Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 28

< December 27	December 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastor Weathersdale[edit]

there is no apparent evidence of the existence of Alastor Weathersdale or his untimely demise except this article - and a Google link to the User Page of User:Antonio_Lopez where there appears to be no mention of him either. I believe this to be a hoax. The listed links are unspecific. Peridon (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no Google hits, no nuttin'. Bored at work? Try playing Minesweeper instead of creating hoaxes. Graymornings_(talk) 00:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's puzzling me is that Google link to Antonio Lopez. I've visited his page from a Google link before when checking something out - nothing there. I don't understand it. perhaps someone else might. Peridon (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE:nothing to assert truthfulness.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe, and not notable.Wapondaponda (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it's not a hoax, it's non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican Brazilian[edit]

Not notable. This article was created by a sockpuppet of a user who creates these "Something-Brazilian" articles with no sources. Many of this users articles are about a non notable communities in Brazil. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yuk-- another one of these dopey articles based on a line in the Brazilian census. In this case, the author says (without saying why) that there are 100 persons from the Dominican Republic in Brazil. And that doesn't even count the ones who are Dominican monks or who are from Dominica. Idiotic article that has nothing to say and says it. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references + no substantive information = no future as an article. I don't even think this article is based on a line from the Brazilian census. The Brazilian census does not ask about ethnic ancestry (unlike, for example, the U.S. census); the only information the Brazilian census would have about Dominican Brazilians would be if the respondent was actually born in the Dominican Republic or previously lived there. [1] Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Dominican-Brazilian Chamber of Commercein Santa Domingo, for what it's worth. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article fails to establish the notability of this group of 100 people. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlak and tom movie[edit]

~~Unremarkable, unreleased film. No claim to notability. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing, article was deleted while Twinkle was still processing my afd entry. I don't know how to close it myself though. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harcourt Films[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to Weak Delete: They are listed with IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/company/co0089952/) which shows 12 productions as Harcourt Filmsmx, and also with BFI as having produced 62 items (http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/organisation/8977), but none of those say much to suggest notability. Something they have produced is in the University of Vermont library (http://voyager.uvm.edu/bibs/bid639262.html) and something else is in the Chicago Public Library (http://www.chipublib.org/search/details/cn/1328763), among other library entries, but again, not terribly indicative of notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is simply not enough available to suport an individual article, so I just merged what little there was about Harcourt Films over to Jeremy Marre. As film production companies go, all one might say is that it exists. I am unable to find anything that speaks toward its notability or the notability of its projects. However, its founder has a notability and the little that can be said for Harcourt Films can easily be a paragraph on Marre's wiki page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mermaid story[edit]

Subject is a not yet published (or even finished) story. Article fails to establish notability. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability outside of author's head. Graymornings_(talk) 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G6. Some one's personal advertisement for their own "book" and creator has now blanked the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the author didn't request deletion; the author accidentally quoted out the entire article. I have fixed it so that the article is now visible again. MuZemike (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really, don't we have speedy delete for articles like this? It's kind of a waste of time to hold a vote on whether a badly written paragraph of random babble violates policy or not. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the author is supposedly anonymous (per the first version of the article), it's really difficult to sort out which ghits on "A mermaid story" might be for this one. Given the article, though, it sounds unpublished, which means without a few solidly credible references, this does not pass WP:BK at this time. Delete without prejudice for recreation after publication and subsequent popularity. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyoneDandy Sephy (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTLS implementing[edit]

page is entirely how-to material - violates WP:NOTHOWTO Ikluft (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. This page is a how-to/instruction manual. Ikluft (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Ikluft (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Entirely a how-to – not allowed. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary's Fairy (cocktail)[edit]

Contested PROD. Unreferenced recipe for a cocktail available at just one student bar in Durham. Also nominating Rock Spider (cocktail), created by the same user and for the same reason. role^player 22:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete You're right but I'd still like to try it! This site has same recipe, too. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a cocktail recipe, rather than a WP article. Trans-wiki to the Cookbook if they want it? Note that the Bloody Mary variation ("Red Fairy" or "Bloody Fairy") calling for absinthe is already mentioned in the cookbook article here: [2]. Geoff ^T ^C 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources which would establish the cocktails' notability. It seems unlikely that either would be suitable for merging into List of cocktails which seems to primarily exist for navigational purposes. Guest9999 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire schools[edit]

Totally unreferenced list of schools, that is chock full of POV, spelling and grammar inaccuracies, and that places all schools in Worcestershire into a league against each other but doesn't point out on what criteria. Once you cut out the league table and the unreferenced POV you're left with the contents of the Worcestershire schools category so I believe this should be deleted forthwith. role^player 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We've got the Worcestershire schools category for this info - doesn't need its own article, especially not with the POV stuff. Graymornings_(talk) 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This looks like a "Baxter collage" of opinions from one person about how each school's results have been. Even a dash of Lea & Perrins can't save this one. Mandsford (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of schools in the West Midlands already covers the topic. Worcestershire schools reads like copyvio from Ofsted inspection reports. • Gene93k (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a copyvio, this is even worse than I thought. The grammar ain't so good and the spelin is wurse. Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the line: This artical has been put together by the Worcestershire OFSTED inspection team. The infomtion below is detailed and to the point. Article wrote by - l.kingston and m-granger - Ofsted inspection leaders. - now that is quite possibly one of the funniest things I have seen. You'd think OFSTED inspectors would be able to get basic spelling right, huh? -- role^player 02:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV/OR. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a thoroughly bad article, probably based on a journalist's rewrite of a report to Worcestershire County Council, perhaps by Ofsted. Note Ludlow is not in Worcesterhire and should not appear in any event. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination. Obvious sockpuppetry going on here. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky (music)[edit]

Theis article sould a COMPLETE DELETE, it HAVE A UNPUBLISHED SYNTHETHESIS OF INFORMATION, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and NOT NOTABLE. It has not exist and the page IS COMPLETE FALSE AND SHOULD ERASED.

DELETE all very seruiosly talking
Keep. I have no idea why this is up for deletion. Seems to be a recognized term and the article's well-sourced. Graymornings_(talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral leaning towards a weak keep~~. I am almost inclined to vote "strong keep" given the appalling quality of the deletion nomination, which is incoherent and not even signed properly. That said, the article does have problems. It is not clear whether "wonky" is really a genre of music or just a descriptive word that people have used. The references show that it has sometimes been used in the sense of a genre but they are not complete or convincing enough to prove that the term is in mainstream use with this sense. There was no consensus on the first AfD and it is hard to see how this is going to get us any further. I am neutral but I strongly disagree with the wording of the nomination which, in so far as it makes any sense at all, seems to imply that the article is a hoax, which it isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems clearly written and referenced. May be some overlap with Wonky techno, but I get the impression that they are different genres or sub-genres. Peridon (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article could do with serious development, but nevertheless Keep. Article is referenced and they meet WP:RS, and as an aside nominator strikes me as a IP sock of the original article creator, who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Kaini (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He put his own article up for AfD? WTF? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and tried to speedy another three. odd, i know --Kaini (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I think, the first music wonky music not only the right to life. Music itself is very bad and non-obvious. The article is full of wonky and misleading information and integration of the original. ***34ji_qi76***

We're not discussing the music - as an extreme metal fan it's not my taste either. It's the article that counts. Peridon (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are being jerked around here. Lets not argue with him. It is clear from the style and incoherence that the "delete" comment was added by a sockpuppet of the nominator created specifically for this purpose. I change my vote to speedy keep and suggest that we showball this farce. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well written and referenced. Smells like socks around here though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Rakić[edit]

Miloš Rakić played for Radnički Kragujevac since 2000, but the club never played in fully-professional league Matthew_hk t c 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Ristić[edit]

With reference to official profile, he just played in lower division of BIH and Serbia, so not yet a professional. Matthew_hk t c 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Yoga[edit]

No reliable independent sources to establish notability. Seems to be an advertisement for this theory's advocates. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other authors who wrote about Egyptian yoga, more exactly Irano-Egyptian yoga, in the past : Dr Sambucy, Hanish, Elisabeth Haich. But their researchs in this field were limited. The existence of a yoga in Egypt doesn't reduce the importance of Indian yoga and doesn't mean that yoga comes from Egypt. About the question of reliable sources, doesn't Geneviève Lebaud, wife of Babacar Khane, can be considered as a reliable source in the field of Ancient Egypt : she is Professor Agrégée, Dr es Lettres, and graduate in Egyptology of the University of Montpellier ? Other reliable sources can be seen in Egyptian temples, tombs, and museums. I will add some pictures and other references next time. For a yoga teacher, there can be no doubt about the yogic nature of some Egyptian representations.HID-IIY (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geneviève Lebaud-Khane was researcher at the IFAN (Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire, University of Dakar. Her 2 articles, listed in the bibliography, were selected and approved for publication by the scientific committee of the IFAN. She presented a communication about Egyptian yoga during the Symposium about Pr. Cheikh Anta Diop, organized in 1982, in the University of Dakar. There has been added a paragraph and references about the authors who wrote about Egyptian yoga or "Yoga irano-égyptien".HID-IIY (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the presentation of this article and added a lot of references. Do you mean it is still not neutral enough? HID-IIY (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is now well sourced, and a Google Books search shows that plenty of people have written about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAW Okay, fair enough. I'm always sympathetic to an editor who is willing to work on and improve an article, and HID-IIY has been doing that. Can one of you add some independent references? The article as it is now seems to be sourced exclusively to an author and his wife, and so struck me as promotional. It also needs some clean-up and tightening and intro work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete For the record, I don't think this article can be salvaged without a complete rewrite using independent sources that have not yet been identified. The topic appears to be a advertising gimmick for yoga. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's really my concern. ~~But I am now convinced it can be addressed by improving the article.~~ ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help. I think the first step is to get HID-IIY to be a bit more aware of our concerns and the Wiki policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am revoking my withdrawal request. Given the COI and promotional concerns of several editors, see wp:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Egyptian Yoga for some of the background, I'm not sure the article is salvagable. The topic is notable, but would it be more appropriate to start with a clean slate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, sources from the group that's promoting this kind of yoga...this article appears to be an unsalvageable mess. I'm also not certain it's a notable topic. Those sources look to all be from a walled garden of enthusiasts for a specific guru, so no secondary sources have taken notice. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for previous reasons of unsalvageability, as well as lack of reliable third-party sourcing (unless a major independent revision brings it up to scratch). The current level of sourcing, reliability and neutrality is ghastly:

"The independent and reliable sources are the Ancient-Egyptian sources: you have just to look and see the representations of yoga postures in some Egyptian temples, graves and museums.

And Stonehenge is a spaceport. You can see just by looking at it.

Editors may care to check out the associated article Babacar Khane, which appears to have grown in the same walled garden.Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Zielinski[edit]

Non-notable biography... can't find a single G-news hit, and the only Google hits are linkedin/facebook... Possible hoax... Adolphus (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing in IMDB either. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO or is a hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual likely exists, but searches to confirm assertions of notability are unsuccessful. Fails WP:BLP big time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Kojic[edit]

No reliable source to support he is a professional footballer and made his debut on fully-professional league, at least for Serbian Superliga. Matthew_hk t c 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 16:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phone years[edit]

This is just a spurious, silly page, that I thought should be speedied, but as I see a speedy has been declined, and a prod has been removed, I am placing it here Un school 21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, looks like it should have had the prod accepted. Res 2216 firestar 22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made-up.Graymornings_(talk) 22:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Life span of a cell phone-- one year. Life span of this article-- less than three days. Mandsford (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Bridge (film)[edit]

There's no indication that this is, or ever will be, a notable film. WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL apply. Sandstein 21:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A planned film that was shot in 2004? Nope, sorry. Fails WP:N Ecoleetage (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return when there is more available. My searches found me lots of buzz. Essentially it seems that filmmaker Daniel Knight put together a rough trailer in 2004 in order to gain backing. It further seems he is/was recently seeking cast to expand upon his earlier beginnings. So, it's not quite WP:Crystal... but there is not enough yet to pass WP:NFF. Good luck to him and his film will be welcomed back once there is enough to pass film notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernism in language[edit]

Original research and unreferenced tags for over a year. It sounds kinda scientific, but without sources it should be deleted. (Rem.: Linguistics is my major.) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as rambling original research. Does this guy teach high school English? Look for the desks with drool on them. Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. —An gr 18:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Cupid[edit]

Hoax. This person has never won Toastmasters of America "speaker of the year" (there isn't actually such an award, and there are no ghits for "Carl Cupid Toastmasters" so he may not even be a member.) Much of the notability claims indicate he "declined" various offers to be on NPR, Clear Channel, national TV, etc., all of which are uncited. I can't find any cite that he appears on any net worth list. WP:BOLLOCKS. Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. Many of the claims of notability are suspect as per Mr. Vernon. Icewedge (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might not be entirely a hoax, but it still contains false info. Only claim to notability is the borderline-vanity-press book. Graymornings_(talk) 22:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Kingdom Covenant International" seems to have only published Carl Cupid's books: [3]. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum Now the article claims that Mr. Cupid was Toastmasters International "speaker of the year." There is indeed a World Champion of Public Speaking; Mr. Cupid has never been one. (List of winners) I'm an Area Governor for Toastmasters, and can check to see if this person is a member. I doubt TI likes the idea of someone making such a claim. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially since there is nothing on Google which indicates any connection whatsoever between Carl Cupid and Toastmasters. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article or hoax. On myspace, he appears to be Dr Carl Cupid. www.cupidenterprises.html/ is a dead link. Peridon (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't work. There's a dot com missing. My apologies. No change to my opinion, though. Peridon (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Biscuits and human sexuality. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soggy biscuit[edit]

I don't think this actually exists. There is one source, one I would challenge the reliability on. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a synthesis of sorts. You can use just about anything in sex and call it a fetish/game/whatever, but without actual, reliable third party sources to back it up, all it is is ~~sick~~ a non-notable fetish/game/whatever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It pains me to a point to do this, but we have to look at everything involved. This article has survived deletion twice (no consensus both times). We should remind ourselves that Wikipedia is not censored, so the fact that this is a stub should not qualify it for deletion. The term itself is well documented across the internet. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then find reliable sources and also note that notwithstanding prior debates, consensus can change. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sourcing that this is a legitimate concept. TerriersFan (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — already in the transwiki process (I think?) at Wiktionary here. MuZemike (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least transwiki. There are two examples of the term's use in mainstream popular culture already cited in the article (The Liar was a hugely successful book, in particular), and anyone doubting that this is a genuine practice only has to spend the ten seconds it would take on Google or YouTube to see more of this than you'd ever want to see. – iridescent 22:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use google or youtube videos. Other than the <italic> The Cassell Dictionary of Slang, 1998, page 1110 </italic> there are no reliable sources for this. And I feel funny about calling a slang dictionary a reliable source. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use Google or YouTube as citations in the article. Those saying that this isn't a genuine practice can certainly use Google or YouTube to verify that said practice exists. – iridescent 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When deciding on articles, I look at them through a certain razor... sure, I am sure the practice has been tried. I won't deny that. But *IF* I can't prove it outside of my own original research, without reliable citations, then I fear I can't prove that it exists. Without even one reliable source, I think the article should go. We have a bar of notability to meet. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, she didn't encounter an issue of being unable to "prove it outside of [her] own original research, without reliable citations" considering she has one, and others have been found... because someone bothered to look. Also, what's unreliable about Cassell's dictionary? Just because it defines slang? There are many topics I don't like, but I wouldn't say books on those topics are unreliable just because they're focused on those topics. In fact:^[1]

::::In recent years dictionaries with a more academic focus have tried to bring together etymological studies in an attempt to provide definitive guides to slang while avoiding problems arising from folk etymology and false etymology. The study of slang is now taken seriously by academics, especially lexicographers like the late Eric Partridge, devoting their energies to the field and publishing on it, including producing slang dictionaries.
Examples include:

Chambers Slang Dictionary (by Jonathon Green, Chambers Harrap Publishers, ISBN 9780550104397), previously Cassell Dictionary of Slang (Cassell Reference, 1998; last edition 2006, ISBN 9780304366361)

لenna vecia 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's all this then? WP:BEFORE is very clear that one ought to make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating an article for AfD. It strains credibility that no-one could find a single reliable source for the existence of this phenomena. Skomorokh 23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, found nothing. Now I'll admit, I spent about ten minutes, but if you like, maybe I can visit my local library? NonvocalScream (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Biscuit sex which seems to duplicate that text anyway. Could do w/ cleanup, ~~what's "male-oriented" mean?~~ But if outcome is delete, last editor to have voted has to move it to his or her userpage. Franciscrot (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm no fan of the topic, Merge with Biscuits and human sexuality nee Biscuit sex, i.e. keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources exist. Premature and ill-researched nom. لenna vecia 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to Biscuits and human sexuality, notability is demonstrated. the wub "?!" 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disgusted merge - notability seems to have been demonstrated, but it may be better merged into the larger article on Biscuits and sexuality. Majorly talk 18:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia of porn. Delete though (or at best merge into a list of porn slang; not that such a list belongs here), unless you can prove it's more than something made up one day and in some way notable. Миша 13 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Asimov[edit]

Robyn Asimov is notable almost exclusively for being Isaac Asimov's daughter. Other than updating an encyclopedia (which I can't even find a source that she did do that) she did nothing notable, which could also be a WP:1E violation. Notability is not inherited. Tavix (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NoVomit (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination fails to consider the obvious possibility of merger, per WP:BEFORE. A brief search indicates enough hits that the article might sensibly be maintained as is, in order to accumulate more material. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I think I proved my point pretty well. Notability is not inherited and she is notable almost exclusively from her father. Besides, if it is that "obvious" as you say, then do I really need to say it? Tavix (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/MERGE Per Col. Warden. Edison (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notablr in her own right and notability is not inherited. Information about her could be included in the article about her father (assuming that's the consensus of those editors working on said article) but nothing from this article would be includable. It is a biography of a living person and the sole reference given is to IMDB (not a reliable source). I don't see the need to merge this unsourced information about a living people anywhere. Redirect title to Isaac Asimov#Personal life and quirks. Guest9999 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 03:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - The Missing Manual[edit]

One of an enormous series of how-to guides all of which are functionally indistinguishable from each other, and from the comparable guides offered by rival publications. By a curious coincidence the only article I can find on any of this series is the one which is self-referential. At best this should be merged to a "help for editors" section as part of a list of all available Wikipedia how-to guides. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia - The Missing Manual is one of the most well known guides to Wikipedia, published by the respected O'Reilly Media Learning, written by David Pogue, New York Times technology columnist. I question how much the nominator actually searched for sources before nominating this article up for deletion, a two minute search on my own found this: The New York Review of Books [4] (which was already on the page when it was nominated for deletion) Reed Business Information, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, News & Observer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram,[5] SciTech Book News[6], Computers in Libraries,[7] Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Book review all mention or review the book. Which means the book far surpasses any notability or verifiability hurdles for inclusion on Wikipedia.travb (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: Publishers weekly, Nature magazine blog, Guardian newspaper travb (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

s/sources/namechecks/, in at least some cases. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete, and certainly not speedy. We should judge this as any other book on a non-WP subject. I doubt that standard book reviews as Travb/Inclusionist mentions above are sufficient for notability. With regards to this article, it smells of self promotion (though I have no information to back that up) and am unconvinced we can say something sufficiently encyclopedic about it beyond what would be in standard publishers' blurbs and standard reviews. However, my "nose" for notability may be off and I am happy to be overruled if there is a corpus of other books on other topics that are not notable beyond being reviewed, or if there is truly something special about this book. Martinp (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain? travb (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Then we can presume it is notable. After a presumption is established, I'll look and see if it is actually notable. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:MuZemike said it best below. There are four routes you can take, from least likely to most likely: 1) a mea culpa acknowledging that the article subject is notable, 2) arguing that the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, and New York Times Review of Books is not a verifiable or reliable source, which is ridiculous, 3) arguing that these two sources are not enough, and even though WP:Notability only mentions "multiple sources" and doesn't define the number of sources required for inclusion, demanding more than 2 sources, or 4) A stricter interpretation WP:Notability than the WP:Notability requires, arguing that the Arkansas Democrat Gazette coverage of the book is not enough. travb (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you have convinced me. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man that deserves a

barnstar. I was not expecting this response in a million years :) travb (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Travb.--CretinInsiduous (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — The NYT review definitely provides significant coverage of the book, while Arkansas Democrat Gazette provides some additional independent coverage, barely satisfying the multiple reliable sources tenet of the GNG. However, the other ones that Inclusionist mentions provide no in-depth review of the book. With that said, this weakly passes for notability. MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Travb (who said it best and first). Notability is not an issue here. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Travb and MuZemike. There's plenty of independent coverage available. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate coverage. We probably should include more of the titles in this series, if it comes to that, but --not unreasonably--this one has had an unusual amount of press notice. The NYT review by itself would have been sufficient. DGG (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being part of a large series is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews and other coverage more than adequate. JulesH (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the first clause of WP:BK, ..has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. The current article is very short. I hope that someone will have time to expand the article, based on what the published sources have written. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EdJohnston and travb. Cbl62 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 03:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wedding chapels in Las Vegas[edit]

