic criteria...Modernist (talk) 02:02, 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 Speedy delete CSD G3 by Orangemike. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia's Next Top Model[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Slovenia's Next Top Model

Possible hoax. I can't find any evidence on Google that this show existed. Epbr123 (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's not notable enough to be verified, it's not notable enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. There was no such show in Slovenia. --Tone 08:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Yup, it's a hoax. --Yerpo (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there enough Slovenians online to reasonable assume tv show have significant online coverage? I'd prefer it if we ask some Slovenian Wikipedians to check this to be sure. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Tone is Slovenian, so it probably is a hoax. Epbr123 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am as well. Believe us, it's a hoax. A Slovene franchise of America's Next Top model would be really hard (read: impossible) to miss, much less a whole season of it, when even a reality show based on a farm life gets non-stop media coverage. If you're still in doubt, you can check the largest local search engine - when you type "Slovenski top model" in, this the first relevant hit, and it doesn't find squat if you enter the name of the winner or the runner up. Really, don't waste any more thoughts over this one. --Yerpo (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Recommend nom also look at Africa's Next Top Model and related articles. JuJube (talk) 19:04, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Graham (Dietitian)‎[edit]

Being published does not quite mean that that author is neccesarially notable. Pumeleon^T 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that there is a redirect to this page at Karen M. Graham. Pumeleon^T 22:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that just being a published author doesn't grant notability, but three books, the first of which was academically reviewed, Findlay, C. (1996) "K.M. Graham - Food Irradiation: A Canadian Folly" Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(1): pp. 83-85, does help. When a non-academic gets her book reviewed in an academic journal, that is one sign of notability. Its also intersting that her menu book is routinely carried on Canadian libraries' list of "Health Literacy Resources". It is a weakness that this is currently an orphaned article, which may say more about the Wikipedia than about her. --Bejnar (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Relatively minor works with minor reviews. Borderline speedy as a promotional article. DGG (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Review in academic journals alone has been struck down repeatedly as proof of notability. Trusilver 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 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) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this article should be kept, the typo in the title needs correcting..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore me, apparently there are two ways to spell "dietician", I didn't know that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DGG said, an academic review for a non-acedemic's book is rare and gives said book notability. To get proper coverage, the author of the book needs to be covered too (we routinely delete articles on albums for which we don't have artist articles, indicating that both creator and product need to exist if product is 'coverable'. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment uh... do you want to maybe read through this again? DGG's position was to delete the article, not keep it. Trusilver 15:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Meets WP:N, Google news shows that she has been cited as an expert by different reliable media. --Jmundo (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A news report in which Graham is cited as an expert is of no use in writing a Wikipedia article about Graham. Indeed, being cited as an expert does not help one meet wp:n, which requires actual coverage of the subject. The sources you cite are about diet, not about Graham. So they support an article about diet, not about Graham. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a particularly notable dietitian, judging by the links above. Terraxos (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant source in that Google News list was an interview on CBC where she was promoting her own book. DGG (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was giving her opinion as an expert in food irradiation. Can you cite the part where she was promoting the book? --Jmundo (talk) 05:58, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of America Band[edit]

Non-notable marching band. Prod deletion tag removed by author. Search only turns up ~500 GHits. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article does not mention it, this band has competed in and won international competitions [57] [58] --Megaboz (talk) 15:14, 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) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I suppose a championship and the band's history makes them notable within this field. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a world championship under their belt meets criteria #9 at WP:BAND. I've added a reference provided by Megaboz above. --JD554 (talk) 08:49, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atol (software)[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't seem to find any common-sense coming from this article. South Bay (talk) 05:40, 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) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability indicated. Seems to fall under teh dicdef criteria for corporate articles ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:49, 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 merge to Springfield, Missouri#Education. Sandstein 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Summit Preparatory School[edit]

