Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 29 December 31 >

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 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rare CPUs[edit]

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

The author, named Rarecpus, originally had a short blurb about rare CPUs followed by a link to rarecpus.com. The author has since then (improperly) removed speedy deletion tags for advertising twice and has removed a PROD tag. In the meantime, the author has added a list of numerous sites related to rare CPUs—and the link for rarecpus.com remains at the top.

At one point, the author briefly included text noting that these sites have NOTHING to sell or gain by having their link posted", but that's immaterial because promotion for the purpose of increasing traffic to websites is also against Wikipedia policy.

The applicable guidelines are:

The person who had placed the PROD notice had claimed "non-notable hobby" as a reason for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic page. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article mostly reads like an essay but worse than that, the topic violates WP:NPOV. What makes a CPU "rare"? And what makes rare CPUs an encyclopedic topic? Themfromspace (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The author has just removed the long list of links—while leaving the link to what I assume is his site, strengthening my conviction that promoting that site is the primary intent behind the article. Even in the absence of that link, the article still appears to be a personal analysis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I just discovered that the text of the article is copied from the author's own web page, which has an "all rights reserved" copyright notice on it, so there is also a WP:permission issue. In addition, the site doesn't really supplement the article, in that it doesn't provide additional reference information about the topic. It also means the article is WP:original research. Finally, on that website it says, "I have joined thousands of people worldwide in an effort to publicize this new hobby, chip collecting." So this is a new hobby, making it less likely that WP:notability is established. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case could we speedy-delete it as a copyright violation? Themfromspace (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably not, no. As long as we believe the author really is the author the page (which seems highly likely) he is quite entitled to publish his work twice under two different licenses. JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached (and because I discovered today that it had somehow not been included previously on a daily log).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, I think the creator, rarecpus has a conflict of interest in writing an article like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I agree with that. The article doesn't seem to be promotional, just a topic that the author is clearly quite involved in. We don't want to disqualify experts from contributing to their subjects. JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research sourced only from self-published sources produced by the article's author (and, in the current version, completely unsourced). JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centrist Party[edit]

Centrist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrist Party)

This entry in my mind should be deleted because as mentioned in its talk page, they have not been active since 2006 and one member -- the founder -- claims that it won't be back up until 2010. In 2010, if they do something notable, then this entry should be revived. But for now, it is not notable. This looks like a group comprised of the founder and nobody else, at least in this point of time. Also, they claim "a member of the Centrist Party" ran for Congress in 2004, but this is completely dubious because the party claims to have been founded in 2006.

The following is also reposted in my vote. But as it may not be clear as to whether or not I, as the nominator, can also vote, I want to add my additional justifications and researched rationale for proposing that this article be deleted.

All coverage was within a couple-month timeframe back in 2006. All of it focused on the founder's efforts. There is been no coverage since 2006. It appears that the efforts foundered and their has not been one item of evidence indicating any members and certainly no coverage to demonstrate notability since 2006. All that has existed of this group is a Web site that lists no members and does not publicize news of the party. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to go on the record as stating that I am willing to go along with a suggestion of deleting this stand-alone entry and instead merging the Centrist Party into a "list of" or some comparable location. In that way, if they do become notable in 2010 as the founder, and still only verifiable member, purports, then this entry would be notable. But as it stands now, this is a party of one man. To further substantiate my claim that this entry should be deleted, take a look at the 2006 articles cited on the entry. The only member of the party quoted, named or refereced as a member is the founder. Not one other person is referenced anywhere as an official member. In short, this is the 2006 efforts of one guy who attempted to start a party but never gained any members, and in fact has not demonstrated any notable or ascertainable activity since August 2006.danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete All coverage was within a couple-month timeframe back in 2006. All of it focused on the founder's efforts. There is been no coverage since 2006. It appears that the efforts foundered and their has not been one item of evidence indicating any members and certainly no coverage to demonstrate notability since 2006. All that has existed of this group is a Web site that lists no members and does not publicize news of the party. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • NEVER GOT LISTED UNTIL TODAY: JAN. 2
  • Weak keep or merge. Notability, once acquired through coverage, is not lost. That said, the coverage is really poor for a party with national ambitions: it is limited to a very few articles in local or college papers in which the founder speaks grandly of the newly founded party's goals. A merger into a "list of minor centrist parties in the United States" or some such would probably be best, if there is an appropriate merge target.  Sandstein  07:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is never lost. Period. I think notability was established however weakly. This is a minor party, didn't make much waves, and came to nothing and apparently died. Yet encyclopedias are full of dead things that came to nothing. A historian in a hundred years, will go to the Wikipedia category link for minor political parties of the USA of the early 21st century (or do a semantic search or think about it in his neural interface :) and will find out this existed. We owe our great-grandchildren this. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep notablity and the presence of realiable, verifiablesources is definitely extant withi the realm of thi sa rticle. Wikipedias purpose is NOT to suppress nacsent political movements but to report on anything that is notabele that and that contains verifiabl sources in roder to fulfill this commitment we canno t hack t odeath political parties regardless of our views on the niceosity of their websties or the levelof success that they have achied (a subjective benchmark as we lal realize). keeping this article because deleting it because it is "no longer" ntoable (as if such an abominance is even POSSIBLE!) would not be in strong compliance with WP:VWP:NWP:RS&WP:AFDSmith Jones (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the party no longer exisiting in a meaningful way is a weak argument for deletion. For example, the Whig party is long dead, but it has an article for its historical significance. Notability doesn't have to be current for it to be worth keeping. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • concurent i agreee this AFD is obscene and it sbased on a ortured reinterpretizaiton of the policies and guidelignes.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Parker[edit]

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

Non-notable county-level politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN. In addition, suspected WP:SOAP for self-promotion by article creator User:Gparker001. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 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 20:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ObamaBot[edit]

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

A case of WP:ONEEVENT... concerning a cardboard robot for Obama. While the sources all cover the joke, it was just that, a joke. It's the same as having a news article for the one guy dressed as Batman who showed up to push poll for Obama, the reports will cover it but it will be entirely trivial and has no more notability after the fact than the day before. –– Lid(Talk) 00:16, 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. One (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wii mini me[edit]

Wii mini me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This purported console game is not verifiable and may be a hoax, or someone's private fantasy. The Japanese characters given are a transliteration of the English word 'fit', as in 'Wii Fit'. The link is to a Korean (not Japanese) article that I cannot read, but which does not appear to be a reliable source. I submit that if Nintendo were to publish such a game, it would be readily verifiable. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the official commercials of Nintendo. You can find this information here: Wii mini me. It is called Mii in some countries, but the original name is Wii mini me. --Lauray en (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)— Lauray en (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

  • We have an article on Mii, and related articles and parts of articles. I presume that Mike Myers would have intellectual property rights to the term 'Mini Me'. The Mii concept may well have been developed under that codename, but I don't think it's ever been published or announced under that name. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a hoax. No such game is being developed by Nintendo, the only source is a website that is not related at all to Nintendo. And they were never called "Wii mini me". TJ Spyke 00:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Raven1977 (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mii Empire3131 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is called that in other countries, then simply redirect to Mii. MuZemike (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be a hoax or mistranslation. The description given on the article does not match that of Wii Fit and the link shows both Mii and "Wii Mini me". The Japanese link does not appear feature the latter whatsoever. --.:Alex:. 14:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note in French Wikipedia, I've decided, as a first step, to redirect the same page to Mii; so if you prove that this thing is not an hoax (I think it is), feel free to let me know that you've found a proof :) Dionysostom (talk) 16:31, 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 Both Speedied by Lid - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (non admin)[reply]

Mojection and Moject[edit]