Not a very useful list, very little context. Only one of these seems to be notable anyway, the rest are questionable. I don't see much use to this list as wedding chapels are by no means inherently notable, and I don't see any of the many red links turning blue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Las Vegas is known-- i.e., spoken of in popular American culture for decades-- for quickie wedding chapels, which suggests at least some sort of notability. These places are part of the cultural tacky factor, and for being a kind of mecca for eloping couples. In a way, the wedding chapels are a more distinctive hallmark of LV than its casinos, in that you have casinos all over the U.S. The connection is kind of like Niagara Falls and honeymoons. Jlg4104 (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jlg4104. The opening needs to be expanded, but that's a matter for editing, not a reason to delete. It is reasonable to have both this list and also Category:Wedding chapels in Las Vegas for the advantages laid out at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. As to the concern about the notability of the items on the list: I'm not sure about this, especially seeing as the nominator questions the notability with a tag to an article whose subject is very much notable, although that only becomes apparent once the research is done and the sources are added. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a list of notable chapels could be merged to Las Vegas weddings#Wedding chapels or the article could be refactored into a general article about Las Vegas wedding chapels, either way the content could probably be used in an encyclopaedic fashion somewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Jim O'Brien City of New York ambassador aide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James Jim O'Brien City of New York ambassador aide

Delete - no relevant GHITS found for the subject. At best he is not notable. At worst, this has a distinct air of a WP:HOAX about it. Mayalld (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant misinformation. An ambassador would surely turn up at least one source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — it's either a hoax or it is definitely not verifiable, take your pick. MuZemike (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Vain (band)[edit]

This is a possible speedy, but the article tries to assert some notability. The band has released two self financed demo tapes, both of which fail Google searches. The band fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. The article is written like a fansite nonetheless. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable band WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Booty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Poorly sourced, not notable film, previously deleted. NoVomit (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first and the second reasons given have never been reasons for deletion. Notability claims are already there, making the second reason invalid. By Wikipedia guidelines this shouldn't even come to a deletion discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First AfD was for an article that was essentially jibberish. This second article seems well written (for what it is). Lack of sources is no reason to delete when sources are certainly available. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD this article should be kept and improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up as needed. Notability stems from the title and ethnic representation which in Bangladesh would seem to directly contradict Islam, the religion of the majority. I think this should be touched upon and made clear she is in America, etc and up to then films had promoted her as different ethnicities. -- Banjeboi 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film with no coverage in reliable sources also has no credible claim to notability. Valrith (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major newspaper from her homeland is reliable source. What else is there to ask for? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be about Jazmin, not the film. Thus it would lend towards her notability, but not that of the film.Horrorshowj (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vice president I'd love to fuck (VPILF)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vice president I'd love to fuck (VPILF)

Nonnotable Neologism. Also, the references are not reliable sources. Evb-wiki (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN Neologism. Also an inaccurate one since Palin didn't win (she actually hurt McCain). TJ Spyke 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT. NoVomit (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The notability of the term 'VPLIF' can be established by seeing that it gets over 150,000 Google hits. It's impact on popular culture is also discussed in the article and there is room for further expansion. References are now okay and links to articles in two newspapers: the Seattle Weekly and the Minnesota Independent have been added within the last 24hrs. Keeping this article will also give other editors a chance to expand it and add more references. In total there are now 16 references plus external links, which is pretty good work for a new article. Give it a chance to expand! Bletchley (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any reliable sources listed in refs. Just more Palin nonsense dreamed up by bored journalists. RMHED (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why are two US mainstream newspapers regarded as 'unreliable'? Bletchley (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it is not the lack of reliability of the newspapres, but the triviality of the coverage. A feature article discussing the term, its usages, its impact, that is to say, it significance would be persuasive towards keep. A number of such would establish notability. Dloh cierekim 17:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a handful of sources, but none of them meet the requirements of WP:RS As for notability, I don't think its there yet either.Dman727 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is 150,000 Google hits not notable?Bletchley (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources establishing notability for this neologism as well as common sense. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary, but Google hits do not notability make. Information about Sarah Palin being called "VPILF" can easily be put into her article, the only place it would marginally belong. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google hits are very important for notability as we are talking about an internet phenomenon here. The article is not like a dictionary; on the contrary it discusses impact on popular culture like an encyclopedia does. Bletchley (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Along with VPILF being incorporated into the Palin article, it could also be included in the MILF page. Jonesy (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The LOL on this meme ran out on November 5. Nate • (chatter) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you limit Google, using the advanced option, to hits in the last month you get >3000. That is hardly a dying meme. Google Trends shows the meme has spread from the US into Canada, UK, and Germany. It is a global phenomenon folks. Get with the times.Bletchley (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I remind you to be civil during any discussion of an AfD. If she won, this would still be notable, but she didn't, and it joins the lockbox and Dukakis in the tank in the campaign meme hall of shame. As for your Google search, in the end, it only cranks out 488 unique hits when you go through to the end. I never use the estimate in G-hit searches, only the actual number. Nate • (chatter) 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for reminding me not to beat my wife. If we follow your logic of throwing out Dukakis etc. then I think you should consider taking out an AfD on the whole article: U.S. President Slogans. Why is that article there? Those are all defunct slogans. It's because people now and in 3000 AD need to be able to look these things up when they are doing research on popular culture. Bletchley (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you limit your google search to news (where you might actually find reliable sources), you get zero g-hits - Zilch, nada, nil, none. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The News server is running behind...it will catch up if you give it another month. The fact is there are two reliable newspaper items cited in the wiki article (Seattle Weekly and Minnesota Independent). One of them does pop up on Google News, if you use the Google Trends version of that engine. Also >150,000 normal Google hits indicates an internet phenomenon that you can't ignore...that's more hits that most Grade B Hollywood stars on the Wikipedia! Get with the internet age man.Bletchley (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google News usually skims every RSS feed every hour and is almost always accurate. It's funny that this term should be exploding because of 'year-end' lists which list the new terms that broke out like 'bailout' and this word/initialization isn't among them at all. As for your point that we should delete the presidential slogan article; Those are official campaign slogans. You can source them. McCain/Palin didn't put this one out there. Nate • (chatter) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not being American, I'd never heard it before, but it does strike me as doubtful that it will catch on in the long term. In general, popular phrases don't lend themselves to wikipedia articles. Deb (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the contrary they lend themselves perfectly. The reader wants to know it's origins, it's popular references and cultural impact. All things that have a cultural impact have a limited lifetime. But you have to remember that people in 3000 AD will be reading Wikipedia and will be using it to understand the origins of things in the past and why they had the impact they once did. Think big and think long term when you talk Wikipedia. That's what Jimbo is all about. Bletchley (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You really think a 31st century researcher is going to care or wonder about the concept of the MILF? I don't even think about anything beyond 2525 at this point. Nate • (chatter) 13:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You betcha. Scholars had to struggle hard to figure out some of the scatological neologisms used by Shakespeare. We can't be 100% sure they even got it right as there was no Wikipedia to help us out. Remember that today is the historical zoo for tomorrow's people. They are gawking. Bletchley (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable neologism, lacking in significant usage and lacking in sufficient coverage in reliable sources. It is a flash in the pan which cannot inherit sufficient notability from Sarah Palin for its own article. It is not even significant enough for a mention in Sarah Palin. Though not failing the criteria set for in WP:BLP, it is close to violating the spirit of BLP. I hesitate to dignify this by calling it a meme, as it is not self perpetuating. Perhaps the article is but a part of viral marketing from the associated website.Struck with apologies. creator is established user. Dloh cierekim 17:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bletchley suggested that I "check out" this article. After overcoming my initial horror at the title, I looked down at the ref's and external links. Most are from blogs and YouTube. One external link is a a memorabilia purchase site. The Daily Weekly should not be discounted out-of -hand, as it appears to be a news outlet in which the staff writers post an article to which readers respond. It's about the VPILF website and it's creator. It is too trivial to assert more than that the phrase has been used and that the web page exists. Zazzle is a retailer site for "memorabilia". Crackle requires flashplayer. Comedy.com is trivial coverage for the subject, but deals more with Sarah Palin. Seattle Weekly again deals with the "man behind" the VPILF website. It is too trivial to use to justify an article about him,let alone this phrase. Minnesota independent article uses the term, but again in referring to Palin. Huffington Post is a review of the aforementioned website. The above links would support the notion that the subject has some usage, but are in depth only enough to say that some people use the phrase and that someone has sought to capitalize on its connection to Palin. The "viral marketing" angle is mentioned in more than one. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source.
- a web search for the phrase in question garners 3 hits, including Urban Dictionary. Nothing in GoogleBooks or GoogleNews for the phrase. While Google count is not an accurate gauge of notability, lack of Ghits in this instance shows it is not a notable phrase. VPILF does not garner 65,000 unique Google hits. it only gets about 700. Google count has been deprecated for some time, because one must be extremely cautious about applying it. I do not find any reference not connected with the late presidential campaign and the Republican candidates. There is a GoogleBook hit for Verilog Programming Language Interface, so the initials do have a usage quite unrelated to the subject at hand. In fact, there is a number of unrelated Google Book hits. This paucity of hits, with the limited usage, shows it is not significantly notable through common usage to have an article, and will likely fade away into triviality. In that it holds a public figure up to derision and ridicule, it serves no purpose than to keep alive a bit of unseemliness contrary to human dignity.Cheers, Dloh cierekim 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- It could be noted that Bletchley was the creator of the article. Dloh cierekim 17:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: So tell me folks, without Wikipedia how on Earth are scholars in 3000 AD gonna figure out what VPILF was all about? Think of the confused frenzy you are dooming your descendants to.Bletchley (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they can just review all those reliable sources archived out there. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Not to worry. I have it on good authority the world will end on December 21, 2012. Dloh cierekim 03:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to wonder whether or not Bletchley is taking the piss here. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 03:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [[Fails WP:N, besides which Palin was never Vice President. Edison (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons listed in nom. The number of Google hits is not the end all be all of notability. The quality of the coverage also counts. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Bethlehem (film)[edit]

Not Notable film released as DVD only, no references, reviews, no sales figures, appears to be entirely a religious apologetic work. Rbreen (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to be an advertisement for the DVD. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AvidCast

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Purpose Evolution Theory[edit]

The named suggester of this theory appears rather difficult to trace. The theory itself is difficult to trace also, and appears to be a mishmash of other theories. The lack of source material is another drawback. To my mind, distinctly non-notable, if not hoax. (As always, I am very willing to be reliably proven wrong.) Peridon (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~(see below) - I have been trying to find sources for this article and have been unable find any good ones. This might mean what you say is true. However I did come across a few sources naming it, but they don't have much at all to do with the 'theory'. Perhaps you should ask the creator of the article and notify him/her about this deletion proposal as it doesn't look like that person will take a second look at the article. --Know zilla 18:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the author of the article about this afd nomination. ;) Lets hope (s)he has a look at this. --Know zilla 18:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to support the inclusion. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Just a huge OR. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and article is an essay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I typed in "Jonathan-Fieldhouse first-purpose" on Google and guess where the one result leads: You guessed it; right here to the WP article presently proposed for deletion. Obviously it's total OR. Get it out of here before the mirror sites start picking it up. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per several comments above. --Know zilla 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Original research, no sources even mentioning the idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Jim62sch^dissera! 18:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G3 by Jpgordon. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toonie Slappers[edit]

Non-notable game. Also a possible hoax, as I could find no references of the "International Toonie Slappers Federation" or the game anywhere Scapler (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of edible flowers[edit]

There were substantial concerns raised at Talk:List of edible flowers that should be addressed. This list only cites the Plants for a Future database, which some feel isn't accurate and could be considered original research, especially since the author of this list appears to be involved with writing that website. If you have concerns about the PFAF database, then you might consider this article to fail WP:V and in the extreme, dangerous as proscriptive about which plants readers of our encyclopedia can or cannot eat. On the other end of the spectrum, you can argue that it just needs a thorough cleaning and citation, as many of our other lists on Wikipedia. Thoughts? Rkitko ^(talk) 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My first concern would be that a "list of edible flowers" is hopelessly broad and ill-defined. It's certainly an interesting topic, but could we ever hope to come up with something that was comprehensive or encyclopaedic? Sourcing is a second, and valid topic. I would need to see some evidence as to why PFAF should be considered an RS for our purposes.
So on the issue of sourcing, I'd say that the fact that it needs better sourcing shouldn't, in and of itself be grounds for deletion, just grounds for some pruning. But on the issue of whether it's a viable list, I'm leaning towards "delete"...but I'd like to see what others have to say. Guettarda (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Catagorify - If there is a Article on the plant, then it would make sense to state on that Article it is edible, with proper Citation. Then that article could be put into Category:Edible plants. To me, that would seem like the best way for us not to end up poisoning someone (as edible by some may be explained more compleatly in a Article, but less likely to happen in a List). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone is using the category as a list they might not bother reading the article, with a list the information can be included in both places. Juzhong (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that is the point I am making. Anyone looking at the :Cat (as you say "as a List") will have to actually read the Article to know Datura stramonium's (a Traditional medicine and Medicinal plant) effects, including death. A list, I do not believe, will be able to adequately state the fine line of difference, even the Article has a tough time with it. That being said, a refinement of the title to narrow the scope, may help. (eg. List of edible Common Garden flowers or List of edible English Garden flowers..<sigh> not sure, suggestions welcome)Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well the previous version of the list had this: "Papaver rhoeas (Corn Poppy); only the petals; other parts are poisonous ". If you have your way, this will be in Category:Edible plants and you are relying on people to click on the link and search through the article before they eat one. Juzhong (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yup, an Index, List or :Cat of information is only to easely group similar information & direct the reader to the detailed information held in the Article. A simple List cannot detail the varied dangers and/or uses properly IMHO. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So because you can't "detail the varied dangers properly" you give no indication that it is poisonous. Juzhong (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So if your proposing this as a plain jane vanilla list of stuff, what would be the difference between this and a :Cat? Is it not going to present any Additional information? Whats it going to do that a :Cat cannot do? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It will be cited point by point; it will include both common and scientific names; it will include the cultivar name; it will include flowers that don't have articles yet, as long as they are cited; ideally it will explain where and when they have been eaten (eg Tulips in Holland during ww2); hopefully someone will make it into a sortable table. Also it won't just have Poppy it will have Poppy (only the petals; other parts are poisonous). Juzhong (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also you are proposing putting all plants with edible flowers in Category:Edible plants, so in fact there would be no practical way to find plants with edible flowers at all. Juzhong (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure there is, use a Sub-Category. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I echo the concerns of the above editors. The list isn't discriminate enough to be properly maintained, and as it stands there is no inclusion criteria or references. I don't think a category should be made on this subject either because the definition of what makes a plant "edible" is vague. Themfromspace (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate source for the purpose. It needs to be specified just what the criterion is, of course, instead of just giving the link. & its time we had a rule that UNMAINTAINABLE is a NONARGUMENT. Nothing is unmaintainable. DGG (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the article istoo broad in scope. The article needs guidelines for inclusion, but since the topic is so broad (what defines edibility?) an objective set of guidelines is impossible to establish. Themfromspace (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point as well - it's too vague and too broad. "Edible flowers" basically means "All Angiosperms" - "Poisonous flowers" (although from some of the concerns raised, this list doesn't exclude all poisonous flowers). "List of flowers used for food" would be a more useful list, although even that is likely to be horribly unbalanced if presented as a single, worldwide list. Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edible flower means "flower described by a WP:Reliable source as edible". Juzhong (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNMAINTAINABLE seems like a negative variation of WP:EFFORT. Juzhong (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclaimer I am original author of the page and also webmaster of the Plants for a Future website, but not the compiler of the database there. The first question is is a List of Edible flowers a suitable encylopedic topic and I would contend that it is. Categofying to Category:Edible plants would lose half the information and that category is very inadaquate with only a small fraction of the known edible plants. As to sourcing there are a considerable number of independent sources which could be used, indeed it would be much better to spend time searching these sources. The Plants for a Future site does itself draw on many references which are cited in the text so there is a good chain of verifiability of this information. I do think the list could do with a large prune and much better referencing but deletion is a poor option. --Salix (talk): 09:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Salix, I pruned it for you. If you put things back please keep them cited to independent, reliable sources. Juzhong (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and prune. I don't think there is a sharp dividing line between edible and inedible so a list is superior to a category. Ideally it should note who said it is edible and any qualifications (like "white heel removed" or "first boil for 3 days"). Juzhong (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even that is a fine line to walk ... see WP:NOTHOWTO. It feels like information about the plant, and so should be in the Article about the plant. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's information about the edibility of the flower. Juzhong (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pruning is no longer necessary Juzhong (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

WP:POINT?