Recently founded elementary/middle school, without its own grounds. Article has no secondary sources. There is no evidence of noteable alumni. The only points of notability seem to come from the school's own material without objective comment. Porturology (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect a very brief mention to Springfield, Missouri#Education. TerriersFan (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:44, 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) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect seems like a fine idea given an appropriate target per Terriers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is a fantastical idea actually. JBsupreme (talk) 08:46, 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

$700 Billion Bailout (book)[edit]

Nothing at all to indicate that this book is particularly notable, much less that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). bd2412 T 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable book WP:BK. JamesBurns (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK. Canniba loki 21:35, 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. Deletion requested by creator. El on ka 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social class and health in the US[edit]

This is an essay not an encyclopedia article Mblumber (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selected details to Social class in the United States, perhaps? This article seems well-sourced, and there is a short section on the subject in that article that could do with expansion. JulesH (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. (I created the article by dumping text out of "Social Class" where it was perversely US centric) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 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) 00:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the creator of the article is asking for it to be deleted? rly? --Mblumber (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was overly specific for Social class, so I dumped it to its own article, because I was cleaning up Social class. I didn't bother to assess the section for encyclopedic relevance. I'm not the author of the text in any way shape or form.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7, instead of creating a new article, you should have just deleted the content. Tavix (talk) 03:54, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Stanchek[edit]

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't win any notable awards, never placed top for any honors besides a local one. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creator notified of discussion. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:56, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per §hep. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stanchek is a two-time All-American and by the way, the creator has not created an article for every WVU athlete (obviously an exaggeration), only a small handful were deleted. John (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - John is the editor who has created all these troubled articles. Timneu22 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't seem to be a pro ball player, and I see no notability here otherwise. Good to know, though, that he's good at what he does. Best of luck to him. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. There's certainly a case to be made that div. 1 starting athletes in football and basketball are ntoable, but that's a guideline issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The evidence of notability is weak in my opinion, but with the draft coming up, there will be clearer evidence one way or the other soon enough of whether he should be included. I think it's reasonable to wait to see if he's drafted before deleting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep possible If your a football fan, you'll know how big being an All-American is and he's been an All-American 4 times!--Iamawesome800 15:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he was "second-team All-American" his senior year. Doesn't seem to meet the guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how being a second-team All-American isn't notable. If the rules say so, then they should be altered. John (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If being second-team all-american was notable I suppose there would be substantial independent coverage of this athlete. I do think there's a case to be made that starting college athletes in major sports are notable, but this isn't the place for that discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we're three months away from the NFL draft, so deleting the article now is pointless bureaucracy since it's obviously going to get created in 3 months when he is drafted anyway. --B (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If he makes it to the NFL and plays a game the article can easily be resurrected. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that would be speculation, see WP:CRYSTALBALL Scapler (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where I inserted my analysis of his draft prospect into an article. That rule says nothing about the basis on which an editor may support or oppose the deletion of an article. In fact, using your own good judgment about the future is probably an all around good idea in this case. Using WP:CRYSTALBALL to demand the procedural deletion of an article that we know we are going to create in short order is silly and only creating extra work. This person is obviously notable and it's hardly worth arguing. --B (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - An All-American, an all-conference selection, a multiple-year starter on a nationally ranked offensive line, one of the greatest lineman in school history, and an NFL Draft prospect. Not notable? This is pathetic. John (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounted Iamawesome800's and MISTER ALCOHOL's comments for making no pertinent arguments. Sandstein 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Sanders[edit]

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Jock Sanders may end up being notable, but right now he is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for now. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, just a backup college football running back Secret ^account 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He starts at receiver, has started a handful of times at running back, and was an all-conference selection. John (talk) 21:50, 7 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 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't seem to be a pro ball player, and I see no notability here otherwise. Good to know, though, that he's good at what he does. Best of luck to him. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy The consensus for athletes puts a lot of emphasis on pro-play. I don't totally agree, but even so the level of notability here is not exceptional for a collegiate athlete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a pro player. JBsupreme (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete every college player then, if your notability rules state that being a pro makes an article notable or not. Whether I'm the creator or not, being an all-conference selection and being a multiple starter should be enough notability for our "rules". John (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some college players can be notable; it just so happens that this one is not. How many athletes from how many colleges are All-BIG EAST in a given sport? Just because John Smith from Rutgers is Second Team All-Big EAST tennis, this does not make the person notable. Timneu22 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a substantial difference between being an all-conference selection in tennis and football. This is obvious. John (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be obvious to you — a West Virginian who follows American sports — but tennis has a more global following than American Football. Wikipedia is global. Timneu22 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All-Big East=NOTABLE--Iamawesome800 15:52, 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. Sandstein 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Ebanks[edit]