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

This is a neologism and something made up one day. There is no evidence that the term has achieved widespread use. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Richard Cavell beat me to writing the opening rationale of this AfD. :-) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, there is no evidence of usage by anyone other than the creator of this article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating ...I agree - Richard Cavell (talk)

Moject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom withdrawal. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffits[edit]

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

I believe that this article is problematic for a number of reasons. The brand itself may not be notable - indeed, it appears that the product did not succeed on its own merits, although it is claimed that it was the first product of its type and that it may be notable for that reason. The sources given are not verifiable and reliable secondary sources. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It seems to get a reasonable amount of coverage, especially in business/marketing texts. I agree the current article needs improvement, though. --Delirium (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, that's crushing. I didn't think to search Google Books. I'll have to withdraw my nomination on that basis. It seems as though it is an example product often used by business texts. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:41, 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 04:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New holocaust[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism apparently coined by one journalist in a blog post. Contested PROD. Also POV issues (but that's not a reason for deletion).  Sandstein  22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete

Not only is this radical title ridiculuos in its propaganda-fantasyland vocublary, but it is a clear aim to belittle the real Holocaust, of WW2, no battle between two sides can ever be called a "holocaust". It's even a serious crime on those 6,000,000! Diletodo (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong delete for reasons above. 65.78.1.161 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence that this term has achieved widespread use. The fact that it is being used by someone opposed to Israel's actions doesn't make it any more or less notable. We have articles here on Holocaust denial, and those who engage in Holocaust denial. If there is evidence that the current actions in Gaza are known to Arabs by a particular phrase, then we can include it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable statement, article created for WP:SOAP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Diletodo with no further comment. JuJube (talk) 04:51, 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 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play This[edit]

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

Non-notable webzine. Prod contested by article author User:Playthismag. --Finngall talk 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable magazine. Arguably speedy delete for no assertion of notability for web content. Rnb (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Weak assertions of notability, but no reliable sources to back it up and I could not find any. Magazine is still very new and over time may be notable, but not now. TN‑X-Man 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per notability concerns, and the fact that the creator (User:Playthismag) got indef-blocked. flaminglawyerc 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Already interviewed many stars like that of Colt Ford, Hamilton Marshall and even they guy from "My New Hair Cut."' Who? Delete This. Nate • (chatter) 06:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (A7) lack of anything indicating why this is remarkable. MuZemike (talk) 06:10, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Col Stringer[edit]

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

Delete not notable or encyclopaedic TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:28, 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 per obvious consensus. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home Movie (2008 Film)[edit]

Home Movie (2008 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable film Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to keep: Passes WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep With respects to the nom, per WP:ATD I have found enough to both properly assert and show notability of this film and will do so over the next couple hours. Give me a little time and the article will shine. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: I have just completed cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. Its a keeper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think MQS is on to something. The film's notability appears to be confirmed. The article could benefit from editing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be titled Home Movie (2008 film) and not Home Movie (2008 Film). I'm not sure if you're allowed to move a page while it's at AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That can sometimes cause a problem. I had planned myself to make just that move per the naming conventions if the article survived this AfD. Good eyes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And Keep based on the references added. Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done on the article. Vote changed to Keep, let's have an admin go ahead and close this one. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:38, 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 merge. One (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Bartoshevich[edit]

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

Individuals only notable in the context of a single event should not have separate articles, per WP:BLP1E; her participation in McCain's campaign probably qualifies as a single event. Recommend merge and redirect to Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008. — Swpbτ • c 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:BOLD Merge. Feel free to do so. DARTH PANDAduel 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article documents the extremely aggressive approach taken by the McCain campaign to recruit Bartoshevich. Her sister was hired by the McCain campaign. A man from the campaign phoned her within minutes after Clinton's concession to have a long, sympathetic conversation. She gave different stories about how her name got onto a public list of Democrats for McCain but was crystal clear that the McCain team notified the press about its presence there. This is a story that should not be disappeared from Wikipedia under the misleading title of "Democratic and liberal support..." How about "McCain team efforts to recruit Democrat and liberal support"? Or maybe "Democrats and liberals who declared support for McCain"? betsythedevine (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bartoshevich was a Democrat supporting McCain. There is nothing misleading about that statement, and content merged to that article will not disappear from Wikipedia. The title of that article is probably outside the scope of this discussion. The policy is clear, though, that for living people whose notability stems entirely from one event, we should focus on covering the event, not the person. — Swpbτ • c 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Swpbτ • c 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Article is entirely about a minor facet of the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign, so should go in one of the many 2008-campaign articles. --Delirium (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commercial Information Exchange[edit]

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Mayalld (talk)

Commercial Information Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete as WP:COATRACK - article exists primarily to promote Catylist product (author has been making many attempts to insert this promotional stuff, and has been deleting speedy tags all over the shop). Mayalld (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists several providers of CIE software, Catylist being one of them. I've also included several references from commercial real estate publications. This is a legitimate technology, used by about 100 real estate associations in the US. If a section doesn't read as impartial, let me know and I'll make it more objective. I'm sorry about the deletion of speedy tags -- I didn't catch on to the hangon tag process right away. Brockzilla (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of national exchanges from NAR: http://www.realtor.org/cominfex.nsf--Otiose3 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a legitimate term used in commercial real estate. If this is deleted, then MLS should be as well, which is absurd. Just because you haven't heard of this, or it isn't your area of expertise doesn't mean it doesn't exist. User Brockzilla apologized for deleting the speedy tags, he didn't know how they worked at the time. He wasn't accustomed to the Wikipedia practice many users share of competing to see who can be the first person to tag a new article with speedy deletion. Don't exaggerate this event, it was a mistake. I'm here for the words (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems a valid topic. I have dealt with the advertising problem by removing the list of providers. DGG (talk) 06:04, 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 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound & Fury Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sound & Fury Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 20:09, 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. One (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Cruikshank[edit]

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

Biography of a YouTube celebrity. Has no notability outside his YouTube charactor Fred (YouTube). Article should be deleted and useful content should be moved to that article. Reywas92Talk 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect. Might you want to be bold and just go ahead and merge it? DARTH PANDAduel 20:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't want to get into any edit war or argument over it as I have in the past. This would settle it. Thanks. Reywas92Talk 21:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case that you are looking for a merge, wouldn't this be a better option? AfD is primarily for deletion and this seems to be a pretty clear merge/don't merge debate. DARTH PANDAduel 21:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposal rarely gets anywhere, and he probably wanted more options than just a merge. --staka (T) 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The article isn't very encyclopedic. Articles such as these provide information but not the information that should be included on an encyclopedia. I agree that it should be redirected if there is another article that this character belongs to. But articles such as these should be strongly not be included on Wikipedia    World   tcs 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Fred (YouTube).  AcroX  18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete if you can Merge/Redirect? Search terms are good too, you know? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Improve I hope all of you go there and boldly do it. (non-admin, per WP:SNOW) Cerejota (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tygon Tubing[edit]

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

Thinly veiled advertisement for a brand of flexible tubing. The only sources provided in the article are primary ones. I've had a look on Google and found enough to prove the thing exists, but no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources that would justify an article here. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Reyk YO! 19:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. My earlier attempts to rescue this proved fruitless, it has to go. ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major medical and biolaboratory standard product. see PMID 12229263, PMID 10160448, PMID 5960696, PMID 12697236 for examples.DGG (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This article is about a notable product and can be improved. My complaint with it is that it continually attracts linkspam from an IP address with a conflict of interest (belonging to Professional Plastics, which evidently sells the product). I wouldn't be sorry if it disappeared, even though the subject might be somewhat worthy of inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is tubing capitalized? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Standard in medical/scientific/lab settings, as well as some forms of motorsports. tedder (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve it. I came here to find out the temperature rang of various types of tubing as my application requires going from -30 degrees C to 80 degrees C. These kinds of basics should be convered here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.213.98 (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. It's obviously not going to get deleted, so why not improve it? -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • People have tried and failed. Reyk YO! 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical formalization of the statistical regression problem[edit]