What? Juzhong (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Edible flowers is a very notable subject in cooking and botany that is easily verifiable. The list needs a lot of work, but the topic is valid and worthy of treatment in Wikipedia. Needing clean up is not a reason for deletion. Why, just today I encountered someone looking for a resource on this.Steven Walling (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Edible flowers suffices (it has its own, different, list), but am not really sure. Most of the argument seems to be over what the list and/or article might evolve to, not what they are now, which makes it a bit hard for me to get my mind around it. Kingdon (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's short now because I "pruned" it. The main difference between this list and the one in Edible flowers is the fact that this one is well-sourced, and the other is very poorly sourced. Ideally there would be a shorter list of representative flowers in the main article as well as a separate, more comprehensive list, which I'm hoping this will grow back into. Something like List of culinary nuts but better cited. Juzhong (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, it is out there in limbo, kind of. The concerns on the talk page merited some kind of discussion, so I didn't intend to nominate it for deletion, per se (I haven't even made my position clear yet), but rather get some additional input. It was quite a mess and I do share the legitimate concern of the verifiability or conflict of interest caused by the old list's PFAF connection. If it had been a featured list with many sources and sortable table that listed each taxon's edible and poisonous parts, there would be little concern. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments for retention presented above. John254 16:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (blatant copyright violation, copy of http://library.georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/cl23.htm). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. John McElroy[edit]

This doesn't seem to be needed. It doesn't look like the guy is notable for anything apart from Boston College and maybe Georgetown. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College and Boston College High are 2 very big and important schools as well as Georgetown. Fr Mcelroy is an important man. Bchs23 (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jpgordon (CSD G1). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poesianumerica[edit]

I don't see that this makes much sense... Quantumobserver (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Librarians Guild[edit]

Fails WP:ORG due to lack of "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". While there are mentions in Google, Google News, and even Google Scholar, most are "trivial or incidental coverage", such as mentioning that the group showed up at a protest or identifying someone as being a member of the group. I have been unable to find independent sources that actually discuss the organization itself beyond a passing mention. They have a few chapters at library schools around the country[8], but I don't think this alone can satisfy WP:ORG without non-trivial coverage in independent sources. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 17:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I looked at the coverage and did not see the one profile of this organization that would make it easy to keep but the sheer quantity of mentions I saw make this a likely keep.[9]. Additionally, there is more detailed coverage of this group in library-focused publications. I would feel better if I had a sense of membership but I think this is a marginal keep that requres some additional work from someone with more familiarity|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I totally understand your point about the number of mentions (I felt the same way at first, that the number of mentions probably mean it is a given keep), I don't think we can in good conscience say the article satisfies WP:ORG just because there are probably some reliable sources out there; we need actual citations in hand that discuss the organization. (The Time magazine article you linked was just a passing mention). You say that there is detailed coverage in library-focused publications. Could you provide some citations? SheepNotGoats (Talk) 14:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The sources are just sufficient; they are in some manner connected with an IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations) mailing list or caucus where most of the work takes place, but it's a closed list, as I remember--I think I used to belong. DGG (talk)

Which sources are you referring to? The only ones cited in the article are from the organization's website. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks to me from scanning the hits in google news like this is a pretty notable organization. Librarians aren't the most publicized people, but within the library world, this group appears to be a significant organization. Cbl62 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this quote from the Michigan Daily describing the PLG: "Formed to fight library status quo, the idea of a progressive group of librarians doesn't exactly conjure up images of freedom-fighting activists. But, in the hearts and minds of publishers who rely on librarians and the libraries they stock for some $2 billion of annual revenue, socially minded librarians are a force to be reckoned with." [10] As the article notes, progressive book-toting librarians aren't going to get the same level of publicity as gun-toting freedom-fighters, but this appears to be a notable group. Cbl62 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the PLG publishes the journal, Progressive Librarian, which has been published semi-annually since 1990. [11] Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Rebel[edit]

Does not meet notability for people, but ineligible for CSD. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Apparent autobiography, but as badly written as the article is, this person may satisfy the letter of WP:PORNBIO. ~~The 2009 AVN Award nominations list an Ariel for Best Web Starlet.[12] If we can confirm that this is the same actress (as unreliable sources state), this is a keep and cleanup.~~ • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Confirmed from a closer look at the AVN link: Ariel Rebel is a 2009 nomininee for "Web Starlet of the Year," satisfying WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:PORNBIO for the AVN nominations. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage and AVN award nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep--Clearly meets WP:PORNBIO. --Jmundo (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject passes WP:PORNBIO. Sharveet (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One time records[edit]

Does not meet notability for companies. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam/advertising. Lugnuts (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) — Nothing that can tell why this organization may be remarkable. MuZemike (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP, likely speedy. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G11 (spam). Author blocked as a spam-only username. Blueboy 96 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letmedo[edit]

This does not seem to meet notability standards for companies. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find anything on Google to establish notability. CSD#a7 (corp) was a possibility imo, as the article doesn't say anything about significance or achievements of the company. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Franklin (musician)[edit]

No notability asserted outside of being a member of a Grammy award winning band. Doesn't assert notability outside the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and redirect~~ - Band members should be redirected to the article for the band, unless there's separate, individual notability. (WP:BAND) There's no evidence of this in the article, and a cursory web search reveals nothing. – Toon ^(talk) 16:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'm not big on redirects with qualifiers in them. Maybe a hatnote in Larry Franklin saying "for the musician, see Asleep at the Wheel"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point, I overlooked the qualifier - it's not exactly going to be a searched for title. – Toon ^(talk) 17:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a hatnote in Larry Franklin per User:TenPoundHammer. No individual notability outside of band. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the main article, redirect album track listings to Iris (Texas band). John254 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iris (Texas band)[edit]

Article clearly fails all criteria listed at WP:BAND except for #6 and #8. I submit that it fails #8 as the American Synthpop Awards are not a major music award. As for #6, one of the members, Andrew Sega, appears to be slightly notable, so I propose this article be deleted or made into a redirect to him.

Should Iris (Texas band) be deleted, the associated albums will not be notable. TheMile (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:BAND criterion #1 based on bio and review at Allmusic ([13], [14]) and other coverage of varying quality: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Should be enough there to improve and source the article.--Michig (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band for passing WP:MUSIC#C1, but merge the albums into the artists article since most of them are little more than a track listing. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jenkins (baseball)[edit]

This article is self-promotion, poorly sourced, and an orphan article. There is no notability for this topic — Wikipedia does not make a habit of creating articles for every former minor league baseball player ever. Clearly this topic is not notable, as zero articles link to it. Timneu22 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor league career was brief and not notable; some sources are available on his performance in college, but for baseball, college-level play is generally not considered sufficient to satisfy notability. BRMo (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the nom's rationale is questionable (we should never delete a notable article due to lack of sourcing or inbound links, for example), but Mr. Jenkins is not particularly notable by the standards of minor league baseball, and while his college career was moderately distinguished, I don't think it's enough (I would typically look for a conference Player of the Year award or a national honor such as the Golden Spikes Award for a player with no professional honors - All-American is a bit below that.). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Airlines Flight 528[edit]

Minor incident with no lasting notability that fails WP:AIRCRASH notability guidelines AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom doesnt appear to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess there is a slight case of unusual circumstances in that the passengers avoided treatment, but it really isn't enough IMO. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incident took place while at the tarmac, no indication of potential for more serious consequences, etc. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant repercussions or lasting effects. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now It's too soon to tell what investigators will find, but some explanation for the intake of external fumes into the aircraft should be found and procedures should change in response. Give it a month.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy-Sumo's Disease[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Teddy-Sumo's Disease

Hoax, non-existing disease. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found some evidence [23] [24] [25] that it may exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscented (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3) - the links presented above: the latter two are both wikipedia mirrors, presenting the same fictitious article as is being deleted here - as mentioned at the bottom of the articles. The first is also derived from wikipedia, as is noted: "The original description for this topic was automatically generated from the Wikipedia article "Teddy-Sumo's Disease"" and a link to the "full Wikipedia article". There are no Google scholar hits, which is odd for a disease, and there are just 136 niormal hits; none of which are reliable sources, the vast majority are from Wikipedia. This serves to demonstrate just how far misinformation in Wikipedia articles can penetrate. – Toon ^(talk) 17:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Toon. No sources, obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bola tangkas[edit]

no sourcing to assert notability, a google search shows that the game exists most of the results are in Indonesian and are links to gaming sites were it can be played or the developers. Gnan garra 14:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Coming up against a language barrier, but [26] this is apparently a newspaper article about the game. I think there are others. It seems to be regionally notable. JulesH (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other articles on the same site that appear to be about it, too. JulesH (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - using toggle text translator an Indonesian // English translator the article [27] refers to the arrest of 5 people for playing a ball game Perjudian terus diberantas. 5 Pelaku judi jenis bola tangkas via situs translates to Gambling continued to be combatted. 5 perpetrators of adroit gambling of the ball kind via the site the rest of the article is about the prosecution very a brief description of the game This adroit ball gambling in fact was the same as gambling of the adroit ball of Mickey Mouse of the sliver machine, only that distinguished him was the sliver machine of Mickey Mouse used switches to operational him. Whereas tangkas.net used mouse translation from Perjudian bola tangkas ini sebenarnya sama dengan perjudian mesin keping bola tangkas Mickey Mouse, cuma yang membedakannya adalah mesin keping Mickey Mouse menggunakan tombol-tombol untuk operasionalnya. Sedangkan tangkas.net menggunakan mouse by the Criminal Investigation Squad Director. This isnt what the article is about which is Indonesian style poker is a casino game using 7 cards. Putting the difference from translation aside the media articles arent about the game but about prosecutions of players, WP:N says the subject needs to have been the subject of significant independent coverage. For comparison the article Draw Poker may cover illegal aspects of the game but it not the basis for notability thats establish by books about the game. Gnan garra 04:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Card game in Indonesia. Likely to have better sourcing there, and probably good to include in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may not speak Indonesian, but there are about 142,000 sites about it on Google, with around 55,400 in Indonesia alone. Its online version been the subject of police crackdowns according to news sources (like this one), so there is inherent notability. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this article is about a card game, the sources your pointing to about police crackdown are about a ball game. Gnan garra 06:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! As I said earlier, I don't speak Indonesian (I speak Tagalog, and Tagalog is nowhere near intelligibility with Indonesian, let alone Malay). Maybe Indonesian-speaking Wikipedians can help. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 14:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me the game probably desrves an article, but not notability is currently asserted or supported in the article other than the game has a prominent place in some Indonesian casinos. But since it is apparently just a type of video poker slot machine that isn't notable enough for an article since otherwise we'd have a hundred more articles for every video poker style available in a casino. It needs independent coverage in reliable sources that state some notability... and whatever is said in Indonesian is 100% irrelevant. It seems it won't have problems having an article in the Indonesian Wikipedia, but this is the English one. So deleting it would be fine by me, and it would also be okay to stub it and leaving the notability and referencing tags on it. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that there is confusion that needs to be clarified, Draw poker translates as Ambil Poker and video poker slot machine translates as Poker video lobang mesin where as Bola tangkas translates as The adroit ball. Gnan garra 22:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (default to keep, no BLP issues). Guantanamo inmates aren't automatically notable - of course not - but this one does appear to have enough coverage to scrape through WP:BIO. I believe GeoSwan makes reasonable points here. Black Kite 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami[edit]

While this is a well-written article with a lot of citations, the main summary is that he exists and is held at Guantanamo Bay. Nothing in the article suggests that he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, almost everything in his article suggests that he meets WP:BIO, he is "the worst of the worst" according to the American Vice President, he claims to have been tortured at a CIA black site, still held as a terrorist at Gitmo he likely faces the death penalty as punishment for alleged war crimes...I'd say any notation that he's "not notable" would have to pass a very high standard of evidence. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, we get he's held at GITMO, but "why" is he notable? What's he done that's notable? I think a strong case has been made for deletion at this point.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this comment is based on a serious misconception. While many of our articles are about individuals who have done something, other articles, like that of Alfred Dreyfus or Rodney King concern individuals who had something done to them. Implied in various challengers' comments here is the idea that what has happened to al Hami was obviously routine, mundane, totally precedented, unremarkable. During the late Twentieth Century, and early in this Twenty-first Century a very large number of individuals have been held, secretly, without charge, without a meaningful opportunity to learn why they were being held, without a meaningful opportunity to challenge whatever allegations had been leveled against them, in detention camps where brutality was authorized. If we include Stalin and Mao's Gulags maybe there were as many as 100,000,000 captives held under those conditions. But, if so, 99,999,000 or 99,998,000 of those individuals were held by rigid, brutal, repressive, totalitarian regimes. Dog bites man is unremarkable. Dogs do bite men, occasionally. Man bites dog is much more remarkable. I suggest that captives held by the USA -- once thought to be the archetype of a freedom-loving democracy -- under the conditions usual in a totalitarian despotism -- is highly remarkable. Does this make Al Hami as remarkable as Alfred Dreyfus, whose case is still being debated 100 years later? Unlikely. But who knows -- wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He is remarkable enough that he should be covered here. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources do anything to establish notability. In fact, five of the six sources are just primary sources relating to the subject's detention and its review. Having one's detention reviewed is not a sign of notability for a Guantanamo prisoner because every prisoner in Guantanamo has had his status reviewed unless he was released first. The only secondary source used (the article from The Wire) does not even mention the subject. I can't find any evidence that Dick Cheney called Rafiq Al Hami "the worst of the worst", as opposed to calling the Guantanamo prisoners in general "the worst of the worst"; saying that Al Hami personally is "the worst of the worst" would be an example of the Fallacy of division. His claims to have been tortured are just that, claims, and do not have appeared to have received significant news coverage in the United States, his home country of Tunisia, or any other country on earth. (At least, no such coverage has been cited yet.) The factors favoring continued detention -- that is, the factors offered by the U.S. government as a reason to detain him -- don't suggest to me that he would be likely to be sentenced to death for war crimes. Finally, my own search for news coverage of him turned up nothing more significant than a single sentence in an article from Ansa.it: "Un tenue legame con l'Italia esiste anche per un settimo detenuto, Rafiq bin Bashir bin Al Hami, che aveva con se', al momento dell'arresto in Pakistan, un passaporto italiano contraffatto con un visto pachistano, a suo dire acquistato anni fa in Europa per 200 marchi tedeschi." [28] (My translation: A tenuous link with Italy exists also for a seventh detainee, Rafiq bin Bashir bin Al Hami, who had with him at the moment of his arrest in Pakistan a fake Italian passport with a Pakistani visa, which he said he had acquired a year earlier in Europe for 200 German marks.) Please keep any discussion of this AfD here; in the past, AfD discussions for other Guantanamo prisoners have been taken to my talk page, but I'd rather cover it all here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you're searching with only Wikipedia's transliteration of his Arabic name. You'll see he's mentioned on National Public Radio, BergenGrassroots, The Financial Times, New York Times, TalkLeft, and a number of others. They range from mere mentions of his name, to actual articles discussing how his case epitomises the problem with the United States having employed Bounty Hunters to track down "suspects", and bringing them people like al-Hami. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails notability. He's mentioned in passing as a detainee, but what has he done that makes him notable?Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the requirement for secondary sources... well, normally, any document which is a compilation, interpretation, or analysis of original sources is recognized as a secondary source. I agree that a transcript of an OARDEC administrative proceeding would be a primary source. The authors of the Summary of Evidence memos, that list the allegations used to justify continuing to detain al Hami, wrote those memos after compiling, synthesizing, interpreting and analyzing reports from multiple civilian and military agencies. It seems to me that this makes those documents secondary sources. I have been told that a different definition of primary source and secondary source should be used when the sources relate to Guantanamo captives. If there is anyone out there who can explain why this should be so, I would appreciate them spelling this out here. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to press coverage of his claims of torture -- I don't believe our policies require coverage in the press. Some important topics will never have press coverage. Please note that while we may not be able to find Press coverage of Al Hami's reports of torture, US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler took the claim seriously enough to issue an order that all remaining evidence that would substantiate the claims be preserved. Is there some reason you don't regard this as a reliable source -- not a source that confirms he was tortured, but that someone in a position of authority took the claim seriously? She took it seriously, and so should our coverage of the issue. Geo Swan (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, Delete. Guantanamo detainees aren't inherently notable, even if they're used in case studies for the news. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per article refs and Sherurcij's news stories. Whether someone or something has done anything is irrelevant to notability and deletion at wikipedia. What matters is whether there are enough reliable sources to write an informative article, and there appear to be enough.John Z (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can nominator please clarify which part of WP:BIO Andre Dallaire meets? WP:BIO is not policy, it is a sadly-flawed and incomplete attempt to list what specific editors think makes a "good" article. It is subjective, and simply says "In the field of chemistry, this is what we consider notable, in the field of Football, this is what we consider notable". Please don't make a false appeal to authority by claiming articles need to match some random and invisible benchmark set up by a few users anxious to overinflate their own importance by trying to categorise what makes a "good" biographical article. I could just as easily walk around AFDs demanding "Please explain how you think this article deserves to be kept based on User:Sherurcij/ListOfArticlesThatPissMeOff. There's almost zero validity to our current WP:BIO, which is just made to look important by a bunch of users such as yourself throwing it around heftily. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 12:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be more useful to try to prove that Al Hami satisfies the basic criteria of WP:BIO ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.") as in fact you tried to do above by citing additional sources, rather than trying to get WP:BIO rejected altogether. Wikipedia:Notability (people) may not be policy, but it is a guideline which has been around for over five years and has been cited hundreds and hundreds of times. [29] I wouldn't want to sacrifice this guideline to save one article which might ultimately be determined to satisfy the guideline anyway. I also don't understand how suggesting that another article you created (Andre Dallaire) doesn't satisfy WP:BIO supports this argument; in fact, Andre Dallaire probably does satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, al-Hami was the subject of 30 lines in Andy Worthington's book The Guantanamo Files. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A WP:BLP1E doesn't preclude 30 lines of coverage in a book. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Milgaard is only notable for one event, as is Lee Harvey Oswald, as is William Calley -- BLP1E refers to "a motorist who ran over a child in Essex in 1994", not to alleged terrorists held in illegal gulags. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one bio in WP whose subject's only claim to notability is that he or she was held illegally in a gulag or even a concentration camp. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to the coatrack essay -- it makes some interesting points... but it is a mistake to treat it as a policy, or guideline, when it is neither. The essay does not recommend a nomination for deletion as a first response. It mentions deletion as a last resort, when attempts at civil discussion fail. I suggest that anyone who claims the authority of the coatrack essay as justification for deletion is showing they have not read the essay closely enough to recognize it is not a policy, and to recognize it does not recommend deletion as the appropriate reaction to concerns over the issues it raises. A look at Talk:Rafiq Bin Bashir Bin Jalud Al Hami shows no concerns over this article were ever expressed on its talk page. I've encountered challengers who have challenged material similar to this claiming the authority of coatrack as their justification. It has always seemed to me that it should be a simple matter for those claiming the authority of coatrack to be specific about which section(s) of the essay they thought applied. I am sorry to report I can not remember ever encountering a challenger who claimed the authority of coatrack who was willing to be specific about which section of the essay they thought applied. And let me amplify that real compliance with the essay's advice would require the challenger to try to get their concern addressed through civil discussion on the article's talk page first. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Continued incarceration and the controversy surrounding it is notability enough. I find the protestations of WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E unconvincing and unwarranted: editors need to look at the clearly at why this subject is notable, and will see it is not for one event, but a series of related events. Which for example, is the case with Lee Harvey Oswald, who is notable not only for killing JFK, but for being killed himself, and for being the focus of much subsequent conspiranoia and investigation. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: I have undone my closure of this AfD following this message on my talk. Sandstein 10:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article. I have offered my reason for keep in my responses to others' comments. Geo Swan (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the circumstances, he does seem notable to me. NoVomit (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not too sure how many Guantanamo detainees have their articles on WP. WP is surely not the place to cover all inmates from all illegal camps in the world. However, the topic "Inmate in Guantanamo" is surely notable and encyclopaedic. As argued for in Anil's Ghost, it is difficult to give visibility to numbers; often, it is a better solution to pick one exemplary case to illustrate the topic. RBBBJAH could be such a case, but the article might be moved/merged to another article, like Biographies of Guantanamo prisoners or sth like that, with an eye on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of course. Given that the article is rather well-sourced and written for such a difficult topic, I would favour preserving the content in one way or another, on this page or on another page.Jasy jatere (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuriki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No sources, no evidence the game is notable or even exists or is more than something someone cooked up in school one day. Previous discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kuriki) gave no support for keep, so why wasn't it deleted? Noe (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Something went wrong when I added it to the AfD list on Dec. 21, so today, Dec. 28, I've added it again, and also added pointers at talk pages of involved editors. Thus, the 2nd nomination was not really effective till today.--Noe (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose. I do suggest we add a redirect Kuriki -> Mia after the deletion, though. Thanks for keeping me informed, by the way! Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (sort of). According to da:Meyer (terningspil) Kuriki is synonymous to Mia (game). I'm really no expert, but a merge seems appropriate. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (the user who nominated Kuriki for deletion) added that to the Danish page some time ago, on no other authority than en:Kuriki. So that hardly counts as a reason to keep!--Noe (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original article was deleted via AFD several years ago. This is a slightly different version. Joyous! | Talk 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, Joyous! As nothing in the articles indicates the issues leading to the first delution have in any way been remedied, should I nominate this for speedy deletion, then - or will it go away soon anyway?--Noe (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of Sexual Politics[edit]