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. Like many of the other articles, this one is an orphan page. Timneu22 (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He will definately be a freshman all-american or at least a second team all-conference selection, and starts for a Top 25 basketball team. John (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not a valid reason. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Timneu22 (talk) 23:58, 7 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 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't seem to be a pro ball player, and I see no notability here otherwise. Good to know, though, that he's good at what he does. Best of luck to him. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His achievements are exceptional and appear to me to be notable. It's not well established notability yet, but as he's playing now it's reasonable to believe there's more to come. I see no use in deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Listed as one of the Top 15 impact freshman by Sports Illustrated coming into the 2008-2009 season" is notable. --B (talk) 18:47, 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. — Aitias // discussion 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Bryant[edit]

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this freshman basketball player is not. Timneu22 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Backup point guard does not seem notable enough. Can be userfied and updated if notable achievments occur. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:22, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Berry[edit]

Non-notable. The creator of this page has a history of creating articles for every WVU athlete. While some are worthy of Wikipedia entries, this one is not. The subject is not noteworthy, and this is an orphan page. Timneu22 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The links to the article on this AfD were broken. They have now been fixed. Thanks ~ mazca ^t|c 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is the second nomination. First nomination is here. Neier (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:54, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although there's no need for this, because we've already decided before that this was notable. John (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - John is the editor who has created all these troubled articles. Timneu22 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Articles can be nominated multiple times for deletion. Timneu22 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Whether it be futile or not, I see no reason for it if the article has already proven its notability. John (talk) 23:22, 10 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 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see good evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All-Big East, there's your notability.--Iamawesome800 15:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make someone notable. Should we list every All-BIG EAST women's volleyball players too? Timneu22 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Women's volleyball is not football. In the US, there are four sports - the NFL, college football, college basketball, and everything else. Any skill position starter for a major conference team in football is going to meet the general notability criterion of having multiple sources of information independent of the team/athlete. --B (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite efforts by the soccer crowd to redefine WP:ATHLETE in their own image, well-known starters for major conference teams are notable. --B (talk) 18:50, 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 Merge to Stockton massacre. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Purdy[edit]

Although the proposal has been made to merge this article with Stockton massacre, there is nothing to merge that doesn't already exist there. The subject fails WP:BLP1E and there is no reason to have a separate article on him when all the pertinent information exists elsewhere. Trusilver 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there is not a lot to merge, I'd propose not to delete the page, as a redirect to the Stockton massacre article has to be created anyway. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see any problem with a redirect to Stockton massacre. Trusilver 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed I've changed my mind and added information to the article. See also here (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've read through the additions you have made to the article and while they are good and the article is better than it was before, it is still a violation of WP:BLP1E. When the subject is only know in conjunction with an event he was involved in, we write an article about the event rather than the person. Trusilver 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I wanted to add the biographical part to the Stockton massacre article, though there are people who are vehemently against this. During a discussion at the talk page of mentioned article I was pointed at the following section of the WP:BIO1E:

Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event. In that case, the discussion of the person should be broken out from the event article in summary style.