Mathematical formalization of the statistical regression problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article attempts to justify itself by saying "the theoretical study of the regression problem requires a precise mathematical context than that given in the Regression analysis article" and purports to provide that "context". That this sort of "context" is needed is nonsense. The article takes pains to define the random variables involved as measurable functions on a probability space, Kolmogorov-style, and seems to assert that that is needed for rigorous mathematical study of regression problems. That is false. Then the article entirely neglects any mention of statistical estimation of parameters or of the regression function, which is in fact essential to any regression problem (what's "least squares" all about??), or of hypothesis testing, etc. Just what is the role of the parameter θ? The article is offensively vague about that. The way of using it suggests that θ is a parameter to be estimated, but earlier in the article θ is a member of the domain of the underlying probability space. That is really serioius confusion at best. The article also asserts that the predictor variables are themselves random variables. In some cases that is true; in other cases they are determined by the design of the experiment and not random at all. In effect, the creator of the article appears to have wanted to show off his mastery of Kolmogorov-style notation while applying it to a statistical problem that he or she did not understand at all, and to assert, falsely, that that approach is needed in order to study regression problems. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't mind so much that the article is vague and poorly written (which it is, to excess). But I do mind that this seems to be an unencyclopedic topic. At present, the article is a glorified dictionary definition, and I don't see how it'll ever grow beyond that. Ozob (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to have been abandoned nearly two years ago, before even getting to the point. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia has no deadline WP:DEADLINE, so I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion.  LinguistAtLarge  21:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kolmogorov-style itself does not irritate me. However, the article is abortive, almost pointless, and after all, the last line is meaningless: the subtraction operation is not defined in a measurable space. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a Merge with Regression analysis? I'm no mathematician, but if there is salvageable material in this article, it might belong in regression analysis.  LinguistAtLarge  21:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might not be clear to a non-mathematician, but most of the nomination is an explanation of why there is no such material: The article is incorrect. (And in particular, could never be sourced, so it can't possibly meet WP:V.) And as I said above, I don't think there's anything it could be replaced with. Ozob (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, non-notable and likely OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think there might have been a use for some of this stuff if someone were attempting to extend the idea of regression to some strange new probability spaces. But, since there is no sign of such material, it is useless. Melcombe (talk) 11:13, 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 speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omen lance[edit]

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

I have not been able to find any evidence, outside of this article, that the Omen lance described ever existed. Therefore, I believe the article is a hoax. Terrakyte (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources are provided verifying the subject matter. I looked at this when it popped up at newpages and searched Google web and book and found nothing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Hoax. Total rubbish. Actually, elluding (sic) police in the UK would have been easy. There weren't any at that date. If he was executed in the UK, he couldn't have been put in the catacombs of a cathedral as there weren't any until the next century. I also make him 97 at death - a very good age for anyone, let alone a fugitive, at that time. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to comment about the User Name... Peridon (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, no sources, probably a hoax.  LinguistAtLarge  21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a blatant hoax, or at least unverifiable and unsourced and almost in-universe mythology. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:16, 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. One (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenological thermodynamics[edit]

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

The article claims that "Phenomenological thermodynamics" is a synonym for "classical thermodynamics", but doesn't provide any evidence that the phrase is ever used. Delete as non-notable phrase, content already contained in classical thermodynamics. Djr32 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep From what I can tell, the phrase is an established scientific term, as I believe can be demonstrated here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], for example. Terrakyte (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. It seems to be an established term, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area to say whether it's just an alternate term for classical thermodynamics (in which case the two should be merged into one article), or at least somewhat distinct. --Delirium (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Add the refs and keep the article--apparently nominated without any search for references. DGG (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are all pretty obscure references (to put it mildly!) - I think my original deletion proposal might have been better phrased "doesn't provide any evidence that the phrase is commonly used". Comments from people with a background in this area of science would be helpful - I posted to WP Physics, is there anywhere else I should have posted to? Djr32 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you think they are obscure? One reference I have posted is from the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and another is from the Polish Academy of Sciences. I can post more references. I don't think there is anywhere else that you can post, thought I won't claim to be sure. Terrakyte (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • For history-of-science terms like this, the most convincing reference would be to a history book that uses the term "phenomenological thermodynamics" and explains its relation to other kinds of thermodynamics, historical significance, etc. Journal articles on specific technical subjects are a bit more like primary sources when it comes to writing history-of-science articles. --Delirium (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think Delirium has put it better than I can - by obscure I meant that the phrase is used in the occasional paper, I don't think there's a "Journal of Phenomenological Thermodynamics", it doesn't have a classification in PACS, etc. (A general problem with calling something "Phenomenological anything" in science is that "Phenomenological" just means "based on observation but lacking an underlying theory" (see Phenomenology (science)). That sounds like a textbook description of classical thermodynamics pre-1870, but doesn't really make a distinct field.) Djr32 (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 650 google books hits = notable concept. Can the claim "this is just a synonym" be referenced? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to classical thermodynamics. It is classical thermodynamics. There is no any difference to my knowledge. Delete. This is probably indeed simply a combination of words as argued by Steve below. This is also a misleading terminology, because all natural sciences, perhaps excluding mathematics, are "phenomenological" (empirical). Biophys (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete- This is closely related to existential electromagnetism, right? Ok, seriously: There are plenty of recent academic citations using the term, but the article in question here says, "being synonymous with classical thermodynamics, is considered the pre-1870s branch of thermodynamics." So, I agree in part with Delirium that references to history of science sources would help. Still, I'm a little confused -- is the point that "phenomenological thermodynamics" is simply an updated, high-tech name for the practice of "doing" thermodynamics research using pre-1870s concepts, models, etc? If so, I'd see it as something special, not just a "synonym" for "classical" TD. I'm inclined to either Keep or Merge, depending on whether some clarification could be offered. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am buying the "two words sometimes used together but not a significant topic in its own right" theory Jlg4104 (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In the references given above, a bunch of which I read in detail, the phrase "phenomenological thermodynamics" isn't used as an independent phrase, but as two words that separately describe the approach. It's like the phrase revenge kidnapping, or the phrase birthday wine, etc. The phrase is used as shorthand for "applying the principles of thermodynamics in a phenomenological way", or "deriving thermodynamic theories starting from phenomenological observations". For example the Jap. J. Appl. Phys. paper cited above uses the term to describe an approach that starts with a phenomenological theory (a variant of Ginzburg–Landau theory) and uses that theory to do thermodynamic calculations. The word "phenomenological" isn't really modifying the word "thermodynamics" (maybe grammatically, but not conceptually), but rather the calculations themselves. The two words don't go together into a single concept or subject, and therefore it doesn't warrant a separate article. --Steve (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems that the only reason given to keep it is that "phenomenological thermodynamics" is a legitimate term. What about the rest of the article?

    Here's a little background regarding the article. The editor Sadi Carnot (talk) started the article Phenomenological thermodynamics 3 years ago and he wrote in the article that it was "...synonymous with classical thermodynamics...". One month later he started the article Classical thermodynamics. So why did he start the new article if he believed that phenomenological thermodynamics was the same thing as classical thermodynamics??? Perhaps the answer is that this is an editor with issues, as evidenced by his talk page.

    And look at Talk:Phenomenological thermodynamics too. The article has existed for 3 years and its talk page has no rating and no discussion.