Procedural nom. Has been tagged for a few months with problem issues. Was prodded but prod removed. I don't have a position on this one way or the other but let's see what others in the community think about it. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not much to say here. The article references a published paper, so there's no genuine question of verifiability. It's just a stub at this time, so it needs some more work, not deletion. Spotfixer (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article gives no context, has no links, its author is not well known and the Journal it was published in appears to be rather obscure as well. This article has been tagged for citation and notability for the last 9 months and has been an orphan for at least the last 9 months. - Schrandit (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The journal has an article, so it's notable.
That article points to this article, so it's not an orphan.
There is an unfortunate pattern of partisan deletionism by Schrandit, and this is a small part of it. Check the logs. Spotfixer (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I nominated this pathetic unsourced one-liner about an otherwise unknown article by an unknown author in an unremarkable journal as part of my evil plan. Or maybe it is just a bad article. Either one....you never know.... - Schrandit (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few random edits on African kings aren't going to hide the overall pattern. People aren't as stupid as you might like them to be. Spotfixer (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single academic papers do not usually warrant wp articles unles there is extremely strong proof of importance. DGG (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article says the paper is "controversial". How is it controversial? Was there media coverage of this controversy? Did is spawn a number of follow up papers? Another question, is there independent coverage of this paper? Did newspapers, other journals, etc publish write ups or articles about this paper? If these things could be established and/or expanded, then the article clearly can stay. However, if notability cannot be established outside of the journal itself, and if the paper isn't actually "controversial" as claimed, I see no reason to keep. If there is something I am missing, perhaps Spotfixer could explain in terms of wikipedia guidelines (like WP:N) how this article meets our inclusion policy. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's hard to judge notability based on a stub. The controversy is that it compares homosexuality and pedophilia, in terms of their path towards social acceptance. As an indication that others have found it notable, take a look at http://fathersforlife.org/dale/bauserma.html, http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Harris-Mirkin, http://www.narth.com/docs/whatapa.html and http://chezjacq.com/hm-mirkin.htm. In fact, just google the title and you'll see that it's noted all over the place, and always controversially. Spotfixer (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the paper or the controversy about it was covered in the media (and someone adds that to the article) --Alynna (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because a single journal article isn't notable without sources to suggest that it has caused considerable controversy or had a major impact. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Well, this AfD certainly took a twist or two. The article was modified to reflect its status as a hoax, but the consensus since it was revealed is to delete. I do think that this content could be merged elsewhere, and will provide a copy of the article to anyone wishing to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takipsilim[edit]

Supposed television show that will be created next year. Google search doesn't give too much help. Most of the hits on there are blogs and forums. I don't see anything reliable to state that this will definitely happen. either way (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crystal ballery based on unreliable sources. PC78 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:CRYSTAL. Xeltran (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Takipsilim, no matter how detestable it is (my opinion and the opinion of the legions of Twilight fans both here and abroad), has been confirmed by ABS-CBN. See this. It has received significant local and international coverage both in traditional and non-traditional media and especially considering the uproar over the Philippine version of Twilight, there is a petition circulating urging ABS-CBN to not push through. The circumstances surrounding Philippine Twilight may be convoluted in places, but it sure deserves a keep. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Confirmed by ABS-CBN. –Howard the Duck 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The existance of this series isn't really the issue. The link provided above is merely a statement from the network that this series will begin filming next year. I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates notability. PC78 (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~In a matter of days, this will become notable on its own before even filming starts. –Howard the Duck 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
    Note: the link is now dead. ABS-CBN News took it down.
    Cached version here. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Twilight (series). According to the article Sky linked, the rights have been acquired, but shooting hasn't begun. Since films are regularly deleted when they haven't started shooting yet (WP:NFF). I propose to cover the rights sale in the article of the series until more definitive information is available. (When a series is tentatively titled, the name isn't set in stone yet). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Takipsilim is not a movie remake of Twilight; rather, it is a television series based on the novel (or the movie). Whether NFF applies in the context of this AfD is debatable; however, the fact the media is having a field day over this (commented even by the likes of Perez Hilton and Ryan Seacrest out of all people, and found in secondary sources such as AHN and Yehey! (the Philippines' largest local search engine)) shows that the article merits its retention. While my decision still stands, if this is deleted or merged, I hope the closing admin will allow for the recreation of said article without prejudice. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's SOP that once a movie starts filming, it can be recreated if it was deleted previously. –Howard the Duck 14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not quite. WP:NFF dictates that movies in principal production should not have articles unless the production process is in itself notable. Remember the AfD for that movie produced by Star Cinema that was still in post-production but was deleted anyway? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~In a matter of days, everything about this movie will become notable. –Howard the Duck 14:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep.^[1] diRkdARyL ♫ (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Movie poster" has to go, though. It's like the fake WWE PPV posters proliferating before the real poster shows up. –Howard the Duck 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a very twisted development in the Takipsilim story: it is all a hoax! See this. This basically leads me to twist my vote on this AfD around into keeping Takipsilim because the hoax has generated significant domestic and international attention. Therefore, my vote now is "Keep, but rewrite to reflect on its current status (as a hoax)". --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, now that it has been exposed as a hoax, I don't think this is a viable Wikipedia article. I don't think it has garnered enough attention from the mainstream media so it's now delete for me. –Howard the Duck 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If 5,000 people willingly signed a petition, international media touched on the subject and prominent commentators commented on it, I think it's worth the notability. I'm surprised people actually fell for this, including ABS-CBN. Remember, Wikipedia can host articles about hoaxes, not hoaxes per se. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno, but 5,000 seems a pretty tiny number, that also includes people that multiple "signed" multiple times, people who were stupid enough to sign but actually disagree with the petition, and "flying voters" (I actually saw a "Autumn Reeser" as a signatory on one of these petitions). International media is Perez Hilton (I can't remember anyone else, except maybe other Twilight fansites) so that's only one. I dunno if it was covered in Saturday afternoon gossip shows though. –Howard the Duck 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but revise as Takipsilim hoax. Even Ryan Seacrest blogged about this, as well as various news outlets outside of US. This would also serve as a reminder to the Twilight fans that it is a hoax. Starczamora (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And to think you commented on this widely on PEx! :)) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not even notable for an article about a hoax. --Jojit (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "ABS-CBN bags rights for local 'Twilight' remake". Retrieved 2008-12-24.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is non-notable and it's a HOAX. I think the probability of a Philippine remake of the Twilight series created by Stephenie Meyer is very unlikely. Should ever there be an upcoming Takipsilim series or movies, I am very certain that it will rather be based on Philippine culture/folklore/fantasy/mythology. TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's a hoax that a lot of people believed, including international celebrities, makes it notable to be kept. Even ABS-CBN, the very company supposedly "producing" Takipsilim, wrote an article saying they are before retracting it and saying they are not. Yeah, it's a hoax, but it can still be rewritten to tell the tale of the hoax. What should be deleted, if ever, is an article that's a hoax that plays itself to be true. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I took the liberty of expanding and clarifying the article on what it is, which is a hoax. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^[1] diRk dARyL ♫ 09:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Twilight (series). The hoax is certainly notable, but I don't think it needs a separate article. --seav (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has no place in an encyclopedia. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 11:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lads[edit]

No idea how this page has lasted this long. It's a page about a group of best friends. None of the friends have articles on them nor do the bands that are listed. The external link listed goes to a domain hosting site. This is either an advert for that site or an article about a group of non-notable friends. In either case, it should be deleted. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Close, as per Michig--OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Check the article's history. Until 12 November it was about a christian pop band from New Zealand ([30]) and that version needs to be restored and judged on its own merits. I suggest closing this discussion for the time being as the comments thus far are about the vandalized version of the article.--Michig (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've restored the November 12th version for reference. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 11:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Nice catch, OliverTwisted. *bows* --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The catch was by Michig. Salih (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, credit where credit is correctly due. Cheers. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 11:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

René-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet[edit]

Tragic as it may be, the incident he is involved in is a "WP:ONEEVENT". Therefore it does not meet the notability guidelines. The suggested cause of action should be a merger into Bernard Madoff Wapondaponda (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep How many people lose $1.4 billion dollars in a day through a massive ponzi scam? And how many other fund managers have felt ashamed enough to take their own lives? When Bernard Madoff is finally placed on trial for his crimes, I suspect will hear a lot more about poor René-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet...and Madoff's more prominent victims. This will increase his prominence. Finally, René-Thierry was a fund manager for a French billionaire and a major fund manager in New York, so he isn't really lacking notability in investment circles. Leoboudv (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The $1.4 billion was not his money, but belonged to clients of his firm. The problem is, outside of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, there is little notability. There is unlikely to be any new information about Mr. de la Villehuchet in the future. This article is likely to be permanently static, with the only contributions being related to Bernie Madoff. The appropriate action is therefore a merger into Bernie Madoff per WP:ONEVENT.Wapondaponda (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep. Actually René-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet is one of the notable deaths reflected on the Wikipedia principal page under the section "Recent Deaths". Refer to Wikipedia deaths page dated December 23, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_2008 So the request to delete the page seems contradictory with Wikipedia's own judgement that this individual's dramatic death was relevant, as he and his company Access International lost 1.4 billion and more on the financial schemes of Bernard Madoff. Furthermore he had a very prominent life in financial circles particularly with influential French families, and channelled huge funds to Madoff, he coming also from Magon family that goes back very far in nobility and influence in Europe. He was also founder and CEO of Credit Luyonnais Securities USA, which adds more notability werldwayd (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; comment His listing on the deaths page means nothing. Less than half of the people listed are truly notable. About a tenth of the deaths reported are removed as redlinks a month after death. Star Garnet (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not the place here to discuss this aspect of Wikipedia procedure thoroughly, if what colleague "Star Garnet" claims is actually true when he says "Less than half of the people listed are truly notable" (see above comment), meaning a clear majority of what we see in the daily death listings are not deaths of truly notable individuals, I submit there is something fundamentally at fault in the procedure through which death lists are presently being prepared in Wikipedia. If such is the case, the lists should be better "filtered" and examined, prior to final listing in the daily lists section. In addition if a majority of the deaths were so unnotable, as claimed, how come we have almost 90% of them with independent articles in Wikipedia about the deceased and just 10% redlinked? As a consequent comment, if there is actually a clear Wikipedia deletion clause after just one month, I suggest that more time is given to contributors, to work on the redlinks. I suggest 3 to 6 months to be a plausible period, prior to final deletion of "redlinked" death citations, not just an automatic one month grace period.werldwayd (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is true that a small paragraph is included in the main Madoff article. However the relevancy of the man goes far beyond this one incident. I fail to see why he should be "burried" in a massive Madoff article that promises to get even bigger, rather than keep his own page where further info can be conveniently added now or later, details that may have no place in a Madoff global article. For background on Mr. de la Villehuchet, see also http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFShThgSBha0jHZDYmaPD_dXJdEQD959CH5O0 or http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5393237.ece ... Obviously his death had huge repurcussions in Europe more than in the USA and thus gave a whole new perspective on the extent of Madoff's damage on the intrenational scene. werldwayd (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major financial news event that is obviously part of the general record of economic history. things of this magnitude do not even remotely fall under oneevent. But in any case he was notable as a financial executive. People don't get to the position where things like this can happen to them without being notable first, and its our cultural bias against business related subjects to blame that there wasnt always an article.DGG (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I tend to disagree that there is cultural bias against business. I think there is a pro bias on wikipedia articles to anybody who is wealthy. Maybe wealth equals notability. After one or two years, I don't see any edits being made to Mr. Villehuchet's article, except for what happens to Mr.Madoff. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- He had to be notable beyond one event to manage and waste $1.4 billions. --Jmundo (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it was the company he co-founded, Access International Advisors, that wasted $1.4 billion, not necessarily de la Villehuchet personally. Villehuchet was wealthy, but he was not a billionaire. The $1.4 billion that was lost was mostly from clients of AIA. He lost a couple of million of his own money. However, he was one of several to loose money, bloomberg list. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1. The 'one-event' has not finished yet, we could meet new facts. An investment banker losing 1.4 billion — and no follow-up or related subjects (e.g. other institutions involved)? What about this Access company? 2. His Madoff-relation is one, the death (with circumstances) is two. And, by the way: Madoff is also a one-event. VfD Madoff then? -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- All notability is related to B. Madoff and the event of his losses and death are already depicted there.--Gkklein (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with DGG's rationale. Cbl62 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The death of René-Thierry Magon de La Villehuchet is certainly an historical event.

IP, 31 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.67.131 (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bernard Madoff. I'm not convinced he passes the notability test at this time; although strictly speaking BLP does not apply here, this seems like the sort of article WP:BLP1E is meant to cover (and WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well). Unless anyone can make a notability claim for him unrelated to the Madoff scandal, I'd say this should be merged there as a tragic but small part of a larger story. Terraxos (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, The distinctive art of Madoff was in getting other notable people to wittingly or unwittingly feed into his scheme.DGG (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, don't merge Scanlan (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not a household name, he was an important financial figure even before his death. It is a shame that his death made him even more prominent, but that does not detract from his significance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sierra (mod)[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL predictions of possible future product. roux 09:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a google search for Black Sierra found very little for the mod. Plus, we have WP:CRYSTAL. --Numyht (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising. This should have been speedied a long time ago. -Yupik (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JR Garcia[edit]

Autobiography of actor who does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 09:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JR Garcia is a notable actor. please refer to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2381495/

please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgarciaonline (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Oroso (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly bit-parts and an IMDB page do not a notable person make. *switches off yoda-mode*. Ironholds (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in an inclusionist spirit, doesn't really meet WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines but the article now reads OKish, & Garcia will no doubt vigilantly observe himself for signs of increasing notability. Franciscrot (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"An inclusionist spirit" is not good enough. If the article doesn't meet the guidelines, in this case because the person is currently non-notable, then it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; who knows, his career could crash and burn in a year while we sit there with a page that blatantly fails the notability guidelines sitting around because "he might be notable in the future". Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I congratulate the editor who improved the aesthetic quality of the article, this subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER, seemingly just an extra, or someone who holds very minor roles. With the amount of those there are in the world, we could fill an agency's portfolio many times over - but I don't believe they belong in an actual encyclopaedia. – Toon ^(talk) 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain (note username). JuJube (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Yupik (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ameen Mohammad Albkri[edit]