As there was quite a lot of news coverage exclusively about Purdy's life I'd say we should keep the article about him. Not that I would mind if it was merged into the Stockton massacre article, but then look at the Talk page. Half of it is bitching about even mentioning the perpetrator's name.(Lord Gøn (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stockton massacre and merge anything not already mentioned in that article. When your most significant accomplishment is to shoot a bunch of kids at an elementary school and then take your own life, you're a dirtbag who doesn't rate his own article. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of people notable for good things only. Your suggestion that this is relevant is completely opposed to the idea of a comprehensive encyclopedia, or to NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it can be pretty comprehensively discussed in the article about the crime, and with a redirect, it goes to the appropriate article. Does it matter if typing in his name takes a person to the article about the crime, rather than to this shrine? Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how many articles do we need about the same thing? There is already an article about the incident where everything important about the individual has been covered. What does him having his own article really accomplish besides adding irrelevant information? Trusilver 06:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the protectors of the Stockton massacre article can be convinced that having a section with biographical information about the perpetrator is not the end of the world, I'm all for merging and redirecting. If not, then keep it, for reasons cited above. It wouldn't be the first of its kind. Just look at Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold etc.(Lord Gøn (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far. Those individuals had significant and extensive press coverage surrounding their motives, as well as their entire lives basically being laid out and examined by the media. Now, you might say that the only reason that the same didn't happen with Patrick Purdy is because he committed his crime about a decade too early. But still, that doesn't change the fact that the "life" section of this article is 90% irrelevant fluff leading up to the last two paragraphs which are the only thing relevant to the crime. Trusilver 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, or Dylan Klebold this guy isn't... not by far.
What do you want to say? That he isn't as important as Cho and Harris & Klebold? Well, the shooting certainly was a big story in 1989 and Purdy a person of interest, whose life was examined as far as it is possible, if the subject is a drifter with few personal contacts. And who decides what is "irrelevant fluff" anyway? Is the Background-section of the Charles Whitman article also "irrelevant fluff"? (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A glance at the article shows it is well referenced, and the references' titles alone show that he had significant and extensive press coverage focusing on him, examining his motives and life, like Cho, Harris and Klebold. The world outside Wikipedia clearly considered him notable, so we should too. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong or irrelevant with the life section; once a topic is judged notable, not everything in, or even most of an article has to be related to the cause of notability of the topic, it just has to be related to the notable topic and verifiable.John Z (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Purdy's notability is related solely to the Stockton massacre, in which he is clearly the major figure. It makes little sense, to me, to have two distinct articles. Merge the two under one name or the other, then redirect the remaining title. If there is nothing to merge from the Purdy article, as Trusilver indicates, than only a Redirect is needed. Tim Ross (talk) 15:00, 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 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Math in Swimming[edit]

Virtually the whole article is a WP:COATRACK and a WP:FORK about drag (fluid mechanics). —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not free webspace to hold your notes for school. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic as it stands. JJL (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - although that policy may need a new entry to cover articles like this. =Axlq 03:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also badly written, can't learn anything from it. Empire3131 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-encyclopedic content per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Matt (Talk) 07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Clearly not encyclopedic. Tim Ross (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, badly written essay. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:17, 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 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden's paradox[edit]

This article merely repeats its listing on List of paradoxes. I challenge whether it needs an article just to repeat this and whether it's notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Would the entry in the list not be another, since it explains the entry? Greggers ^{(t • c)} 17:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this paradox is actually known by this name anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existence of the paradox is dubious (the assumption that "all questions have answers" looks like a big assumption). Content is unsourced, most likely unverifiable and original thought. If someone have philosophical questions they absoloutely want answered on Wikipedia, they should use the reference desk. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a repetition of List of paradoxes.--Ped Admi (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:MADEUP - take your pick. Also, unless I'm mistaken, (if one accepts the premise that all questions have answers) mathematically this is just a rewording of Russell's paradox in a specific set context. Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this one was not added to the January 2 AFD list. I have added it to the January 8 list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It begs the question, what policy is this NOT failing. JBsupreme (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP. But now I'm just being facetious. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a paradox at all. For what it's worth, the premise is that someone asks "What question has no answer?" and another person responds "This question." then, "since all questions have answers" it's a paradox. No, it's an incorrect answer. The rest of it is "Alternatively, if one answered 'Not this question', no paradox exists." If there's an option for no paradox, it's not a paradox. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. --Lockley (talk) 04:57, 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.