    Also, look at the meager number of edits in the history of this article. No content contributions since Sadi Carnot started it 3 years ago. Most of the activity regarding this article is related to proposals for its deletion or merge.

    Personally, I think it is superficial, redundant, and not worthwhile, but if anyone likes something in Phenomenological thermodynamics, copy that part over to Classical thermodynamics now. It's time to clean things up and delete Phenomenological thermodynamics. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Classical thermodynamics. Since the phrase is used in the literature and is a synonym of the classical thermodynamics, the best solution seems to redirect the article to classical thermodynamics. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re "...is a synonym of the classical thermodynamics..." - As far as I can tell, this notion that they are the same, originated with the editor Sadi Carnot and is an example of how bad information can confuse.

      If I understand "redirect" correctly, it means that someone looking for phenomenological thermodynamics will be referred to another article instead of being made aware of the article phenomenological thermodynamics. If there is a redirect, it should be to Thermodynamics. Also, if someone was googling phenomenological thermodynamics wiki, wouldn't the problem article still come up at the top of the hit list? Let's clean things up by deleting the article phenomenoligical thermodynamics and not just trying to sweep it under the rug with a redirect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • No, it is not an invention of Sadi Carnot. Also, please read Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re your first sentence, see below. Re your second sentence, the link wasn't very clear to me and possibly others. As you are an administrator, it would be very helpful if you explained to us what redirect means for this article. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's an example of a redirect page: Dextrorotation, which redirects to Levorotation and dextrorotation. Anyone who clicks on a link to dextrorotation on wikipedia or elsewhere on the internet gets automatically taken to the article Levorotation and dextrorotation. Likewise anyone who types "dextrorotation" into the "search" box on the left, etc. The only thing left of the dextrorotation article is this page. If you click on that, you'll see that the dedicated dextrorotation article, which existed a while ago before being turned into a redirect, still has its original talk page and a history, and can be edited. But that page is hard to find, and essentially doesn't exist unless you know what you're doing. So it's basically like there is no dextrorotation article except Levorotation and dextrorotation. Does that help? :-) --Steve (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Steve. His evidence has convinced me that the term isn't notable for its own article. Terrakyte (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thermodynamics is generally divided into classical and statistical thermodynamics. Phenomenological thermodynamics is, simply, synonymous with classical thermodynamics. It is thermodynamics from the phenomenological perspective, which is simply classical thermodynamics. The two are alternative names for the same thing. They are used as such in many sources.

    The article did in fact tell us all this. And it was right. So is Ruslik0. Redirect. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Steve, Terrakyte, and possibly others seem to realize, "phenomenological" is simply an adjective that can be used in many places. For example, in this excerpt from an article in the Physical Review, "This feature plays a central role in the phenomenological statistical mechanics discussed in Sec. IV...".[6] So you see, phenomenological thermodynamics isn't synonymous with classical thermodynamics but it refers to a phenomenological approach to any part of thermodynamics: classical, statistical, whatever. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was weak keep. If the article about this apparent 'curse' isn't expanded in the near future, it should probably be listed again. One (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NFC South Curse[edit]

NFC South Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced original research. - Fails WP:OR ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely unencyclopedic sports theorizing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete OR, no encyclopedic value whatsoever. R.T. 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge isn't a bad idea, but there seems to be enough coverage of the worst to first, first to worst pattern that an independent article can be justified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • True, but this "curse" isn't going to go on forever. And the rationale for a separate article is likely to diminish with time.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One year at a time Nostradamus, one year at time. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. There are no such thing as curses, it's just a coincidence. You could find them throughout sports, they don't all deserve articles here. Delete this crap.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there ARE curses, by the mere fact that people believe in them. Just ask the Red Sox. No, not all of them deserve articles, but this one has media coverage--surely you are familiar with Bleacher Report? They mentioned it three times in 2008--voila. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the curse was a popular term, than maybe. But this is entirely OR. I've never seen it popularized in the press, which makes it a creation of the creating user. Pats1 T/C 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. The coincidence has been discussed in the media, but I've rarely (if ever) seen it called a curse. Regardless, this kind of coincidence is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article. A mention on the conference's or division's page at best.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and, the coincidence didn't happen this year. So now what we have is an article talking about a coincidence that happens...except when it doesn't. Brilliant.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Question: What is this supposed to be?--Iamawesome800 04:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm a bit confused--there's both a curse and a blessing? Anyway, the individual sections are actually pretty well referenced, and yes, on ESPN they have mentioned it. OK, so it's completely ridiculous, and it doesn't work this year, but the sources given use the phrase (and discuss the blessing), so it's not OR and it's notable, even if only in the way paranormal folks and ufologists are notable. Drmies (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because something is referenced and has been mentioned by ESPN doesn't make it notable enough to be in the encyclopedia.►Chris NelsonHolla! 08:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what if it meets WP:N? Is it going to be worthy if enough editors like the topic? Drmies (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a sourced, discussed phenomena. A lot of the argument seems to center on whether or not the "curse" is real. I think that's besides the point. What it IS is a documented historical coincidence, which is of a long enough duration to be notable. Belief in curses is completely irrelevant to this discussion. matt91486 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The argument for deletion seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is that the article include secondary sources that establish the notability of the curse. --Jmundo (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument is not whether or not some of us like it, and it's not whether or not the curse is real. I'm well aware that as long as it's documented, the mere topic could be notable regardless of whether or not there's any actual validity to it. However, as an avid follower of the NFL (and I know most fans would agree) the pattern has not be given enough attention to accumulate notability. It's just an amusing statistical pattern that has occasionally been mentioned in the media because that's what they do. It doesn't mean it's particularly relevant. Not to mention, since the pattern was broken this year, it's highly likely the mentions will become very infrequent to nonexistent.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Hill[edit]

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

Fails to meet cricket notability guidelines of having played one major cricket match. Jpeeling (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though not explicitly covered by the Cricket WP guidelines, my own opinion is that playing for the Hong Kong national women's team ought to be enough to make her notable. That's even more the case if she is truly the youngest person ever to play for a country's full national side. JH (talk page) 10:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Andrew nixon (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ATHLETE. I believe that trumps WP:CRIN. flaminglawyerc 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've brought this up at WP:Cricket, as it is my opinion that anyone to have represented his or her country (at senior level) in a major world sport is notable. However, this article needs at least one more reference, especially for the claim of being the youngest to play for Hong Kong (which I do know through my own research is accurate) before I can change my vote to keep. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At first I was a bit concerned about whether the subject had actually played at senior level, because the Cricinfo profile only links to an under 19 match, but the scorecards linked from here confirm that she has played at the highest amateur level of her sport (to quote from WP:ATHLETE). Cricinfo is a cast-iron reliable source so there's no need for any further sources to verify this, but here's one for the wikilawyers. There's also absolutely no need for her to be the youngest player to play for Hong Kong to be notable, and the article doesn't even claim that ("...one of the..."). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Designer clothing. MBisanz talk 04:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Designer apparel[edit]

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

Un-needed personal essay on clothing and fashion brands. TrulyBlue (talk) 17:30, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day Starting Lineups[edit]

List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day Starting Lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information (and a duplication of content already found on the season pages) Mayalld (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All this tells me is who was the preferred non-injured player at each position vs. that pitcher for that particular game. Could be the best player at one position was injured - could be the listed player at another position was just the right-handed half of a platoon and the opening day starter for the opposition was left-handed, etc., etc. Quite indiscriminate. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eh, I was trying to think of reasons why this is a notable list... but it really is trivia. At best, in terms of information that could be notable, the listing of a team's opening day pitcher tells you who the ace was in any given year, unless there was an injury... that's not truly trivia in the baseball sense, but ultimately I think this list is trivia in the Wikipedia sense. --Rividian (talk) 19:47, 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 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7d Physics[edit]