This man does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The only thing approaching a claim of notability is that he sued President Bush (join the club). Stifle (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, while it was a stub, it has now grown into a larger stub with more context and details; his name seems to appear quite a bit in Yemeni and peninsular news sources - he's being held (presumably as a terrorist) by the United States in an illegal prison where he was made a ghost prisoner according to some sources, and subsequently sued the United States...I'd say he hits notability benchmarks. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular section of WP:BIO you'd like to point to to back that up? Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is he notable? What has he done that's notable? Lot's of people who are involved in auto accident sue the United States, for instance, yet it does not make them "notable". The rest of the page, like so many similar to it, acts as a record of legal proceedings and provides links to legal briefs, which is not encyclopedic. At this point it would probably be better to list the identity of detainees held at GITMO to be placed on one page so we can avoid the legal intricacies of their cases. This is not a legal docketing source.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just so we're clear, you'd say the same thing about all Guantanamo detainees with the exception of maybe five or six "super notable" ones plastered across the newspapers? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation, the masterminds? Pretty much on target. Their actions make them notable, their status as detainees does not.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 06:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not everyone gets to be notable. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and sourced. Badagnani (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which part of WP:BIO he meets? Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which part of WP:BIO Andre Dallaire meets? WP:BIO is not policy, it is a sadly-flawed and incomplete attempt to list what specific editors think makes a "good" article. It is subjective, and simply says "In the field of chemistry, this is what we consider notable, in the field of Football, this is what we consider notable". Please don't make a false appeal to authority by claiming articles need to match some random and invisible benchmark set up by a few users anxious to overinflate their own importance by trying to categorise what makes a "good" biographical article. I could just as easily walk around AFDs demanding "Please explain how you think this article deserves to be kept based on User:Sherurcij/ListOfArticlesThatPissMeOff. There's almost zero validity to our current WP:BIO, which is just made to look important by a bunch of users such as yourself throwing it around heftily. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 12:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing André Dallaire out to me; I've nominated that for deletion. WP:WAX aside, my question stands. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would merge and redirect. I don't think this individual is notable enough for stand alone article. An article on those held would be better in my opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Continued incarceration and the controversy surrounding it is notability enough. I find the protestations of WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E unconvincing and unwarranted: editors need to look at the clearly at why this subject is notable, and will see it is not for one event, but a series of related events. Which for example, is the case with Lee Harvey Oswald, who is notable not only for killing JFK, but for being killed himself, and for being the focus of much subsequent conspiranoia and investigation. Furthermore, WP:BIO is invalid in my eyes, because it contradicts at times what WP:N says, in particular regarding using sources and verifiability rather than subjective opinion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And lo and behold, Lee Harvey Oswald bears references to non-trivial coverage in eighteen books, meeting WP:GNG. Ameen Mohammad Albkri, on the other hand, does not. WP:BIO and WP:N enjoy wide acceptance among the Wikipedia community; if you feel that it is invalid or contradictory, please gather a consensus to change it at WT:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not greys but black and white. You can have one source and one verfication or you can have 1,000, notability is proven either way. The sources this article sites barely meet WP:BIO but they meet, and definitely meet WP:NOTE - they are verified with multiple media sources, and are supported int heir assertions with reliable primary and secondary source material. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Article has grown, been sourced properly and has notability for WP:BIO. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, and notable because of the issue. NoVomit (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant figure in historical events, well sourced. Many of the individual people here have individual notability because of the separate legal proceedings. This is a matter of permanent international interest, not well covered by the press initially, but by now there is sufficient material. Will be further notable; there in addition is very likely to already be material in languages not easily accessible to us. I think this is clear, but for those who think this is borderline, we resolve situations in favor of notability in the presence of strong cultural bias, This is different from situations like the Virginia Tech or the WTC victims, who most of them after the event had only memorials written. The subsequent legal actions here make him notable, not just being captured. DGG (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I did some more research on Ameen Mohammad Albkri since this nomination. He was someone I couldn't originally tie to anyone on the official lists of captives. But, recently, new sources have come to light, and I am now pretty sure that the Ameen Mohammad Albkri is merely a different transliteration of Abdul Hakim Bukhary. Normally, I would just merge the two articles. I won't do that now -- while the article is under discussion for deletion. Abdul Hakim Bukhary is a Saudi who fought against Afghanistan's Soviet invaders in the 1980s, back when that made him an ally of the CIA. He returned to Afghanistan sometime in 2001, and promptly said something that made the Taliban believe he was a US spy. He made positive comments about Ahmed Shah Massoud, who had been a widely admired mujahideen leader during the resistance against the Soviets when he was in Afghanistan in the 1980s, without realizing that in 2001 Massoud was the Taliban's number one enemy. Bukhary said he made this comment before the US invasion, and was promptly imprisoned, and beaten by the Taliban. There were about half a dozen captives of the Taliban who were in same position as Bukhary, held under brutal conditions by Taliban, set loose from the Taliban prison by the Northern Alliance, held briefly under very loose and lenient conditions in a refugee camp, where, they report,they were interviewed by the BBC and other western news agencies, where they expressed their gratitude that the invasion had set them free -- only to find themselves not set free, after all, but to be bundled up, and transferred to Guantanamo. Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I stand open to correction, but I think that closing this discussion as merge to Abdul Hakim Bukhary makes the most sense. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are now saying the subject does not exist, but is in actuality another person entirely on a bad name, then deletion is appropriate, the issue of notability is thereby moot, and the above arguments are obviated. One can only assume that the other individual listed has all of the information required, and actually exists. No merge is necessary.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources about this individual in the other article, under his other name, and we have a source about him here, in this article. Merge and redirection is done all the time. Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, they definitely don't seem to be the same person, one is a Saudi veteran who's lived in Afghanistan for ~20 years, the other is a Yemeni shrimp merchant who doesn't appear to have ever gone to Afghanistan until American captors flew him there. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Heatmiser. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Music of Heatmiser[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. No notable label. No major coverage in independent sources. It is a self released EP/Demo. Google proves non-notability. The EP is hard to search for, but seems to be non-notable based on the results of the search. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Demo cassettes have a hard time meeting notability standards, and this one doesn't seem to be the exception.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable demo WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This entry is worth keeping because it qualifies as "history". Just because someone has crafted snooty rules about what constitutes history worthy of remembering doesn't mean that this entry shouldn't be kept. If this entry doesn't meet WP:MUSIC#SONGS's criteria, then I believe those criteria should themselves be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crath (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC will not be pruned to fit this non notable demo. There are no reviews about this on the web. It does not belong on an encyclopedia.Undead Warrior (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's see if I understand your reasoning: because no one reviewed this recording then those reading about the history of Heatmiser shouldn't be able to learn about it through Wikipedia? Christopher Rath (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you do not understand my reasoning yet. Let me break it down a bit. In WP:MUSIC, demo albums are not notable unless they have received multiple reviews or been covered in multiple third party sources. This demo has not. Also, I have not said that the demo cannot be merged with the Heatmiser article, I am just saying that the demo does not deserve a page of itself, nor does it qualify for one under WP:MUSIC. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your suggestion to merge the content would make sense if it were not for other WP rules about content: those rules state that an image of a tape/CD can only appear on a standalone album page. So, which so-called "rule" shall we choose to violate; the one you quote, or the one regarding the use of images? I believe it's more rational to allow this album entry to exist; since it is an album. Just because no third party reviewed that album isn't a reason to pretend that it doesn't exist. If this album had been created for pure "demo" use and never sold (or never been distributed in the wild) then I would agree that it shouldn't have an entry; however, this was sold from the stage by the band to the public and so does exist as a "real" album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crath (talk • contribs) 14:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The ones that you appear to have already chosen to violate are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. The "snooty rules" that we have here are that history is only recorded in Wikipedia if it has already been properly recorded outside of Wikipedia first. These are in fact far from "snooty", and indeed are basic to the nature of an encyclopaedia built using a wiki that anyone can edit, and fundamental parts of this project. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. However, I see nothing wrong with incorporating its historical aspects in the main artist article, Heatmiser.
Merge to Heatmiser. The tape was sold so goes beyond being purely a demo, and is included in heatmiser discographies, e.g. in Martin C. Strong's The Great Indie Discography (Canongate, 2003), and in the Trouser Press entry for Hetamiser ([31]). Lack of substantial independent coverage of the tape itself suggests a merge to the band's article would be in order. Certainly shouldn't be deleted. The image of the tape could be included in a section of the band's article specifically about the tape.--Michig (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Carl Christian Koch[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. There are no sources given, nor citations. I cannot find anything on this guy on google searches. Any google search. The name Koch and Ludwig are very common and tend to dilute the basic Google search, but the scholar search and the book search should have come up with something to show some notability, but they did not. I say delete. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A search for Ludwig Carl Christian Koch, arachnids [32] proves to be more fruitful. Sources will need to be added to the article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking in German library catalogues turns up a Karl Ludwig Christian Koch with the dates of the Koch in this article (the Carl/Karl spelling is probably not important, but the order is). If I understand correctly, he seems to have mostly published as "Ludwig Koch". N p holmes (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This deletion process is badly flawed. So, you have a German entomologist who died a century ago and probably had peak performance 150 years ago. He has a two line stub article in the English wiki and articles in six other wiki language projects (also counting the very small Sardu project). The German article was started in 2005, and is the most extensive, the source is Stadtlexikon Nürnberg. My knowledge of entomology is almost nil and I have never heard of him. But what seriously troubles me is the very poor argument for deletion of the English article: "I cannot find anything on this guy on Google" (!) OK, I'm really impressed of what I can find on Google, including some digitalized old works, but would Google really be the right place to look for 150 year old works of a German entomologist? And what about the other wiki language projects, which evidently found the guy notably enough to create an article on him? How can the judgement of these people just be discarded? I admit that sources should be elaborated, I cannot check the German source (site unavaiable), the French is weird, and so is the Italian. The appropriate action here is to ask for references, not deletion. I would say deletion is counter to the very spirit of Wikipedia, to record the world's knowledge. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, but not everything needs/deserves an article on Wikipedia. While this might be kept, other articles are to be deleted and justly so. Undead Warrior (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete~~. After an extensive search using various tools, such as Worldcat, Google and various academic databases, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. (I did find several entries for his father.)--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the dates, relying upon Gsearch in any form as a negative criterion is absurd. It is true that GBooks is digitizing 19th century material, but selectively and, at this, point, very incompletely, with an English bias. GScholar at this point has almost no 19th century material and is very heavily biased towards English. As for WorldCat, I see his major work there [33]; from the publication date, it's not his father, who had been dead for 12 years when it began to appear. The other WPs did not just copy and abbreviate the German one; they looked for and added additional sources (I've incorporated the ones that actually linked). Elsewhere, people seeing the article improve it; here, people instead try to delete. BTW, on the basis of [34] the present spelling is correct for the dates given. DGG (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well this is one of those cases in which we have to be creative to find evidence of notability. It seems that a large number of species of spiders have been discovered by him; something that is not easy to find through electronic catalog or Google searches. I found this out by taking a look at the links to his page, and doing some cross-checking. His name is abbreviated L.Koch on species descriptions, while his father's name is abbreviated C.L.Koch, as noted in the article. He is indeed notable, just not the type of notability that we can easily verify. I changed my recommendation to keep.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per evidence uncovered by DGG & Eric Yurken. To challenge a German scientist of this date merely for lack of a Google footprint is ludicrous. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the BEMON site, I find very little about this guy. I see quite a bit about his father and mentions of his son, but finding works by him is turning out to be very difficult. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Eric Yurken. Why would the BEMON site be relevant here? It's only about marine organisms and Koch worked mostly on spiders. --Crusio (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its relevant because it happens to distinguish the names, because the man's son appears to have been a malacologist & there is, as we've seen. some confusion about the people. There are in any case many marine arachinids--see that article. DGG (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, should have been clearer in my comment. I meant, why is the remark from Undead warrior that not much is found about father Koch in BEMON relevant: given that the vast majority of arachnids are not aquatic, Koch will probably have worked mainly or even exclusively on terrestrial species. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Quite some detective work! But is it really necessary? According to the German Wiki he is included in Stadtlexikon Nürnberg (found him here). I believe this fact alone would suffice for notability at his own lifetime and hence also inclusion in Wiki, even if he should turn out to be only a minor scholar by modern yardsticks. This is a principal question, as it eases the resolution of notability issues. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Millender[edit]

WP:HOAX. Extensive hunts on Google and IMDB fail to show anything about someone who has allegedly been so involved in so many shows and films. There is a Carl Millender on IMDB who has had some involvement with one of the TV shows listed in the article, but nothing else at all checks out. Also obvious COI/self-promo based on the name of the creating editor (Carl1921). roux 07:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A7 WP:BIO. No notability established. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A7, COI, where do I start? --Numyht (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Vranić[edit]

Vranić has played few games in Serbian League, but he is not a fully-professinoal player Matthew_hk t c 07:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources or citations providing notability. Fails WP:Athlete. Govvy (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:21, 28 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]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Mišić[edit]

No source to prove him made his debut on Serbian Superliga, nor other fully-professional league. Matthew_hk t c 07:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree per nom. Serbian Superliga isn't fully-pro anyway. Govvy (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unaware of any definitive information either way on the Serbian Superliga. matt91486 (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin K[edit]

Autobiographical article that does not establish sufficient notability. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would strongly recommend you to check te references to see the importance of the guy. From the articles i understand the subject is not intrested in having a vanity autobiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.165.94 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Editor should focus on writing an article about the notable subjects within this article themselves and not about himself. For example, he launched a web site called keralalifeline.com, a dedicated online blood donors directory for Kerala. This venture was the first of its kind in India and was certified by The Indian Red Cross Society. That would make the web site certainly notable. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in the (source) articles of the website ever having been certified by the Indian Red Cross Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomHumanoid (talk • contribs)

You should read it again then. It specifically says, At the age of 16, he launched a web site called keralalifeline.com[1] [2] a dedicated onine blood donors directory for kerala. This venture was the first of its kind in India and was certified by The Indian Red Cross Society in the article. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the article says it is irrelevant. None of the sources do. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check the hindu newspaper news..it says it indian red cross society have issued a certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.169.69 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It had an unverified quote from the article's subject making this claim. That is worthless. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was created by a SPA. Not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Salih (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be self-advertising. Inkwash is an anagram of AshwinK :)--GDibyendu (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial independent sources about the notional subject (sources are primarily about the website). Guy (Help!) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per no reliable third party sources sufficient to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per original tag and per G11, retagging. ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect page to website mentioned in article, which has enough sources. Or alternatively, userfy. travb (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Allstarecho. Wow, this guy is as old as me, but less the common sense. --Numyht (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Guy that the current sources are insufficient to write a biographical article on Ashwin K. I don't think we have enough information to write articles on the two websites/companies either, since we essentially only know that they were founded. I have asked the primary author User:Inkwash if he has more sources, and will !vote keep/delete based on whether there is further information available. PS: We should all remember that the on-wiki conduct, or real life identity, of the user Inkwash is not relevant to this debate. Abecedare (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and create Kerala Lifeline which appears as if it may be notable and discuss creator there. StarM 01:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of genuine notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Declaration[edit]

Article not sourced. No assertion of the notability of this document. Also, when following the wikilinks, it appears as if the organization is self-sourced. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It makes no effort to establish its own notability. Its basically nothing more then a copy of the text of said declaration Pstanton 07:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Update: Article author added 2 sources. The first is an editorial article [35]. The second does not mention the Manhattan declaration, or the International Climate Science Coalition at all [36]. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Found an extremely strong source, today's Telegraph [37]. This isn't unnotable, it's a stub. This deletion debate should be closed immediately and Wikipedians should wonder why their neutrality policy has the IPCC page buzzing and this page as a stub. 80.47.220.22 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Before the finger pointing starts, the link you are referring to is an editorial comment. The question we are trying to address is if these two articles meet the guidelines: WP:RS and WP:N, not cast any judgment on the science. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Marginally notable content (one passing mention in a partisan editorial) that will likely never be more than stubs. The global warming oriented stuff on Wikipedia already is scattered across too many articles. Merge the content into global warming controversy or similar, and in the event that these grow then they can be broken out again. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've read about it elsewhere than in the Telegraph thing above; article needs fleshing out. Tempshill (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It certainly needs fleshing out though. I put up the page and it's only because I could find no reference here. This thing was an event that could turn out to be somewhat significant. At the very least it's interesting that this many people in the profession did such a thing and should be noted. Lexlex (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Link, ISCS website appears credible, opportunity exists for any of the signatores or members of their faculties to refute the statement. 'Global Warming' is an imporatant, world wide topic, needing light shed on it. If it is a sham, that too needs illumination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.246.2.80 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, It happened, it's documented, and it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.68.94 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if rewritten on the basis of real sources that may exist. The Telegraph "reliable source" is a passing mention in a single sentence as part of a long opinion piece debunking global warming. Canada Free Press and Right Side News are unreliable propaganda outlets. The US Committee page, however, mentions some true 3rd party sources for the conference, though I have not followed them up. I see no independent notability for the Declaration, & it should be merged in. The 2 articles at present are not actually about the subject, but used as vehicles for quotes, but they can be improved. DGG (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for above: Who or what makes the determination on whether a source is "reliable"? It's no problem, I just want to understand how it works and how a source becomes reliable on Wikipedia. Is there a list or something I can check? Lexlex (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Note e.g., in the latter "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact" (bolding is in the original). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the declaration's only claim to notability, is Op-Ed's (Booker) and that various partisan sources (Inhofe's pressofficer Morano) have spoken about it. The ICSC is an astroturfing organization organized by the Heartland Institute. Had the declaration been widely cited or noticed, outside the limited circle of then it might have risen to a notable level, but it hasn't. On top the article has severe problems with WP:POV (popular opinion, growing movement) and WP:OR (frequently cited). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but as a result you would vote for removal of *any* reference in Wikipedia? If you believe this to be meritless propaganda, why not document it rather than banish it? I beg you to please reconsider your vote. Lexlex (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see dear Kim, that you have shown the article a little love, standardized my errant semantics and even referenced a new source! Does this mean you've changed your vote? Perhaps? Lexlex (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i haven't changed my mind on my !vote. The declaration is not (as far as i can see) notable in any way or form. It seems to be little more than a footnote even in the sceptical picture on global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep relatively new article documenting an event that may prove to be very noteworthy indeed. Give it a chance to improve before considering merging or removing. Me lkjhgfdsa (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article is properly referenced and returns more than enough hits via a google search. If this article should be deleted then so should several hundred thousand (at the very least) of the other articles to be found on wikipedia. siarach (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an opinion on whether the article gets deleted. As Boris said, it's marginally notable. But I did find another potential reference. [38] -Atmoz (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added. Lexlex (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I will endorse a Merge decision on Manhattan declaration to Climate change with the addition of this reference: [[39]]. I'd also like to address the nomination of International Climate Science Coalition. The organization has two references: the first, [[40]] does not currently exist at that location. When it did, it was not a reliable secondary or objective third party source. The second, [[41]] does not meet guidelines for WP:RS. At its current state, notability for International Climate Science Coalition has not been established as per WP:ORG. Both articles could be merged to Climate Change with minimal impact. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would it be merged into Climate change? That article isn't about recent climate change - much better fits would be Climate change controversy, Politics of global warming or Kyoto protocol. The declaration says nothing about climate change, but is instead a comment on the political expediency or futility of the Kyoto protocol. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's author, I would endorse and prefer to keep it separate. This one event is potentially significant and has been cited numerous times by outside sources. I would like to find additional information on this event, including pictures, more in depth descriptions of the organization, et cetera. I consider it a stub that needs fleshing out and am willing to do so, but not under article duress. Note that OliverTwisted nominated this article for deletion within hours of its creation and while he is to be commended for the amount of effort expended, perhaps his enthusiasm is trumping my development time in this case. Please give me a few of weeks. Thanks Lexlex (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced that following links in a new article shows undue enthusiasm. If the article had been correctly sourced when introduced, it would not have been subject to an AfD discussion. WP:CRYSTAL plainly addresses topics that will become notable in the future. If sources don't currently exist, then the article should be merged until such time when notability can be asserted in keeping with WP:NOTE and WP:MERGE. Keeping an article that doesn't provide notable sources is problematic at best, since future AfD discussions are likely, and if the article is deleted, this information could be lost. Merging both articles into the protected Climate change article could preserve the information, in the most relevant location, until additional sources can be provided showing that this document, Manhattan declaration and the organization, International Climate Science Coalition have received more than trivial or editorial coverage. Both articles should be closed as Keep, and discussion should be moved to Proposed Mergers, WP:PM --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments for retention presented above. John254 16:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 16:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eusabio schmendrick[edit]

Most likely a hoax. The Bantu Wind was the ship in Indiana Jones. No g-hits on Eusabio schmendrick. Also, Schmendricks Law (snicker) seems to be not notable. No sources. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a hoax to me. Óðinn (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete bollocks and a poorly constructed hoax. No Ghits for alleged person or the "did you mean?" google throws up. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been said, it would appear to be a hoax, and a poorly done one at thatPstanton 07:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete IPNI has no record of a botanist by this name. What's more, the article mentions he's a botanist and then goes on to discuss his contributions to faunal observations. Don't think the "red mangrove" exists, either. Hoax. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schmendrick means fool or jerk in yiddish, (probably from the 1877 Shmendrik). Extremely rare as a name during this supposed person's life. Obvious hoax.John Z (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RiRi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rihanna's upcoming forth studio album

Speculation with no sources. Prod tag was previously removed. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous four AfDs, most recent one two weeks ago. The sources in this article aren't any more reliable than the previous ones. The only verifiable information we have is from [42] which says it's gonna be out "Next year, definitely. I'm back in the studio at the beginning of the year and i can't wait". Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. --Amalthea 16:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not needed. Completley based on rumors, and is acting more as a gossip thread than actual fact. And is also very poorly written. 11:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.178.15 (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jpgordon (CSD A1). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (Riverstone version)[edit]

The article is about another version of The Game (mind game). Versions of The Game (mind game) are unlikely to be notable enough for their own article. Matt (Talk) 05:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN version of a meme. Seems to have been madeup on the spot. It looks like a howto with page ownership problems (author gives out email address at end). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' I agree with Doc Strange, and would further like to point out that it appears someone removed the "delete" box at the top of the article. Pstanton 07:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete per A1 or something more approiate, otherwise Delete --Numyht (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute stupidity. JuJube (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Falls[edit]

Article tagged as unreferenced for a long time. Band has two albums on a non-notable label. They don't have any big tours, as far as I know, and there appears to be no significant, in-depth, independent coverage of them. They have my blessing, but they are not notable enough for inclusion in WP. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found nothing that shows their notability enough to warrant an article. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 06:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails notability requirement, doesn't even assert notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ajahn Thaniya[edit]

A (former) senior nun in an English monastery. No independent sources provided. User:Santutthijill says she ceased to be a nun a year ago (see reverted edit to the article, and message on my talk page), but there is no way to source this. I believe that notability was never adequately established, and there are inadequate reliable sources to sustain the article gadfium 05:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I see no notability either, and really, there is no assertion of it. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If you would like to confirm this, you can email her old monastery: | Chithurst and ask. But since Saranaloka supports these nuns and we list all of the senior nuns at Saranaloka Ajahns you can see that she is not there! It is hard to prove something that is not there.... but she was on this page prior to disrobing. (Sorry, I don't do this much.) Santutthijill (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This should be treated in the same way as an article on the pastor of a NN church. I suspect the article on her monastery ought to be nominated for AFD, but Buddhist institutions are rare in UK (like Buddhists). Neither this article, nor that on her monastery indicate that it is more than the equivalent of a church of (say) 100 or 500 people, whose articles we regularly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD A9). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...So Go The Dreams of the Rough and Tumble[edit]

Not notable album, by a not notable band: Martian Memo To God, and associated with a not notable musical artist: Mike Waller(musician OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per CSD9 [43]. No evidence of notability or significance of band, musicians, or music offered. JNW (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (by article author): Article(s) should not be deleted. This band has their MySpace and ARE a real band no matter what you think. [[User:Dabba A.A.]]
Well, if they have a MySpace page...Seriously, Delete. The band is unsigned, has received no significant coverage, and despite suggestions of widespread praise and airplay, I see no evidence of it. No one denies that the band exists and the CD was released; they are simply not notable. Oliver, are you going to nominate the band too? Drmies (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm rusty on the format for listing multiple articles, feel free to do it for me and I'll scope the edit for future reference. Cheers.~~ Done, that was fun. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD per A9; tagged as such. Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close article has already been deleted --Numyht (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Television in Turkey. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATA TV[edit]