7d Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, apparently unpublished physical theory. Only refs given for the so called theory are to the personal webpage of the author. TimothyRias (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - probably nonsense, definitely OR (despite the attempt to provide lots of references - but these are references for well known things like the Compton wavelength, not for 7d physics). Djr32 (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure WP:OR by the article creator. Google Scholar shows up just a single pdf file which does not mention 7d Physics. Salih (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pseudoscience\OR\Essay--Wadeperson (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Essentially OR and some redundant description of basic Kaluza-Klein ideas. The references are wikipedia pages, personal web sites, and unrelated canonical physics texts. Joshua Davis (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable, I wish it were even readable but it isn't. Dmcq (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a moment, I thought it was a fork of Heim Theory, but it has absolutely no references for the material other than what is contained in conventional partical physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR. Ozob (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that page is a candidate for tranwiki import to wikiversity. --mikeu talk 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable subject, unsourced. Elucidate (light up) 18:47, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promness[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Scapler (talk) 15:38, 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 (G7), page blanked by author. Icewedge (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISpring[edit]

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

Non-notable software addon. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be promotion, does not establish notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The author blanked the page (diff), so it may get speedily deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 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 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Rose Chapman[edit]

Laura Rose Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research by an apparent single-purpose account holder and self-described "fan". A basic Google search reveals no reliable sources from which to confirm the notability of the subject. Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete either a hoax or extreme aggrandisement of a non-notable person. I strongly doubt that an internationally-known popstar on the cusp of a world tour wuld get just 10 google hits, all of them facebook buddies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theirs must be the only school studying the 'Sun and Rain' song (see Talk Page). May be heading for stardom. Not there yet. Peridon (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any sourcing - reliable or otherwise - using Google [9], [10], [11] - baring this in mind I find it very unlikely that the main claims of notability (100,000 records sold, multiple tv appearances) are true. With no sources no verifiable article can be written. Guest9999 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds clearly like a hoax to me with all those 100,000 — unless we assume that the 100,000 refer to atoms of something, like a lemonade stand, in which case I've sold lots more than 100,000 myself. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 04:53, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend Splash Concert season 6[edit]

Weekend Splash Concert season 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Weekend Splash Concert season 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the work of some single purpose accounts and has no references at all. Out of curiosity I googled "Weekend Splash Concert" and got a total of 29 unique hits, including several which are actually the same, being scraped Wikipedia content for the seasons as listed here. With no references and no obvious reliable sources, this apparently fails WP:V and WP:N. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nom. is absolutely correct--there is nothing here in terms of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been speedy deleting ancillary articles; those on "contestants", largely written by the artists concerned or their colleagues, and the music releases by same. I did not delete the above as I found a few original ghits, generally in respect of the promotor, and took a view that South Pacific based events may not gain much Google coverage. My post to WP:AN#Vanity, all is vanity refers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a hoax. All the ghits seem to have crept from WP. Óðinn (talk) 22:49, 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 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Wells (guitarist)[edit]

Dean Wells (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO - ie he is not (in the Wiki sense) Notable. The article is an unsourced autobiography. Springnuts (talk) 13:59, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible (A Parody)[edit]

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

It's just some book someone wrote. It gives no assertion of notability. The sources are also completely lacking and most can't even be called reliable sources. The book has won no awards, gotten no press, or anything that would make it notable. If you google "The Bible (A Parody)", the only thing that comes up is a couple stores selling it and that's all. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Book is not covered outside of Wikipedia except for retailers selling the book. Lacks coverage in press. RT 13:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yay, though I wander through the valley of the shadow of Delete... Thou disregards the law as set forth in the Book of Jimbo in relation to WP:Notability (books). And if you don't believeth in me, then consult with my bretheren -- Esau, Ecame and Econquered. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--but hey Eco, don't go having too much fun now. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to Amazon, it was "published" by iUniverse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable book. Only notability claims are that there's seven copies at one local library and that the creator won two NN Bible contests. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a bit I'll wager that this 87 page parody is as hilarious as it sounds from the many reviews I read online. Did a G-search and apparently it's available in more than just one library, and for less than $10. Cheaper than a night out. I think that the title alone will disgruntle folks, even if the contents are as funny and topical as the reviews say... and for that reason alone it will be removed from wiki even though it might actually be a fine little article with some work. MIght even take a crack at it myself. Gotta respect the author's using THE GOOD BOOK in a parody though. BUT.... How dare he try to feed others the fruit from the tree of humour.!! That alone will have him banished fron the Garden of Wiki. .. left to wander amoung the billions in a world of stoicsm. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, based soley on the fact that it doesn't meet notability requirements.  LinguistAtLarge  19:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable book. Also, It seems as though MichaelQSchmidt has some sort of conclict of interest with this book. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was simply referring to your language in your defense of the article. You didn't comment at all on the merits of the article per notability guidelines, rather you went on about how great and cheap the book was. I simply stated that it seemed as though you may have a conflict of interest. If this is not the case, then I apologize. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepted. No harm, no foul. The book sells for $10. Thought that was cheap entertainment. I have been learning in my reserach that this young author created a modern parody of the Jewish Torah... which is in text nearly identical to the Old Testament. Unfortunately his title causes confusions because it is not a parody of the Christian Bible. As for commenting on the delete opinions of a sourced article.... I am being more proactive and trying to improve the article. I'd rather fix a leak than complain about the dampness. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:06, 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 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughterhouse (band)[edit]

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

Declined speedy as there are some borderline notability claims and the article exists for more than 2 years now but I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage or articles to assert notability that might indicate why the band passes WP:MUSIC, only some tour reviews. SoWhy 12:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No malice/attack against the band intended by the way. I came across it while cleaning up the industrial metal artists page. If someone can provide good sources on them, then great, but a quick flick through my own usual sources didn't turn up anything. Nothing given in the article, and their tour almost exclusively seems to have been through their home state, with GWAR in three shows being the only real big name there. Prophaniti (talk) 12:25, 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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeterminacy problem[edit]