Short article that hasn't been translated into English since being created a couple of weeks ago JaGa^talk 05:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the cognates, it looks to me that it is a Turkish television channel. It could be notable, but since no one feels like translating, delete it. Tavix (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub since licenced television stations are automatically notable. I added the unexciting English sentence "ATA TV is a television station in Turkey." so that the article is no longer entirely in Turkish and a reference to a political party buying commercials on the station. The corresponding article was deleted from the Turkish Wikipedia with the following comment: "06:37, 19 Aralık 2008 Levent Abi (Mesaj | Katkılar) "ATA TV" silindi ‎ (Madde 6 : Ansiklopedik olmayan kişi veya grup)" -- Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, licensed TV stations are presumed notable enough to start working on the article. The WP:NME essay explains these arguments; nothing is inherently notable. However, from looking through Lyngsat, it appears ATA TV is more than simply a local TV station; it is available on free-to-air satellite throughout Europe and the Near East. See Turksat 3A channel lineup,[44] and coverage map of west beam.[45] A channel that is internationally available on satellite sounds like something we ought to cover. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Redirect as suggested below. While I respect the opinion of those who want this article kept, since this article is in a foreign language and hasn't been translated despite being listed at WP:PNT for two weeks, I feel that it falls under the same rationale that led to the WP:BLANK policy being implemented. Sorry, that article had its chance. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:BLANK isn't a policy. I also disagree that the article has "had its chance"; two weeks is not a lot of time during the holidays. The only thing that should govern now is WP:TIND; there is no deadline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TIND is not a license to keep trash indefinitely. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I asked over at WP Television Stations and WP Turkey for help expanding the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - it's a new article (created Dec. 15) so I'm in favor of giving it another month or two, then if not translated by then, delete it. Redirect to Television in Turkey (dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)) It took me quite a while to do the translation on XHRAE-TV from the Spanish Wikipedia, and going through my own sources, again, translating from Spanish to English with the help of an online machine translator. The best case would have been if the author would have translated the article first, but I don't see why there is a rush to remove it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~*Redirect per Squidfryerchef's suggestion below. The rule at WP:PNT is that if it's hanging around after 2 weeks, it's put up for deletion. The 2-week deadline is there for a reason. -Yupik (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (modified -Yupik (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, and that's why it's here now: it has been 2 weeks. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted; it just goes through the AfD process, which is happening. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it doesn't stay in a non-English language after the two weeks; if it does, it doesn't belong here. In that case there's the option of transwiking it, too, but it definitely shouldn't be left in Turkish and left on the English wikipedia. A good solution is Squidfryerchef's solution below. -Yupik (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Television in Turkey list. It's already mentioned there, but we can add city, channel, and possibly satellite availiability based on primary sources. While I'm convinced we ought to cover this and more sources could be found, it's unlikely we're going to find enough for independent notability before the AFD is done. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Reddy Madareddi[edit]

I have found no evidence that an actor called Kishore Reddy Madare even exists. Of the two links provided in the article, one is a deadlink, and one links to an IMDB profile of a completely different actor. I am convinced, therefore, that the article is a hoax. Terrakyte (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly per nom. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Salih (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NoVomit (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Abecedare (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A9 Agathoclea (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silences Are Words[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC as a NN release. No charting, etc. roux 04:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jpgordon (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney M. Abinosa[edit]

Army does not list Abinosa on the list of Medal of Honor recipients for Vietnam [46], and I can't find any evidence that there was a General Rodney Abinosa. WP:HOAX. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also have not been able to find any evidence, outside of this Wikipedia article, that a General Rodney Abinosa ever existed. If this person does or did exist, and he received a Medal of Honor, there would be some mention of him somewhere outside of Wikipedia, as the Medal of Honor is the highest US military decoration. Therefore, I am completely convinced this article is a hoax. Of the two links provided in the article, one is a deadlink (which I will proceed to remove), and the other links to an article that does not mention Abinosa.Terrakyte (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nom indicates, this article appears to be a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Obviously a hoax. Only 9 Ghits for Rodney Abinosa, non of which support this article. [47] Edward321 (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh-Jamaican[edit]

Article is incoherent and unsourced. There seem to be no sources or references to establish the notability of this segment of the Jamaican population, and the article itself is low on factual, verifiable information, and presents a mish-mash of OR supported by POV statements and anecdotal evidence. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's nothing that's verifiably notable here. No evidence that the conjunction of these two ethnic groups has attracted attention. JJL (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced POV original research essay-like aritcle. There's a lot of "probably"'s, "likely"'s and "could"'s in this Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has some obvious POV issues and possible original research/essay. Tavix (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this essay. That said I know a few Welsh-Jamaicans and they are lovely people. Agathoclea (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like everyone said: it's unsourced, POV, and not notable. When will these non-important articles about small groups in a different country ever end? Lehoiberri (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeefo (computer virus)[edit]

I believe that the article does not pass WP:Notability, as I have been unable to find evidence that the virus has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (quoted from WP:N). I would be open to keeping the article, if the virus itself was particularly significant. However, viruslist describes it as a "non-dangerous memory resident parasitic Win32 virus" [48], which I believe suggests that the virus isn't anything extraordinary. Terrakyte (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its just another virus that infects Windows. Also, a substantial portion of the article seems to be a how to guide on how to remove an infection. Rilak (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not dangerous so no substantial effects and no significant coverage. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no deletion needed. Reformatting instead. Tavix (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Day[edit]

This is an unneeded disambiguation. I propose that this page be deleted and that Eagle Day (football player) be moved to the new page. The football player already has a hatnote at the top of the article just in case someone wants any of the other terms. The other two terms is a single episode from a TV show and a nickname for a battle, none of them has their own article. Moving the football player to Eagle Day also solves a disagreement over what the disambiguation qualifier should be as well. Tavix (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It might be useful, that nickname was for a battle which was very important, of more importance than that person, it is a historical nickname which is very notable. As for the TV show episode, it might help some people, in the least. This disambiguation page should be kept. --Know zilla 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hatnote on the football player's article, so there should be no problem finding the battle or the TV show... Tavix (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read what you said, however a disambiguation page may still be more helpful. Two quick examples would be: (1) A person may not spot that text if trying to find information fast when the article is moved. The hatnote may not be visible enough (especially to people with disabilities). (2) Search engines will show content from the article which is related to that person, if someone is searching for the battle, etc, they might think that Wikipedia doesn't have it. --Know zilla 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No? Let's break apart your "examples". For #1, "disabled" people would see a hatnote just as fine as a disambiguation. Its the same text size, same font, ect. Visually pleasing is not the purpose for disambiguations: they are meant to guide a person to the correct article when it is ambiguous, which the hatnote does perfectly well. For #2 however, if one searches on Google for Eagle Day Battle, Wikipedia links "Battle of Britain" as number 5. If one searches for simply "Eagle Day" the football player shows up, with the disambiguation page not even on the first page. I don't quite understand your logic from that one. Tavix (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this relisting; the five-day period is not yet up, and so should not have been relisted. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know it had to be every 5 days. Tavix (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how the encyclopedia is enhanced by deleting this admitedly obscure redirect. Un school 06:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain please? It isn't a redirect, but an unneeded disambiguation. Once deleted, Eagle Day (football player) will be moved to the new open article space. There is currently a hatnote on the football player's article just in case someone is looking for the battle or the TV episode. Tavix (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tavix, I miswrote that, I should have said "admitedly obscure dab page". Anyway, (and I don't speak from policy—because I'm unlearned in said area) I don't see how this hurts to have this page. With this dab page left extant, the worst thing that someone will happen to someone looking for the football player is that they'll have to make one additional click. Look, I don't feel strongly about this. I don't like the current note hatnote because when they involve the use of the #-sign, I think they confuse our casual visitors. What about this?

Move the current Eagle Day to Eagle Day (disambiguation)
Move Eagle Day (football player) to Eagle Day
At the top of the football player's article place this: {{otheruses4|the football player}}.

Would that work for you? I just don't want to delete the dab page, but at least this way you get the nice clean article title that I suspect you're looking for. What do you say? Un school 07:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see that working too. It still does what I'm trying to accomplish. The only problem I can see with it though is if someone is trying to get to the battle/episode, they need an extra click, but its not that major... In fact, I might as well do it right now. Tavix (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charazay[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, no major coverage, NN online game. roux 02:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Oroso (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure if it was bright-line clear-cut enough for speedy.. but by all means go ahead and request it! :) // roux 08:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney-Pixar Cars Die-Cast Line[edit]

Unnotable series of die cast cars. Fails WP:N, WP:PRODUCT, and WP:NOTCATALOG. The article is little more than a fan checklist for the cars, and completely unsourced (and unsourcable) except to other fansites. The toy line has not received significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. At best, a 1-2 sentence mention in the Cars article is all this topic needs.

I am also nominating the following related pages for all of the same reasons, it is another similar list of plastic instead of die cast cars:

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Page does not violate any part of WP:NOTCATALOG: It is not a "list of loosely associated topics". It is not a "genealogical" or "phonebook" entry. It is not meant for "conducting business". It is not a "sales catalog" or "price guide". It is not a "cross categorization". - RaptorWiki (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)— RaptorWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - - This was explained that it is because I have no time to edit other articles, and because I am knowledgeable on this subject. - RaptorWiki (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Agree with original poster. Fails WP:N- A casual search for press releases on Mattel's press release website returns 44 results (ranging through at least 2002 that I saw) that refer to "Pixar", "Disney", or a combination of the two. Not one of those mentions "diecast". Similarly, no Google News articles for "mattel pixar diecast" beyond the Sarge recall (already covered in Cars. SpikeJones (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with User:RaptorWiki. Article is not just a fan checklist, it is a well appreciated Wikipedia article. Lightning Storm McQueen (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)— Lightning Storm McQueen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Existance is not notability. Yes, they exist. However, independent reliable sources have not seen fit to provied the level of coverage needed for an article here. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not just represent a fan checklist. It (The Diecast line) in a very popular series in stores. Hot Wheels, Matchbox, and most other product lines have a page here. Why should this line not have one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.173.104 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible IP editing by Lightningleakless (talk · contribs), who vandalized this AfD and went on a personal attack spree around here, the article talk pages, and on his own talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation and extremely unlikely considering the IP address of 68.82.173.104 routes to Delaware, while Lightningleakless (talk · contribs)'s last known IP of 67.150.142.244 routes to California, with only a few hours between posts. - RaptorWiki (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - If it is a "very popular series" or not is immaterial. It does not have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Hot Wheels, Matchbox, etc. do. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have flagged Lightningleakless (talk · contribs) as having an apparent COI on this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur that the article does not meet WP:N. There are simply not enough third party sources out there presently. Perhaps in the future. However I do disagree with the reasoning of failure to meet WP:NOTCATALOG. I also believe that it fails WP:PRODUCT, but only as a result of failing WP:N, which is a criterion for WP:PRODUCT. - RaptorWiki (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you changed your view, you need to strike out your first one using the <s></s> tags. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft without reliable sources. Duplicates content better served at a fan site. Whoville (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song)[edit]

Violates WP:NSONGS. Uncharted, not covered by multiple artists, has not received any awards. I've attempted redirects, which have been reverted by editors that lack respect for our notability guidelines. Deletion seems to be the only recourse. —Kww(talk) 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shut the fuck up. its her next single from a her first disc. so no shit it should get a page... ughh fucking morons!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.115.107 (talk • contribs)

Delete: notability of song not established. WP:NSONGS JamesBurns (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Locked Redirect back to I Am...Sasha Fierce. This song has not been released or charted, and the first commenter would be kind to be civil to the nominator. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be a crystal, but this is confirmed (source iTunes) and per WP:NSONGS, a single from a notable article is, in turn, notable. Tavix (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can read NSONGS that way in respect to albums, but it doesn't say that about singles.—Kww(talk) 13:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Am...Sasha Fierce, per WP:NSONGS.Oroso (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possibly locked (excluding talk page) until the song charts. This will be released as a single; music video is already out. --Efe (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video has been released and the song has been confirmed as an official single (see iTunes and Knowles' official website --> beyonceonline.com). It is available for purchase and has charted in the iTunes Video Chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.169.151 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But not on the Billboard Hot 100. That's what matters for notability here, not a purchase tracking list. Nate • (chatter) 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Diva (Beyoncé Knowles song) as a joint single page. If it is plausible of course. Ratizi1 (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The singles were released simultaneously but are seperate singles and therefore (in my opinion) should not be merged. If you do that you'd have to merge If I Were A Boy and Single Ladies aswell which is pretty pointless because they both have/will chart seperately, not as a double single. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.169.151 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Should not be merged. These two songs are separate singles. --Efe (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyonce is one of the most famous singers in the world, and the song was written by very notable writers. It is out in a few weeks anyway, so the page would be remade. The music video has been released and it has radio play. There are citations for verifications aswell, with reliable sources.Mohsin12345 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notability of the song does not depends on the notability of the singer. --Efe (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album until the song starts charting significantly. AcroX 23:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the page should be kept. Tarysky (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page should be kept as is, because the single is to be released in a couple of weeks, so to delete it and to remake it would be pointless. If the official cover-art is out on a song, than a page should be up. Diva and Halo were released together so if Diva's page is allowed up than so should Halo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.178.15 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NSONGS. AcroX 22:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with all the keeps. The video was officially released on iTunes a couple weeks ago so a single verification is already done. Why delete all the information right now only to try and replace it in a couple more weeks when the single is officially released to mainstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.178.15 (talk) 1:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment That is speculation and it falls under WP:CRYSTAL. anyway, the info in the article will not be deleted. It will remain in the history and once the single charts, it will be used again. --Efe (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I'm going to agree with the above IP and say I'm willing to make an exception with this page. It's pointless to redirect or delete the page, since it will chart shortly. "Diva" and "Halo" are released together, almost in the A side, B side format, and if one goes, then the other song lacks context. Knowles releases two songs at a time to show her dual personality, and the two complement (compliment) each other. It makes no sense to keep only one. Orane (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been announced as her next single (check the official website) and the video has already been released and has charted at a peak of number 4 on the iTunes Music Video chart! Wneedham02 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The iTunes charts are listed on WP:BADCHARTS, and should not be viewed as qualifying as "charts" in order to satisfy WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CRYSTAL states:

All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. check
It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. check.

It is a certainty that the song will chart spectacularly. Come on. It's Beyonce. Everything she releases goes to at least top 10.

WP:CRYSTAL in no way deters this article from remaining. Orane (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It is a certainty that the song will chart spectacularly. Come on. It's Beyonce. Everything she releases goes to at least top 10." looks like Crystal Balling in itself. We don't know that the song will chart highly at all. I don't doubt Beyonce's talent, but we can't just go around predicting that everything she does will be a magical hit song. That's why I voted for a redirect to the album until the song at least impacts music charts in some way. AcroX 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The policies state "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Isn't it almost certain that the song will chart spectacularly? To "chart spectacularly" doesn't necessarily mean that it will reach number one. Notability isn't necessarily about success. The "Halo" article is about the release of a song from the decade's most bankable and commercially successful artist (she has the most number one this decade). It will be notable to cover the song at some point. If it's supposed to be released officially in a few weeks (and has already been released digitally and a video has already been made, and the "B side" has already charted), then why delete it or redirect it? Orane (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The song is released in January, it will chart in January, and tomorrow is January. There's no point in redirecting/deleting the article. As someone has already pointed out, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." - I will chop off and give you my right arm if it doesn't make the Top 10 in the US & the UK and multiple other countries. I'm not saying that everything she does is a magical hit song, but the fact that it charted in the top 10 videos on itunes within the hour of its release (and i know itunes is not of importance here but come on) shows that there is high interest with this song! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.169.151 (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freesexuality[edit]

Neologism + original research = deletion. CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--esp. the OR tendencies of this article go too far. References given are to things and concepts that underlie the term that is the subject of the article, not to the subject itself. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom. Unremarkable neologism. roux 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. JJL (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When the reference from the definition is from Urban Dictionary, you are dealing with a neologism. Tavix (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OR and WP:NEO Matt (Talk) 05:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oddly, I have the impression that the other really believes in this, and considers it notable. But the point is that very few people care about the odd opinions on sexuality some few have. Pstanton 07:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Merge into Free love which covers many such ideas. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NEO.Oroso (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR. NoVomit (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is all covered by free love and pansexuality. Rob T Firefly (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Free Love per above. This might be going the way of WP:SNOW CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 20:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to pansexuality, which shares the same definition, but is more widely used and has a better article. --Alynna (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultritalo[edit]

Musical neologism. Author admits in the page text that the term is of their own creation. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and vanity. JJL (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--for OR and vanity indeed. On a related note, this is so not well written that it hurts my head. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As obvious OR for which no reliable sources exist (only 5 google hits). Wickethewok (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Made up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nicholas May[edit]

Local councillor and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate does not seem enough notability for a politician to be automatically included. Membership of a council "cabinet" comes closer but possibly not far enough. No references. PROD removed by author. DanielRigal (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guy's a member of the city council--there's millions of those. I cite from WP:Notability (people): "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability," and subject has not been covered in significant independent reporting. Delete, therefore. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say he probably edges past the notability threshold, but as far as I can tell (even after some archive searching), no reliable sources exist that could be used to make this a verifiable article. --Delirium (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Oroso (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mollom[edit]

No assertion of notability made. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of non-notability made either. It would be nice if you expanded on that reasoning, especially explaining if and how you have attempted to investigate this topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a description of non notable product, bordering on spam. None of the references provided in the article are independent. A search returns nothing that could constitute an independent reliable source. Nuttah (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Mollom web service has recently been reviewed in several print publications (http://www.datanews.be/nl/news/90-112-21395/mollom-beschermt-internet-tegen-rommel.html) and independent websites like CMSWatch (http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1272-Drupal,-Mollom,-and-the-Future-of-Blog-Spam). In the case of the Dutch article in Datanews, the article was published after the Mollom Wikipedia entry was created. I'll edit the page to include additional references to these independent, reliable sources. I argue that the article should be edited to include additional references, rather than deleted. -Keith.smith (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete--though the original author has added a few references, none of them are in fact so independent and in-depth as to establish notability for the subject. This may well change in the next few months, but it's not there yet. The Datanews article is on their website (not from their print newsletter/magazine), and isn't really an article (or even a review) as much as it is a notification. The CMS thing is borderline for me, since that site is really a blog, and the article spends only three paragraphs on Mollom (again, a notification more than a review, since the author doesn't really know the program yet: "It's hard to know, at this point.") Finally, TechCrunch is a blog also, and like the other references, this is a notification. In other words, the sources established that the product exists and that it is being tested, not that it is notable (certainly not according to WP:N. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Oroso (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think the Datanews article is nearly enough to satisfy WP:N, but not quite. The other sources aren't reliable or independent enough. Epbr123 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've included a reference to an article in Jobat, a Belgian employment website with a weekly print magazine written in Dutch. The article (scanned images available at http://buytaert.net/files/jobat08-interview.pdf) is primarily an interview of Dries Buytaert, but devotes an inset to Mollom on page two. Keith.smith (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will simply note that I arrived at this page hoping to learn something about Mollom, and I did. To me, that makes it a useful article. Mcherm —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Rising Sun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article completely lacks reliable secondary sources, and I have been unable to find any. Dendlai (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite a well-known international camp, as the list of alumni would indicate. (In checking for refs, in Google News, [49] there are other camps with the same name--thus my search string.) But the following two should be sufficient to show notability: in the NY Times (a tribute to the founder), and The Christian Science Monitor. Plus [50]. & a number of refs to non-US newspapers from various countries that sent one or more campers & considered it notable. (There is COI: I went there myself.) DGG (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I can't read most of the refs provided, since they require payment, so I can't comment on their reliability. I'd say it seems like a small number of hits for a camp claiming huge notability, and many of them seems quite trivial. If somebody who could read them would comment, it'd be appreciated. Dendlai (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong indications of notability. Needs better references and I see DGG has uncovered some. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fore school of management[edit]