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

Sounds like the personal opinion of the writer. The first few Google hits for "Indeterminacy problem" either are copies of this article or are about something else entirely. While I agree with most of the conclusions, is this "problem" notable? Does anyone really use the phrase "indeterminacy problem" to refer to this? Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same thing is discussed in Philosophy of science#Indeterminacy of theory under empirical testing If this is not a generally accepted name for the topic, redirect it to indeterminacy. Juzhong (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you try google scholar? Juzhong (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a textbook example of WP:OR. Ruslik (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's a textbook example of editors at AFD not doing the searches for sources that actually help AFD, and that have been the expected behaviour of editors since at least 2003. And, to add to the irony, this is a subject that is discussed in textbooks. I've just found it discussed, over 3 pages, in ISBN 9780847691227, for example. (The text, sans illustrations, is even available as a sample chapter of the book, on the publisher's WWW site.) The more usual name that it is discussed under is "underdetermination" (of theory by evidence), after Helen Longino. It's distinct from the Duhem–Quine thesis, too, since it doesn't deal in auxiliary assumptions. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not claim that sources do not exist. However the article, as it stands now, is a synthesis of the published material and therefore is original research—an assay, as Headbomb noted below. Ruslik (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks an awful lot like this doesn't it? What it's doing in a website about Swedish plumbing fixtures is something that we don't need to make a theory for, but this is a leftover from Wikipedia's early days, when sourcing was considered optional. If sources can be added, it's worth reconsidering, otherwise, redirect per above. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a (non-GFDL-compliant) copy of Wikipedia, not the other way around. You can tell by the "[EDIT]"s that are interspersed through the text. At least you looked somewhere for sources, though. Try following the suggestion by Juzhong made above, now. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a textbook example of an article on a perfectly viable subject that is in need of cleanup, because the original editor didn't use sources even though plenty of sources exist. Fixing this is a matter of taking those sources in hand and using ordinary editing tools to modify the article content (and possibly title). No administrator tools are required. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree all the way. (You might also want to move your "keep" to the beginning of your comment so it's easier to distinguish.)  LinguistAtLarge  19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took a glance at http://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=%22Indeterminacy+problem%22, most of them seem to be about statistics, not philosophy of science. That's not the same concept as the one this article is about. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now try the name that I already told you, only a few lines further up this very page, was the name commonly used in the literature, by Longino et al.. And try reading the source already cited. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on Underdetermination notes that it is also called "indeterminacy of data to theory", and appears to be about much the same issue. See also Occam's razor#Science and the scientific method. Not sure if there's any content in this article worth keeping given what's already in some of the other articles, but the issue is a well-known topic in the philosophy of science. (That's effectively a weak vote for merging and redirecting.) Djr32 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a subsection of Occam's Razor (or equivalent) or do a complete rewrite. The problem with this article is that it's an essay more than anything else. Contacting WP:Philosophy and WP:Science is in order methinks.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An Amazon search for "Indeterminacy Problem" (with quotes) turns up 316 books [12].  LinguistAtLarge  19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also restored the lead sentence that was lost several edits ago.  LinguistAtLarge  19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your quotes made any difference. Juzhong (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK seriously redirect to indeterminacy. I looked through google scholar hits, and it seems anything you wrote about the "interdeterminacy problem" would be redundant with other discussions of indeterminacy which can be found from that page. I don't care if the content is merged somewhere else but the title needs to redirect there. Juzhong (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Juzhong. As a search term, "Indeterminacy problem" can refer to several of the concepts listed on the Indeterminacy disambiguation page. In the sense used in this article, "Underdetermination" appears more common. As far as can be discerned, the content is OR, and in any case a collection of totally unsourced opinions and arguments that require attribution if they are to be retained, so merging with Underdetermination is not doable. 88.235.147.36 (talk) 20:17, 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 G7 by author. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lissy Trullie[edit]

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

I speedy deleted this article on the grounds that the references were inadequate for the boasts made ("rock star"? I don't think so). On the request of the article's creator, I restored the article and asked him to improve the references. He responded in an unhelpful manner. I see that this person does have google entries, but a lot of them are from sources like myspace. Deb (talk) 11:14, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humble King Returning King[edit]

Humble King Returning King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable self-published book. Review quoted is a customer review on barnes and noble's web site, not a professional review. Google search turns up no reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. andy (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article comes right out and admits this is self-published, even going so far as to include an advertising blurb for the vanity press right there on the page! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hadn't caught that Pete Kovacs, the author of the book, basically is RNK Publishing or I would have nominated for deletion myself.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like Mr. Kovacs is creating a walled garden related to himself and his work. Little to no evidence of reliable, independant notability. Avi (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete Not sure why all of the sudden this onslaught of delete notices. The SCU Advocate is not just a "student newspaper" it is widely distributed and read all throughout Silicon Valley where Santa Clara University School of Law is located. Our professors are some of the USAs top attorneys and alumni are in Silicon Valley law firms and corporations. You can delete this but I will count it as pure religious discrimination. As one law prof said, "what goes around comes around." Be sure to consider what Pete Kovacs and Humble King Returning King are all about...fighting injustice, oppression, suppression of free speech, anti-Semitism. Wikipedia is primarily a "free-speech" forum. Maybe you should actually read the article "The Patriot Act: Noble Ends, Questionable Means" before you act in the manner that is evidenced here. I figured the CIA/FBI/VP Cheney would've come to terms with their atrocities by now, but it seems they are influencing this generation to act like fascists. Hkp-avniel (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why you think any kind of discrimination is involved. Quite simply, the book does not meet our guidelines on what books should be included, as described at WP:BK. You'll note that neither the subject matter of the book nor the religion or race of its author are relevant criteria on that page. Objective facts are: has the book been reviewed in multiple professionally published, reliable sources? It doesn't look to us like it has, nor does it seem to have won major awards, or be the subject of instruction in multiple courses at academic institutions, or any of the other criteria on that page. Why is it that any time some standard is not in the interests of a Jewish person it is so predictably labelled anti-semitism? Is it just some kind of knee-jerk reflex, or is it intentional abuse of our tendency to try to correct for prejudices? JulesH (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, technically, it would be more proper to call it anti-Christianity, not antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 13:19, 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. One (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lane End Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lane End Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small primary school that does not assert any notability. Its exam results may be higher than average but that does not make it important or notable in any way. Very scant references as well - including to its own website, and to a home-made one. Majorly talk 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to town or county article - primary schools aren't usually notable. andy (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change into an article on Lane End, Cheadle Hulme. The article refers to there being articles on two adjacent districts of the town of Cheadle Hulme, but apparently not on Lane End. WP does not normally have articles on Primary schools because generally they are not of wide notability. The best solution is usually to merge these into an article on the place where they are (as andy). However the article could be turned around into a stub on Lane End with a section on the school as its only substantial section. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no such place as Lane End in Cheadle Hulme. It's the name of the school. Cheadle Hulme is not really a town, and doesn't have districts. The whole area is under one name. Majorly talk 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - rated as Grade 1 Outstanding by Ofsted; the highest rating possible for a UK school is a clear claim to notability. I will source this. TerriersFan (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Ratings have been accepted as a criterion for primary school notability--but as I read last years report, 13% of all primary schools have been judged outstanding. That';s much too weak a criterion for notability for a class of things almost all of which are not notable. . DGG (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but how many can you find where every criteria is also outstanding? TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Importance is not a content criterion. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not asserted though. And as for WP:V, its own website and someone's personal site are reliable sources? Majorly talk 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is performance coverage from BBC, Ofsted, and the UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. The "personal website" is the site of the Member of Parliament and are news stories. I believe the school website is reasonable for Verifiablity though not for NPOV. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm referring to cheadlehulme.net, not the MP's page. Just because something exists does not make it notable. Every single school in the country has an Ofsted report, and league table position. No notability is asserted = delete. Majorly talk 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:Notability is not a content policy; it is intended as a guideline to interpreting them. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course notability is asserted - it has been independently assessed as an outstanding school, not only overall but in every aspect of its work. This is a clear claim to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Outstanding performance is asserted for many primary schools. That does not make them all notable. The WP consenus has accepted that all High Schools are notable, but hitherto has balked at doing the same with every primary school. The usual answer is not to delete them, but to merge them into an article on their village town or locality. In this case there does not appear to be an article on Lane End yet. I therefore suggested above tha the present article should be moved to Lane End, Cheadle Hulme and restrcutured so that the primary school would be one of the topics covered. This was intended as a contructive suggestion to ensure that the standard answer that primary schools are generally NN could not be disapplied in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I generally support merging primary schools into their location and, indeed, generally merge at least one every day. However, the difference this time is that the outstanding performance has been independently assessed not only in respect of the overall assessment but highly unusually in respect of each component. Very few UK schools have such a high assessment (I only know of one other) and they merit their own page. TerriersFan (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I said above, there's no such place as Lane End. Majorly talk 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The reliable and verifiable sources already provided in the article support a claim of notability that most primary schools would be unable to make. I look forward to further expansion of this article and will reconsider my vote when this expansion is complete. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Terriersfan and doubleblue; rated as Grade 1 Outstanding in all categories by Ofsted. Ample sources to support content of article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Per the references in the article, this school is not the average primary school.--Jmundo (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete as A9. ... discospinster talk 13:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rareform[edit]

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

Another album by After the Burial. Not self-produced like the other one, but still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. User has been repeatedly recreating deleted content about this band. Graymornings(talk) 07:44, 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 per A9. ... discospinster talk 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forging a future self[edit]

Forging a future self (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Admittedly self-produced album by a non-notable band. No refs besides Amazon. Graymornings(talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A9 as previously deleted per a strong consensus. R.T. 13:20, 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 keep as another bad-faith nomination by a sock puppet of User:Yaneleksklus. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK funky[edit]

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

Non-notable genre of music, insufficient content, should be merged to funky house at its best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Man with a huge cock (talk • contribs) December 30, 2008

  • Weak Keep. A distinct genre that has received some coverage.[13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A clearly sonically and culturally distinct genre from funky house. It's in its nascent stage and seems to becoming all that is played on UK pirate radio which is the medium that spawned uk garage grime and dubstep. Obviously needs a thorough rewrite though. Claphands (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Some sources given at the bottom of the page seem to be major UK newspapers and magazines. Although others are blogs, this genre has established notability outside of Wikipedia. R.T. 13:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources establish notabilty. Artw (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:35, 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 boldly redirected to Wanted (2008 film)#Sequel. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted 2[edit]

Wanted 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NFF. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:43, 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 close as wrong venue. Please take this to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ἐνέργεια (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The article was a redirect to the page "Energy (disambiguation)". The article had one page that linked to it (Energeia). That page was changed to link directly to "Energy (disambiguation)" instead of coming to "Ἐνέργεια (disambiguation)". The page is now orphaned. Mikaey (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this does not belong in the English Wikipedia. This term already exists in another Wikipedia. MuZemike (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you want Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. JulesH (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • invalid afd, this isn't an article but a redirect, and as such belongs on WP:RFD. I would also vote keep on RFD on the basis that "redirects are cheap". --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, that is right. Closing this AFD now. MuZemike (talk) 14:29, 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 Criteria for speedy deletion met. deletion log. (NAC). NonvocalScream (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marble blast platinum[edit]

Marble blast platinum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be promoting a game mod. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:27, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mushbook[edit]

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

It's either a hoax or a dictionary definition, and probably both. Refs make no sense. Graymornings(talk) 05:32, 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 speedy (snowball) keep as well as nomination withdrawn. Non admin closure. --Terrillja talk 06:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Stevens[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO. No sources to verify that she was a serious nominee for the XRCO Award and the other nomination is from a organization not listed in Category:Adult movie awards.--Jmundo (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any source that says that she was a serious nominee per WP:PORNBIO. The source cited only mention her name.--Jmundo (talk) 07:35, 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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange night visitors[edit]

Strange night visitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. (Plus unsourced: the one link is to a website that does not appear to meet WP:RS.) I got a total of 23 unique google hits for the phrase, of which: one was a hit for Wikipedia, 6 were posts in Yahoo Answers, three were irrelevant happenstance uses of the phrase, and three were about Pinocchio. This left 10 uses. Even on the non-WP:RS forums, individuals who seemed to be regular posters were saying they had never heard of the term. — BillC talk 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator's research. Additionally, the link in the article is basically a one-page site on a free web host, which was apparently created just to give the appearance of legitimacy to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to be a fortean term used elsewhere for this meaning, and though it touches on other reported phenomena all of them are well covered here. Artw (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there is some other name under which this is known. There is some assertion of notability, but the references I find just do not cut it. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Along with Things that go bump in the night -- consign such colloquialisms to encyclopedic oblivion. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, if referenced wouldnt be the most leftfield article on wikipedia though Jw2035 (talk) 22:46, 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 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analogical conceptual dictionary[edit]

Analogical conceptual dictionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Partial translation of the Spanish WP article Diccionario Analógico Conceptual, which, like this article, is completely unsourced and appears to be in part original research and in part an advertisement for the Web site zirano.com. I thought of redirecting this to Thesaurus, since it seems to be about a type of thesaurus; but "analogical conceptual dictionary" gets zero hits in Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar searches, so it seems a very unlikely search term. (The equivalent Spanish term gets only 27 ghits—most, if not all, of which relate to the Zirano site.) Deor (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I've just noticed that the article was speedied as blatant advertising a couple of days before it popped up again. Nevertheless, a proper AfD seems better than another G11 speedy, so that any further re-creations can be G4ed. Deor (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertising. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not notable, and the article would need a complete rewrite for clarity and tone. — Twinzor Say hi! 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (1) This is WP:SPAM for zirano.com. (2) zirano.com is not notable per WP:WEB. (3) This is a recreation of a previously deleted article without substantially changing the content or a change in the notability of the subject, and thus should be deleted per WP:RECREATE. (4) In Spanish, the term "analogical conceptual dictionary" may be used, and in English, it's just "conceptual dictionary", and that article already exists. (I created it after the previous AfD).  LinguistAtLarge  19:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you supply a link to the previous AfD? I didn't run across any when I was researching this. Deor (talk)
Sorry, my bad. It was a G11 speedy delete last time around. No AfD discussion.  LinguistAtLarge  21:49, 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. Please don't vote twice, but consensus is clear regardless. MBisanz talk 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-nursing08[edit]

U-nursing08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page in Korean should be deleted because it 1) appears to be a copyvio of a book or some other printed matter (the first sentence in the article) and 2) it's been hanging around WP:PNT past the two-week cutoff. Yupik (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There has been no attempt to translate this to English in the last two weeks. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I put a machine translation on the article. Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. -Yupik (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Judging by the machine translation, this looks like a "what things could become" kind of article. Optimistic? Yes. Plausible? Yes, but not without problems. Notable? No. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:38, 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, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 02:02, 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, -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:39, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hjalmar Armfeld[edit]

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

Unnotable silversmith. I tried to find reliable sources, but came up empty. Therefore, he fails WP:N and WP:V Tavix (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN. Nothing important in Google or Clusty. No academic refs (e.g., Historical Abstracts). Unless somebody can show that his Faberge contribution or his connection to Johan_Victor_Aarne (apparently a marginally notable goldsmith, but that may be open to question as well) was significant, there's just nothing I can find to suggest any notability. Jlg4104 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does his connection to Johan Victor Aarne have anything to do with his notability? Tavix (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably nothing. Just opening the possibility that if Armfeld, for instance, played some central role in Aarne's enterprise, then there may be some notability there (on the grounds that a key craftsperson or tradesperson in a notable shop might himself/herself be notable). Jlg4104 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable references. On an unrelated note, this is the second deletion discussion I've participated in during the past week that involved someone named "Hjalmar." Graymornings(talk) 05:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Subjects of this vintage can't be expected to turn up in Google searches. Why did the nominator or nobody else refer to the person most likely to know of offline sources, i.e. the article creator? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? If they are notable enough, there still should be sources. Tavix (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Like it Hot remake (film)[edit]

Some Like it Hot remake (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested on the grounds that "there is proof coming from Jamie Lee Curtis's mouth". Violation of WP:CRYSTAL; this movie is only a project right now. Delete, and recreate once principal photography begins.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:03, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack travers[edit]

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

No ghits indicating there is a cage fighter named Jack Travers. WP:HOAX. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:59, 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. One (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hildebrandt[edit]