It was said in the article it is a B School, and the only link is the official website. Is this article really notable? LAA Fan^sign _review 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'B School' is shorthand for business school; not a second rate institution compared to an 'A School' :-) TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't look notable to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable third party sources are uncovered. While the Google test has issues, the fact that a search doesn't bring forward anything other than directory listings and the official site on the first several pages does not suggest that those sources will be easily found. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - post-graduate degree-awarding institutions are notable. However, as can be seen here, there are sources attesting to the notability that meets WP:ORG. This page needs a clean not deletion. Indian institutions cannot be expected to have the same depth of coverage on the web as those in anglosphere do, and we need to avoid systemic bias and look for local sources. I would add that this was nominated two minutes after editing finished, which is unacceptable. I should like to hear from the nominator how he/she carried out the WP:BEFORE processes in that time? TerriersFan (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A degree granting college of higher education always gets an article, if existence can be demonstrated. The present article is not spammy. "doesn't look notable to me": is a non-argument. And there seem to be clear sources for ntability. It is well to put them in when writing, but also to search before nominating for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As TerriersFan indicates, postgraduate degree-awarding institutions are notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is notable. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivian Brazilian[edit]

100,000 of 190,000,000 people in Brazil - not significant. Punkmorten (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Deletion-Brazilian~~ Since Jmundo is working on improvements, I'd prefer to wait to see what comes of it. The article is premised on nothing more than a sentence from this source [51]. Apparently, this is going to be one of lots of articles entitled __________ian Brazilian with no content. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another Fooian Barian ethnicity article with no real content. At least there is a source this time, although just a single sentence does not seem to warrant an article. I note that the number of Bolivian Brazilians is not the basis for me to support deletion; rather, it's the lack of sources to establish the notability of this ethnic group. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my recommendation to neutral in recognition of the effort that is now being put into the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Bolivian legal and illegal immigration to Brazil is a notable subject in South America. An newspaper article describe the situation: "in Argentina and Brazil those who oppose the legalization argue that most Bolivians will leave their country and grow the operation." Another article deals with the subject, "the governments of Bolivia and Brazil have begun to develop an agreement to regularize the situation of several thousand undocumented Bolivian immigrants in Brazil, informed diplomatic sources". Yes, the sources are "foreign", but WP:bias says that "that "availability of sources is not uniform". You always can use translate.google.com. --Jmundo (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Jmundo's identification of sources. One of them has the headline "Like the United States, Argentina and Brazil Deal With Immigrants" (EEUU is the abbreviation for "Estados Unidos"), and notes the influx of thousands illegal workers; the other one is more specific to Brazil, concerning meetings between the Governor of Mato Grosso and the President of Bolivia. Definitely on the right track. Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 100,000 is actually a fairly large size as far as migrant groups go, and I'd be surprised if a group of that size hadn't been written about at all by journalists, scholars, government reports, etc. --- and User:Jmundo has actually found some such sources. Foreign language sources are perfectly fine --- the general notability guideline cares about the amount of information which has been written about a topic, not the language that information is written in. Also, not a deletion issue, but I don't see evidence that this group are actually called "Bolivian Brazilians" --- the article should probably be moved ("Bolivians in Brazil", "Bolivian migrants in Brazil", or some similar title). cab (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep from me too as it looks like some sources have been found that could establish notability. I suggest moving the page to Bolivians in Brazil though, to avoid using a neologism. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I moved the page content to Bolivians in Brazil. "Bolivian Brazilian" is a neologism not found in the Spanish or Portuguese language. --Jmundo (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You copy-pasted the content rather than moving it in the normal fashion. Can the closing admin please perform a history merge between Bolivian Brazilian and Bolivians in Brazil (the newly created article by JMundo)? Thanks, cab (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Bolivian-brasileiro" is not portuguese (neither Brazilian nor European). Is Bolivian an ethnic group or a nationality? I mean IMHO there are several different indigenous groups which originated several nations in South America (and most are mixed of European people too). It is impossible to say that Argentinean, Peruvian, Colombian, etc are ethnic groups when they are in fact nationalities. Descíclope (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And so what, exactly? The article discusses the migration of Bolivian nationals to Brazil. Bolivian nationals are quite a well-defined group (anyone with a Bolivian passport), and Brazil is quite a well-defined unit of territory. This is either a notable topic or a non-notable one, depending on your assessment of the available sources. Whether the migrants are one ethnic group, or two, or a mish-mash, has nothing to do with this deletion debate. cab (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to be a term that is in widespread use to describe a group of people (per Google web/Books/Scholar). JJL (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the discussion above, the article content has been moved to Bolivians in Brazil, and we're waiting for a history merge. WP:NEO alone is generally not considered a reason to delete an article. cab (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment what makes Bolivians in Brazil notable? JJL (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The references. cab (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The more than 200,000 Bolivians working illegally in the country.--Jmundo (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bolivians in Brazil. This one is pretty obvious: They both have almost identical information. Tavix (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a bogus copy-and-paste "move" by Jmundo, which I've now fixed (by doing a real move). Please re-address the article under discussion. That it duplicated a copy of itself that was made during this AFD discussion isn't really a rationale for doing anything (except for fixing the situation so that GFDL compliance is once more restored ☺). Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I'm learning here, my intentions were in good faith. --Jmundo (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of national parks of Dominica[edit]

AfDs for this article:

List of three parks, one being a redlink. A category (or a merge into Dominica) would be superior. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect somewhere. Punkmorten (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't redlinks supposed to be good? ZombiesOfRock (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete this all the countries next door will be like "HAHA you only have three national parks, no list for you". ZombiesOfRock (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. We will admonish those countries to be civil, and if they persist, we will not let them play with the other countries. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems perfectly reasonable. I just wish Stifle would've been bold and just done it. Categorization and merging don't require deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of other countries seem to have lists like this, but I wouldn't object to a merge into a new List of national parks in the Lesser Antilles, along the lines of List of national parks in the Baltics. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Lists such as these are notable and three is more than enough to suffice. Simply needs expanding. --Balloholic (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sounds like a plan to me. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just filled in the third redlink (for Morne Diablotin National Park), which cancels one of the reasons for this AfD being put forward. The article is capable of standing on its own -- and it could actually be expanded, if someone wanted to put forth the time to do as much. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can't see a valid reason to delete. This list follows the precedent of "list of national parks in [country]," e.g. list of national parks in Egypt. Categories and lists are supposed to be two venues of conveying the same information, and neither is superior to the other. I can clean up the list if that is objectionable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now the article contains more than just a blanket list, it provides info a category can't. This and the no-longer-redlinks invalidate the reasoning provided by the nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Just because Dominica is a small island with few parks it doesn't mean is not notable for inclusion.--Jmundo (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly appropriate list, as with other countries DGG (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod. To date, there's not enough to satisfy WP:BAND so fails notability requirements. The sole independent coverage is a blog, and the content of that falls a long way short of any real substance. Nuttah (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not-notable. Perhaps if truly independent, secondary sources can be found, I'd reconsider, but blogs and MySpace are not reliable sources. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the independent coverage included is a blog, yes, but it is independent and reliable. It is an EJ blog from Oustage.com, which is a major independent music website. According to the criteria of notability for bands, "This criterion includes published works in all forms" "except for the following:

-Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[footnotes 3]

-Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

-An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."

Clearly the ourstage resource does not include any of these excluded examples, therefore I fail to see how it does not qualify.

I do have a question about another form of notability: "#11" - has been placed in rotation on major radio. Must this constitute a certain amount of radioplay? The subject has been played on BBC radio. I don't know if that counts as criteria.

Finally, (possibly a longshot) the subject's father is a major, Juno-winning, recording engineer. As this is a major project of his, does it not constitute as noteworthy?

thanks for your time, Midnightrambler21 (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--even if that Ourstage blog were independent, providing significant in-depth coverage. But since the 'article' in question refers to the subject only in one single paragraph (and there's a significant rub, Midnightrambler), it does not suffice. Then, there is no deal with a significant record company, no other coverage, and, finally, notability is not inheritable. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. Even if the article and videoblog is not deemed significant enough, I'd still like to hear back about the BBC thing, since only one criteria has to be accepted for the article to remain. Also, I didn't mean that the notability would be inheritable; I meant that since Gary Gray is a notable Canadian recording engineer, and Daniel Gray's music is one of his projects - meaning that he produces, records and mixes Daniel's music - would it not be considered of note as a major project of Gary's, since he's so involved with the project?

If it is deleted though, I'll simply add it again with more info once there is more coverage. Obvioiusly there's not a whole lot yet because he's so new.

thanks again, 70.24.139.156 (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rambler--sorry, I indented your paragraphs for clarity. As for the song and airplay, well, it really needs to chart to establish some notability. Sure, airplay for an independent artist is much more meaningful than airplay for, you know, famous old rockers like you and me, but simply being played is not enough, IMO, to satisfy the music criteria. As for the guy's father, his notability would allow perhaps a subsection on the son on the father's page (if he had one), but it doesn't really work the other way around, I don't think. But good luck to him, and to you--and yeah, keep it someplace safe, and when Gray hits the big time, you'll be the first one to have the article ready... thanks, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Oroso (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to St Paul's, Covent Garden. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra of St Paul's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Orchestra of St Paul's

Contested prod on the basis that the band are 'famous'. Unfortunately no one has provided independent sources to establish notability and a search provides no coverage either. Based on that this ensemble fails WP:MUSIC. Nuttah (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC StonerDude420 (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable orchestra. Badagnani (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, if they really were famous I think it would be easier to find independent sources. Pulsaro (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't see this passing WP:MUSIC. Tavix (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources, non-notable WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St Paul's, Covent Garden. No need to lose the content, it will fit nicely there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Insufficient notability for stand-alone article. I merged, but have not redirected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Either the edit history should be retained, or the merge should be undone. We can't delete the history of merged edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm, not convinced by a merge. Looking at the church website the only connection between the two is that the orchestra rents the church as a venue. If we're going to start merging every non notable ensemble to a notable venue just because there is a commercial agreement between them we're going to end up with some mighty long articles. Nuttah (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

League of All Worlds[edit]

Seems to me this could be merged into the appropriate book(s) or universe article. There are no references (beyond the primary source, I assume). --smurdah (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current contents of Hainish Cycle contain sufficient information, no merge necessary.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the information is already included there's no need for a merge. This subject is not notable apart from the parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the original author of the article. I created it because the Hainish Cycle is way too long to add any new information to. Also the League of All Worlds and the successor Ekumen (which right now redirects back to Hainish Cycle are a very large subject spread over many books, and I am of the opinion that it definitely deserves an article of its own. The current article is just an inkling which can/should be further developed. I don't see any good reason for deleting it. Capricornis (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as important in the works, but then discuss on the talk page whether it could be integrated in the main article. I think it could be placed appropriately in the introductory section of the main article, and is not so long as to make difficulties, but the details of how to write (and subdivide and merge) articles are best discussed elsewhere. DGG (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant article and not notable as a fictional alliance. Tavix (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google book search shows that "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." WP:BK--Jmundo (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those sources are about this subject, but simply mention this subject in a discussion of the book. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sources do not have to be primarily about the subject of the article. proposals to that effect have been repeatedly and decisively rejected by the community. 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources to establish facts in the article are one thing, but this is a deletion discussion about notability. If it hasn't been covered substantially in reliable independent sources, what is the basis for notability? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor Blackadder characters. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Miggins[edit]

This article is just non-notable fancruft of a minor character. Tavix (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of minor Blackadder characters. Lugnuts (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of minor Blackadder characters since there's referenced material available.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different Girls[edit]

The artist may be notable -- I haven't looked into it yet -- but the song itself does not meet notability requirements in Wikipedia:Notability_(music). --smurdah (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article on artist - per WP:MUSIC // roux 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nu Jerzey Devil as nothing worth merging for this song which fails WP:NSONGS. --JD554 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Transformers: Generation 1. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alana[edit]

Unnotable transformer character who only appeared on one episode. The whole article is original research and is fancruft. Tavix (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and decide how to merge. Probably not appropriate for a separate article; how much content should be merged can be discussed better on the talk page. "Fancruft" as a argument is exactly equivalent to IDONTLIKEIT. Plain description of characters and plot is not OR. DGG (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the complete absence of independent coverage amounts to a failure of WP:FICT. Nuttah (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No direct and detailed examination by multiple independent sources. Fails WP:N.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge per DGG's logic. a character on a notable show should at least have some mention here. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything someone would want to know on her is already found at The Transformers (animated series) characters Tavix (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes The Transformers (animated series) characters the perfect redirect target. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Tavix (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but if you agree there's a god redirect target, why are you nominating for delete? A redirect is a keep. DGG (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, a redirect is a delete as the only thing that is retained is a link to another article. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Instead of nominating articles for deletion, maybe suggest merges and the fans of the articles who work on them might have less objections. Mathewignash (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A merger discussion may have been a wiser approach. This ongoing effort to simply delete all fictional content as fancruft is tiresome and a drain. Obviously our readers want this content so we would be wise to present it encyclopedicly, deleting isn't helping here. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here. I work hard top keep the fan-fiction and theories out of the Transformers articles I monitor. People are always making up fake episodes, or writing their own fan theories in articles. I make sure that only facts are present in the articles, like the article on Terranotron, where someone had added their fan-made origin to the character, and kept putting it in every time I deleted it! I worked hard to get it corrected, and add references to all the real facts. Then after I was done, someone went and nominated the fixed article for deletion as "fancruft"! I had worked hard to make a factual article out of one that was messed up, and then the surviving material got deleted anyways. It's very discouraging to work on improving an article only to get someone who doesn't like a subject get it deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no notability asserted by significant coverage in sources independent of the topic. Entire article is unsourced plot summary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Knight III[edit]

Not clear what his claim to notability is. That he had a short commentary included in an anthology is the only noteworthy item in the article and there is nothing special about this accomplishment. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable author. He has done way more than what the article claims, and the article has room for expansion. Tavix 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: A Google Books search brings up 671 books either by him or mentions him. That is enough to establish notability for sure. Tavix (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Sanity check Only one of the entries on the first page from Google Books refers to him. Did you notice many of them were published in the previous century? Do you suppose he's the "George W. Knight" referenced in the book on Polymer Chemistry? Please, let's have some minimal level of attention before posting random Google links. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, didn't look that closely. Adding "George W. Knight III" still leaves 110 entries, which after a check, they all look to from/about this George W. Knight. Tavix (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seems reasonable, but I simply don't know how to interpret this number. Please don't interpret this the wrong way, but if I search for myself on Google Books, I have far, far more references. This is not a comparative statement; it is merely an acknowledgment that I don't know what these kinds of results imply. If this fellow is notable, let's find reliable sources that make this claim, rather than trying to guess what the results of Google Books mean.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it means is there are 110 books that either mention George W. Knight or are by him. I looked through every page, and given his name and his field, all of the books are this guy. Searching for yourself on Google Books obviously wouldn't reference you, but there are other people that share your name (unless you actually are an author). You could use any of the books as an example, but being referenced in over 100 books is a pretty notable task, which not many people can say. Tavix (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name is fairly unique and I am indeed referenced in far more than 110 books according to Google Books. This is perhaps not as unusual as you might think for academics, philosophers, theologians, etc. That is my sole point. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is beside the point. How many other people would have the name "George W. Knight III". According to my research, it would be zero. There may be some other "George W. Knight"s as you have proved, but having an ambiguous name or not says nothing.Tavix (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This line of discussion is becoming unproductive. 100 references in the literature of his field is not particularly impressive. How are you determining your threshold for notability? (Rhetorical question there...) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC);[reply]

I'm not using a number, but instead I provided a source where one can find hundreds of notable, reliable sources for proving Mr. Knight's notability. Tavix 06:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

110 does not equal hundreds. And I do think you are missing my point.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but 110 > 100, so you can make it plural. You better explain you point more clearly then, because all your accusing me of doing is using a number to prove notability, when in actuality, I am providing a source where one could find information for finding notability. Tavix (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't establish Notability. Oroso (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the numerous hits found by Tavix's booksearch. Edward321 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, does anyone else want more proof of notability? You can try here, which is an example of one of his works. Tavix (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question What on earth does an essay on a random website demonstrate? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read? Tavix (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of reading, I'll suggest you study WP:Civil. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 02:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, maybe you can actually read the source I have provided you and maybe you can answer your own question. CLICK HERE Tavix (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I assume good faith when you are being nasty? Let's end this line of discussion. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to end it because you are accusing me of being something I am not. It was a good faith comment to try and get you to read the source I have provided and hopefully it would answer the question you asked. I would like to ask you to be civil as well, please. I am really not trying to be nasty, okay? Tavix (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with RandomHumanoid here. This example is really inane. We are looking for reliably published third-party sources for his notability, not unreliably-published web page examples of his own writing. Even if seeing his writing were supposed to provide us with personal epiphanies of his greatness (which it completely doesn't for me), that's not the way we judge notability here. Instead, provide evidence based on WP:BIO or WP:PROF, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an example of his work. Tavix (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now! - This is the kind of author I'd never read unless forced or paid a decent sum, but... he's all over the place. He's sold at online Christian bookstores, reviews books and has had his own books reviewed. He's a known author. Now, there's the problem of notability still, in that lots of authors are "sort of" known, "famous" within a small community but utterly unknown and unimportant everywhere else. So the matter of coverage is still an issue here.Jlg4104 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Book: The Pastoral Epistles; Worldcat entries: 416. My subjective threshold for notability based on Worldcat entries is 300. I believe this is enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Knox is a major well-recognized theological seminary, and a full professor there is notable. But Eric, the threshold depends upon the subject--in many esoteric fields, or fields not covered by american libraries, it doesn't need anywhere like that.--not that this affects the matter here, for theology is just the sort of field where we would accept less. The point is not the publication as such, but that the publication of such a widely read book in combination with the academic position shows him to be accepted as an authority in his field. DGG (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, we are in full agreement. I just try to highlight one key point to support my keep recommendation, to facilitate the work of the admin closing the AFD.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, where on earth is it written that a full professor anywhere is sufficient for satisfying WP:Prof? Certainly not within the policy itself. In fact, it would seem to indicate exactly the opposite.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 03:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full professors are not necessarily notable. Full professors in major research universities are, for they will always have done sufficient work to be recognized by their peers as having achieved distinction; it implies the status of being an authority in one field, and is necessarily notable. The recognition by passing the successive peer reviews internal and external that are required for such status are much more stringent as well as more objective than anything we inexpert people here can provide. The standard of being an authority in ones field is set by the people in the field. Knox is not a research university in a broader sense, but a specialized one, and within its subject it is a comparable level. Reading the talk page at WP:PROF, I see there is a recent trend to accept associate professors also as having reached the point of being considered an authority in their field. I am not necessarily prepared to go that far, but i think there might be a good reason for it. DGG (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eric Yurken. John254 16:31, 1 January 2009 (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]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital lifetime storage[edit]

Student essay. In an e-mail, the author tells me: "I'm doing it for one of my University subjects related to Audio-Visual Communications". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author's reply: As I told you, I created this article as homework for one of my University subjects, but that doesn't mean it is exactly an essay. In fact, the purpose was to create a new article about any (audio-visual) technological aspect around Gordon Bell's life.

I made a lot of research about this topic, and I tried to summarize and simplify the "lifetime storage" concept as much as I could, so anybody could get the idea. This "lifetime storage" concept (sometimes called "personal lifetime storage") did already exist, as it can be seen on my "external links" websites and on many others (usually the ones related to Gordon Bell/MyLifeBits), but I thought it was more accurate to call it "digital lifetime storage", since every piece of information must be digitized before it is stored. Perhaps it could be renamed and called "Personal lifetime storage" or just "Lifetime storage".

Besides that, I've just linked a few related articles to mine and added some computing categories.

Enoah

Delete WP:OR StonerDude420 (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An original research essay. Tavix (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--no matter what the author says, this is OR, it is not encyclopedic. The 'references' don't help. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:OR Matt (Talk) 05:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Discussion of a possible merge can continue on the articles talk page, but no consensus on that issue is apparent below. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanosaurus (Godzilla)[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Terror of Mechagodzilla through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Terror of Mechagodzilla, (pity there's no "list of Godzilla monsters", or is there?). Wow there's a few of these Godzilla AFDs, this article is entirely made up of Original Research, if you "trimmed/improved" all the Original Research you'd have one line left. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Godzilla characters as there is no independent notability outside the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as above, whichever is more appropriate. There's no real world notability asserted here and only one (arguably) non-primary source. Cheers, CP 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Terror of Mechagodzilla. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terror of Mechagodzilla. There probably is some room for expansion, since there are plenty of kaiju magazines that could be used as sources, but the monster only appears in one movie, so we might as well discuss it in the movie article. Zagalejo^^^ 03:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably merge to an appropriate list. None of the deletion reasons hold for merged content. Description is not OR. If we need the list article made, make it & hope it wont be nominated itself. DGG (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is your !vote a "keep" or "merge" then? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is a keep. The merge should then be discussed at the appropriate place, which in this case, is probably a project talk page. DGG (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But just to confirm, after it's "kept" you'd wanna "merge" it? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While DGG certainly can answer for himself, based on what he's said in other discussions, (and what I am saying below) is that the purpose of this discussion really is to see whether there is consensus to delete the article. The issue of what to do with the article once kept is a normal editorial decision, and probably requires a better discussion than it can receive in five days here. This is especially true when there are a series of related articles nominated, and a comprehensive approach to all the articles is appropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a list of monsters from the films; I understand that such a list would need to be created. As always, this is subject to change by normal editorial consensus after the afd. Insufficient notability for a standalone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real giant monster. ZombiesOfRock (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I gotta agree with DGG. It's a weak article, but not one deserving of summary deletion. it would be better to create a list of Minor toho Kaiju and put the content there.--Marhawkman (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur. I appreciate removing harmful material but this is not that. A series of AfD's? This really does seem draining on the community to essentially turn the project into a battlefield when more thoughtful organizing of content would benefit all concerned. Also here are several sources that may help this article. -- Banjeboi 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Godzilla vs. Biollante. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biollante[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of Godzilla vs. Biollante through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Godzilla vs. Biollante, (pity there's no "list of Godzilla monsters", or is there?). Wow there's a few of these Godzilla AFDs, this article is entirely made up of Original Research, if you "trimmed/improved" all the Original Research you'd have one line left. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Godzilla characters as there is no independent notability outside the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as above, whichever is more appropriate. There's no real world notability asserted here and no non-primary sources cited. Cheers, CP 04:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Godzilla vs. Biollante. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Godzilla vs. Biollante, following my rationale at the Godzilla AFDs preceding this one. Zagalejo^^^ 03:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably merge to an appropriate list. None of the deletion reasons hold for merged content. Description is not OR. If we need the list article made, make it & hope it wont be nominated itself. DGG (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is your !vote a "keep" or "merge" then? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a "Keep" and continue discussion of a merge at another better forum. An AfD close as "Keep" does not mean keep unchanged for all time, but rather, do not delete and improve article by normal editorial methods, which can include merging or even redirecting if appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a merge to me. Once an article's been merged to "an appropriate list", it'll then be redirected. His vote seems a duplicate of Schmidt's suggestion, but as he's not replied I can only speculate. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. We needn't be in a rush to delete this. Here's quite a few sources that might help this article. -- Banjeboi 14:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow. Mind-boggling. The Godzilla editors are sloppy, so we delete all articles related to one of the biggest movie franchises in history? The cultural arrogance on display is breath-taking. Fortunately my enthusiasm for Wikipedia has eroded so much due to the increase of this sort of thing, that I don't really care whether it does get deleted or not. But if anyone really cares, here is one, no, make that two or, would that be three? individual print items on Biollante. Although, I suppose we're going through wiping out Mothra, King Gidora, Rodan, King Kong (oh, wait, there are English sources on him-- Keep him), and the whole mythology because there are no individual works on the characters in English... And everything's printed, in English, right? Well, if it's not, it's not "notable". Dekkappai (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those who cannot read Japanese, could you describe exactly what kinds of sources those are? (I'm not really disputing Biollante's notability. I just don't think there's much to say about the monster that we couldn't put in the Godzilla vs. Biollante article.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love Dekkappai's use of the strawman argument, ranting about Mothra etc lol. Although I also cannot read those sources, I seriously doubt that those 3 products (probably movie merchandise) establish Biollante's notability outside of the film. Banjiboi's sources merely prove the notability of the film. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Godzilla vs. Biollante per above arguments. Epbr123 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per recent Godzilla creature articles. Unless there is significant real-world context (more RWC than plot), then this doesn't merit an independent article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There is no need for an article for the monster herself. Casecrazy (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Sizing[edit]

Unsalvageable POV essay on non-notable neologism. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't know if I'd call this a neologism, but it's certainly part of a personal essay. The 'Articles about vote sizing' are all blogs and such, and the most notable of those articles (the last one) is an op-ed in Dissident Voice by the inventor of the term. Google Books has nothing, and if the term is notable enough, that's where it should have turned up. Right now, it's an invention of sorts with no notability. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not DeleteChuck Gregory (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC) I beg to differ with you. The content is certainly not a personal essay, nor is it about a specific point of view; in fact, I attempted to point out the flaws in the theory just as much as its advantages. I'm not sure if it qualifies as a neologism--that seems a valid criticism. There are a number of universities considering the inclusion of vote sizing as part of courses on voting systems. I notice that the Glickman biography is also marked for deletion, yet the guy is out there in public promoting his idea not only in politics but in a business venture. What does it take for him to be considered 'notable'? I believe that Wikipedia has become too restrictive in topic selection, probably in defense against criticism of its accuracy. I believe that the policies about accuracy, properly cited sources, and non-copyrighted materials are absolutely correct and necessary. I agree that notability must be a criterion for articles included here, but we must be more flexible in that area. The vote sizing movement may turn out to be a flash in the pan--but if it is not, then isn't it important that Wikipedia have an entry about it? It is better to have too much information included in the encyclopedia rather than too little. Sorry to go on so long here--you pushed a hot button! Chuck Gregory (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chuck, thanks for your response. With 'personal essay' I don't mean that it's autobiographical or something like that, or that it's POV. I mean that it's original research, to a great extent, and that is borne out by the references--or really, the lack of published references. To satisfy WP:N (and me, for instance), you need independent, third-party, significant coverage, and blogs and the like (like videos) just don't count (much) in that respect. Remember, WP isn't even about truth, but it's about verifiability, and blogs are not 'stable' enough in some ways, and not authoritative enough in many other ways. You seem to be invested in this topic; fine! Why not write the article about Glickman, and have a subsection on vote sizing? (Disclaimer: I don't know what this Glickman biography is you're referring to...) But then, his Seed is self-published, no? There also you might run into notability issues; Google books didn't show me that his book was cited. But search the NYT archives, the JSTOR databases, etc.--Glickman has a better chance of survival than this one single issue. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original synthesis of research and an essay. Fine for a blog -- not an encyclopedia article.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Doppler spectroscopy. Mgm|^(talk) 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian Kepler periodogram[edit]

This technique for analysing radial velocity curves of exoplanets is non-notable: it has only been used in 2 papers, both by the same author. No convincing discoveries have been made using it (HD 208487 c is probably an artifact of stellar activity [52], and there is no evidence of HD 11964 d in re-reduced data [53]. Icalanise (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- El on ka 23:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - listed here because WP:PROD was declined. Icalanise (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notable as this method has been extensively discussed in the literature; see e.g. Loredo 2004, Ford 2005, Cumming 2004 (§ 2–3), Gregory 2005a (chapter 12), Gregory 2005b, Ford and Gregory 2007, Gregory 2007a, Gregory 2007b. Spacepotato (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is the application of Bayesian inference to a specific kind of data really worth its own article? How about redirecting/merging into Bayesian inference? Icalanise (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian statistics has near-universal applicability, so it's not practical to discuss every application of Bayesian statistics in Bayesian inference. If you want to merge I would suggest adding a section on data analysis to Doppler spectroscopy. Then we could discuss this method, the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, etc. Spacepotato (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Doppler spectroscopy is a good target - the title of that article suggests a focus on the experimental techniques of obtaining the radial velocities. Might be better to merge into Radial velocity instead. Icalanise (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per Spacepotato. I think this meets the general notability guideline per the published references, although just barely. If not kept as a separate article I think it is certainly worth mentioning somewhere and redirecting so that someone searching for this term is led directly to the best place. --Itub (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spacepotato. Gregory (2005) makes mention of both Doppler spectroscopy and MCMC, and this article seems suitable for a data analysis section of Doppler spectroscopy. Otherwise keep.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, merge into Doppler spectroscopy. Icalanise (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. all except Dead to the World (tour). MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against All Gods[edit]

Non-notable tours. None of the articles have anything substantial, most of them consist of just a setlist and list of dates. There isn’t anything to suggest that the tours themselves are notable outside of the band itself, which isn’t a sufficient argument to keep them as notability is not inherited.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dead to the World (tour). I haven't checked the other articles in detail, but since this one has been released on VHS and has more than just a date and a set list, it doesn't meet the nomination used. The VHS suggests it might be notable. Set lists and tourdates are a notable part of tours and it is reasonable thing to spin them out because they'd take up too much space in the main article. To give this a chance of success you'd need to show you made reasonable efforts to find sources about the tours. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: with the exception of Dead to the World, non-notable listcruft. JamesBurns (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot for lack of establishing notability per WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dead to the World (tour) per Mgm and WP:cruftcruft; Keep for Guns, God and Government (tour), as that also has an accompanying DVD - although perhaps there is an argument that these should be merged to Dead to the World and Guns, God and Government? A quick search shows sourced material that could be added for Guns, God and Government: [54][55][56][57]; Keep Against All Gods, as there exists some mainstream media coverage: [58][59][60]. Mdwh (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pointless collection of random data. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Hough[edit]

unnotable fictional character that only appeared in one comic. Tavix (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly irrelevant. JuJube (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If deleted, the closing admin should move James Hough (physicist) to the deleted article space. Tavix (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Isn't notable in the real world. Matt (Talk) 05:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KK Angeli Skopje[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KK Angeli Skopje (2nd nomination)

Still non-notable, and I've just found this discussion which even resulted in speedy deletion. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete it again. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cauldron (band)[edit]

Unnnotable band that fails WP:MUSIC. They have no charting singles, they have never won a major award, no albums that have been certified gold, they have never won a major music competition, and no notable members. Tavix (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable band, as per WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Goat Horn. There are certainly some notability criteria that are not satisfied, but the others not listed above are just as relevant, and one criterion of WP:MUSIC is satisfied; Goat Horn appear sufficiently notable (although that article needs work), and since this band has 2 members from the earlier band, it should be included here. May not be enough for an article of its own, so a merge to Goat Horn may be in order.--Michig (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Their EP was reviewed in Exclaim! magazine, and another article about them appeared in Chartattack.com. I've added those references just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. PK T(alk) 02:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Goat Horn. The chart link provided reads like be a tour announcement from the band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BAND with reliable sources and a national concert tour. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but "national concert tour" is a bit of a stretch - they played in a bunch of bars across the country. National yes, tour yes, concert; not so much. PK T(alk) 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marčelo. Black Kite 23:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shock! Orchestra[edit]

Ghits point to YouTube and social networking sites. Haven't seen any secondary sources. WP:BAND. Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marčelo, the article claims they are nothing more than his backing band. Nuttah (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Blatantly passes WP:MUSIC#C1. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sterling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NMG. No improvement to the references since the last AFD, thereby calling notability into question. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have now added several newspapers and magazines as sources. It seems this guitarist attracted a fair bit of attention for his musical ability at a young age. In addition to what I added, the following articles also appear to be about him, although I do not have access to the full text:
- "Who Needs Game Boy? This Kid Has Guitar", Arizona Republic, 2000-02-10, p. 48.
- "A Feel For Guitar", Arizona Republic, 2000-02-20, p. B3.

Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Notability
Keeps: Meets criteria #1 wp:music:"Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works."--Jmundo (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

75 minutes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This podcast does not seem to meet WP:WEB and has no citations from reliable sources. Little or no improvement since the last AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:WEB. JamesBurns (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play Radio UK[edit]

Completing nom for IP. Reason for deletion was:

"This website isn't notable, and has already been deleted twice before due to lack of notability. --84.64.166.177 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

I abstain. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) as spam spam spam spam baked beans and spam. MuZemike (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The incoming links are indicative of editor collaboration and are the result of this article being listed in a maintenance category. Potential COI by an author of an article alone is not cause for deletion, as long as the article is neutral. Since COI can influence ones editing, it is discouraged, but not disallowed to edit such articles. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practising Law Institute[edit]

Advert. A look at the incoming links show over 85% from user pages, most interesting. Primary author appears to have a direct connection with this institution, a clear conflict of interest. B.Wind (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The linking from user talk pages is legitimate - not spam-related as you suggest. Rather, the article was recently listed on {{opentask}} as an article needing to be wikified - this template is on a number of User: and User talk: pages and Special:Whatlinkshere simply hasn't updated the listings now that the article is no longer in the template. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a relatively minor trade organization with no showing of general notability. The fact that continuing legal education is an obnoxious boondoggle had no influence on my opinion. Really. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've taken PLI courses but I have no connection with the organization. Many lawyers in New York are acquainted with PLI and might want to know more about it. JamesMLane t c 22:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Call me google addict, but a news search for "Practising Law Institute" highlights notability meting WP:org. --Jmundo (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia Towers[edit]

Condos that have not yet begun construction. Article earlier this year in the Seattle Times [61] indicated that this project was being delayed due to the soft real estate market - and that article was from May! WP:CRYSTALBALL Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until current RS coverage documents the project's commencement, per WP:CRYSTAL. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BALL.Oroso (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. THe AfD that wouldn't die - not a great article, but there appears to be enough sources out there to improve this article. Appears (mildly) notable. Black Kite 23:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo Gould[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. --fvw * 04:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep His website lists quite a few sources, though in a quick look none seemed to be really substantial. Jfire (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pelosi, Jr.[edit]

Almost a resume; I'm not sure where this passes Wikipedia:Notability_(person) --smurdah (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. With regards to notability, his major claim would be being Nancy Pelosi’s, who is the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, son. I am sure one day we are going to be reading about Mr. Pelosi here on Wikipedia. However, I do not believe he has gained the required coverage, at this point. to claim notability for his own actions, to be included on Wikipedia at this date in time. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Notability: Men's vogue has a feature about him called "The Environmentalist". Another article talks about one of his initiatives in the San Francisco Commission on the Environment. --Jmundo (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Jmundo. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN - or merge with Nancy Pelosi. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources highlights his notability beyond his connection with his mother. --Jmundo (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing and left-wing armed conflicts (Republic of Turkey)[edit]

Redundant perhaps, in light of 1980 Turkish coup d'état? In any case, it is not well sourced. You decide. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do not delete articles because they have source or sourcing problems. We do not merge articles because of perceived connections between them. It sounds like proposing the deletion of Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria using a claim that "It is already covered under world war one and is redundant perhaps!" --Kemalist (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Partisan fork of 1980 Turkish coup d'état. There's something wrong about the title, seems like WP:SYN. --Jmundo (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only part of the page with proper contents that corresponds to the title are the right wing activities. The rest is either irrelevant or misleading. If the intention was to list incidents that culminated in the military coup of September 1980 the title should be changed accordingly.--Sc.helm (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This does seem like synthesis, but I would caution against tossing it out completely. While researching Bloody Sunday (1969) I came across many more sources discussing the right/left conflict in this period than Bloody Sunday specifically. A lot of those sources are from mid-east/near-east journals or newspaper articles long since archived. Someone with some time on their hands and access to a university library (especially someone who can speak turkish) should be able to bring this up to standards. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete To me it's just one more article that some poor schmuck has to spend time sourcing. Remember: no sources, no use. It may as well as made up otherwise. I have already covered the right-wing attacks in Counter-Guerrilla. If somebody is going to write about attacks from the left we can keep it, otherwise it's just a waste of effort. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is rambling essay with very uneven dealing with the issues, for example Dev-Yol and Dev-Sol is not mentioned. Facts which are mentioned seem random selection. Perhaps some can be put into 1980 Turkish coup d'état but must be careful not to make "original research" by selection of facts. The article's title is much too general, this deals only with 70s. Hevesli (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The history of the article mentions several moves and a split. Adoniscik might have merged content (not yet clear). It might be worth keeping an earlier version at a different name or rename the thing and redirect it if it was indeed merged elsewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember merging or moving anything, but you can check. I contributed to other articles that cover the same ground, but I did not lift anything from this one, which is unsourced save for my efforts. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per Cerejota, and it was trivial to find a ref that shows they've toured the US, also per WP:CSB Black Kite 23:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redencion 911[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(music). --smurdah (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I totally screwed up the nomination. I nominated it twice when I should've done it once. I'm not sure how to clean it up. ----smurdah (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I appreciate it! --smurdah (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep & close as per WP:BAND #5, Massapunk Records is a notable and leading indepedent distributor of left-wing hardcore-punk and punk in Iberoamerica, including notable bands. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7, an article about a band that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.Oroso (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I already stated Notability by WP:BAND #5, and the article mention the fact that they released via Massapunk. Your claim of speedy delete is invalid. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not speediable but the article isn't in the clear yet, there's a discreprancy: massa or masa? The linked website for the label is in Spanish or Portoguese and we don't have an article for the label. I can't determine the label's notability without some additional information. -0 Mgm|^(talk) 23:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its in Spanish. As to sources of notability, they are somewhat difficult due to the narrow appeal of the scene (remeber, notability is not general, it is about the field of the subject) but here are some: Less reliable (a blog/social network, but well known in that scene): [Congratulations on anniversary, commentary on notability - first label in Santiago Chile for this type of music etc (Spanish), more reliable is extremely notable Maximumrocknroll #303 issue (August 2008) burbled an interview with them as "Chilean record label extraordinaire MASAPUNK", and burbled on its importance, besides of course interviewing the record label. I can dig up some more. I was connected many years ago with this scene, at the time Masapunk was launched, but I would have to dig more connections before providing moar, as this is not a scene that happens on the internet as much as offline. Third World, baby. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Society and Non-Government Organisations in Kolkata[edit]

Unsourced and useless. Coatrack for ELs. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A3) as a linkfarm. MuZemike (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change into category This certainly a good way to, shall we say, categorize information. Of course, after categorizing, then delete, because it would be useless. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for being a linkfarm. If anyone can find relevant articles to categorize, I'd be happy to see one. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my Craft or Sullen Art[edit]

Unless there's more context, this belongs in WikiSource. --smurdah (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I created this, I looked at the page history and noticed that it had previously been given a speedy deletion notice, which the original author subsequently removed: [62]. I've restored this. --smurdah (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't agree that the article met speedy deletion criteria; I was simply restoring it since the original author (inappropriately) removed the notice. --smurdah (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problems with the deletion; I would like to see it on WikiSource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother Desmond (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've added a little more information, both about the poem itself and works which it has inspired. I feel it could be expanded into something more encyclopedic yet. I would have no problem with the text of the poem being removed and taken to WikiSource - it's more their thing than ours, but I'm pretty sure there's a potential article here. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's some analysis here: [63] and I'm sure there is a lot more if I could see more than a snippet of [64] or [65] etc. Juzhong (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely enough encyclopedic content there. The poem itself belongs on WikiSource and should be linked to. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a famous poem there is enough criticism and sourcing available for an article of its own. DGG (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leave our Dylan alone. andycjp (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/12/29/08/abs-cbn-no-truth-web-rumors-twilight-adaptation". Retrieved 2008-12-29. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

[ABS-CBN_bags_rights_for_local_'Twilight'_remake-1] "ABS-CBN bags rights for local 'Twilight' remake". Retrieved 2008-12-24.

[ABS-CBN:_No_truth_to_Web_rumors_of-2] "http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/12/29/08/abs-cbn-no-truth-web-rumors-twilight-adaptation". Retrieved 2008-12-29. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)

[1]

[1]