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

Autobiography of non-notable person. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. So agreed. The only notable thing in the article, the park for Janusz Żurakowski, is already mentioned in that article. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Township mayors are not notable by default. Nothing in this article indicates how this person satisfies WP:BIO. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per humanoid, Janus and confucius I am unable to locate significant coverage in WP:RS. The ref's in the article are not sufficient in depth or in number to satisfy WP:N. They do not support the content at the present moment. Perhaps someone can locate and cite sufficient sourcing? Dlohcierekim 16:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does say how they satisfy WP:BIO. He is a mayor and that fits under wikipedias description of a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley844 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Mayors like Michael Bloomberg are notable. Mayors of (7 year old) townships with a population of 4,381 are very unlikely to be notable. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors are likely to be notable. Notability hinges on having "received significant press coverage." I am unable to locate this. What would be needed would be to get into the archives of a local paper or other medium that can provide references we can cite. Mentions in a province-wide paper or the paper of the provincial capital would be better. Coverage needs to be as in depth as possible-- more than a passing reference, though those can add up if there are enough of them. Every fact in the article should be backed by a reliable source. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:POLITICIAN. Mayors are likely to be notable, if their articles are properly sourced, but they're not inherently notable just for being mayors. The references still gotta be there. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um actually for your information the township is 75 years old. Dont talk about something you dont know about. --Paisley844 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you please stop with the nasty comments? I quote from Madawaska_Valley,_Ontario: "Madawaska Valley is a township in Renfrew County, Ontario, Canada. It has a population of 4,381. It was formed on January 1, 2001." --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 20:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was actually talking about Renfrew County. Misunderstanding. The township of Madawaska Valley was formed in 2001 however Renfrew County has been along for at least 75 years. Barrys bay has had a local government for a long time.

Here are some links to the newspapers he have been in. Of course, it is very difficult to get all of them because he has been in numerous papers. Some of them I could not find online so I listed the dates, pages, and newspaper. I am also sorry for being kind of snappy. This means a lot to me and I will be devestated if this doesn't work out. I am very emotional about this and it means the world to me. Sorry for any rude things I may have said.

Ottawa Citizen - October 26th 2008, A8-A9, The First Rule of Hunt Camp, Don't talk about Hunt Camp added link for this cite.
  • Comment This newspapers's mention of him is that every November, he "gathers to hunt, drink beer and bond in the bush." Is this what you consider notable coverage?--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 17:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Leader, Eganville, Ontario- November 19th 2008, Page 5, Madawaska Valley receives award for Buy Local challenge. added link for this
The Daily Observer, Pembroke, Ontario, Tuesday September 2nd 2008, Incentive guarantees Madawaska Valley are a family physician added link for this
The Leader, Eganville, Ontario, October 29th 2008, Madawaska Valley win tour adds to the bigger picture
The Leader, Eganville, Ontario, Wednesday August 9th 2006, The entire paper, Path of Destruction
Many, Many articles in Barry's Bay this week and the Eganville Leader. If you would like I could list them but it would be pages long.--Paisley844 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links would be lovely. Also, these need to be in the article. Would suggest citing the content as I've done with a couple of sources-- just follow my lead. If no link available, just use the publication info. This would not be the place to put the numerous cites. In the article, you probably cannot have too many. Dlohcierekim 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local, parochial newspapers are filled with stories about local people. Were he the cover story of the township newspaper everyday for a year, I'm not sure this would have any meaning.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find links to the direct articles, just the newspapers. Should I put those on? I also listed some newspaper recognitions on the page, is this alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley844 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they should be in a section called "Sources." But yes, they need to be in the article. Any media from which you got the information should be cited, preferably with inline cites as I have done in the article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did a whole bunch of the stuff I wrote get deleted. It was good information?.--Paisley844 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please place comments like this on the article's discussion page. And the edit summaries under the history tab answer your question. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 15:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, speedy keep Paisley844 has jumped through all of the required hoops, by providing references which meet and exceed WP:N. Many of these sources which Paisley844 provided are readily available in a simple google search of "John Hildebrandt" and "Madawaska".[17] It is troubling that the nominator and three editors for deletion did not take the time to examine this themselves, before Paisley844 did. Paisley844 seems to genuinely want to make this a satisfactory, deletion proof article (if that is possible). Nominator, please close this AfD. travb (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current version at this moment is uncited, which is puzzling, as I added to cites from relabale sources that supported the the then content. In any event, when I last edited the article, it still did not have sufficient third party sourcing to establish meeting the requirement for non trivial coverage. Dlohcierekim 13:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not appear close to satisfying WP:N. There is nothing verified here, and the material does not appear noteworthy, even were it to be verified. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 18:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this fits any speedy keep criteria. Protonk (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if significant references can be added; delete if they can't. Just like all mayors. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Scott[edit]

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

Person who does not satisfy WP:Entertainer. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--I cannot find any evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neither can I. Also, could somebody check Weekend Splash Concert season 5 and all the alleged contestants listed there. This whole thing looks like a massive hoax to me. Óðinn (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks fame. Diletodo (talk) 23:06, 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 04:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faiva family[edit]

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

Blatant hoax as far as notability; ghits indicate this is a (bored?) high school kid in Missouri (as does his user page [18]), and nothing more. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It comes back to "it's not who you know, it's who wrote about you". There are no reliable third party sources to indicate notability. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Holy moly, vanitas vanitatum: there's a list of famous people they know. Delete for vanity, and with a troutslap. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, and a whole load of other things. Tavix (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with an ax. The second most ludicrous attempt at self promotion I've seen on Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unreferenced, and generally BS. I also reinserted the AFD header that had been deleted by the creator of the article. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:34, 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 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic geoengineering[edit]

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

Apologies to the author, who is clearly very valuable and knowedgeable contributor. A very interesting topic, but unfortunately fails the criteria for inclusion into wikipedia: the term is a neologism, nowhere found, and the article is an inadmissible synthesis of various geoengineering activities into a brand hot new subject, "hydrological geoengineering", which has zero google hits outside wikipedia. What is more, there is no definition of "hydrological geoengineering", and therefore I conclude that the author's collection of the described projects into a single aricle is his opinion, i.e., either original research or arbitrary collection of information. There is even insufficient evidence that every of these projects is described as "geoengineering" in valid sources. In particular, I seriously doubt that northern river reversal is an example of "geoengineering". I would suggest the author to split the article sectionwise into separate articles, because the information itself is very interesting; it is only it cannot be collected under the neologistic article title. I could have done the split myself, but I don't want to encroach on the credits of Andrewjlockley (talk · contribs).`'Míkka>t 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--in agreement with a very thorough job done by the nominator. Fascinating stuff, indeed, and probably well worth creating or merging elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split as suggested above. I agree that both the title and the synthesis are problematic. However, there is important, sourced material in the page that should be preserved. Deletion is a blunt instrument unsuited to dealing with article issues that should be handled through editorial processes. TerriersFan (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The material of the article is solely by a single author, who is currently active. I see no trouble for him to split his cotribution into several pages. "Hydrological geoengineering" is discussed nowhere yet. Period. Even if we close the eyes on WP:SYNTH and define H.GE. as as a hydrology-related subset of GE., you have yet show me that dealing with ice packs is a subject of hydrology. So, what now? Shall we write a yet another article Glaciological geoengineering? How about geomorphological geoengineering? Oceanologcal geoengineering? One can think of hundreds of valid titles in this way. The question is whether they are reasonably notable and discussed elsewhere before we put them into wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to pull together a summary of all the knowledge on the subject of geoengineering on behalf of the 'googlegroup' of experts working on the topic. It's worth pointing out that my work, and that of other contributors, is very closely scrutinised by the foremost professionals in the field, notably Ken Caldeira and Alvia Gaskill. If anything was seriously amiss, they would have pointed it out.

It's an emerging field, and there are 2 problems with nomenclature

  1. There is no standard lexicon. For example, space mirrors could be referred to as a solar shade, space sunshade, geoengineering satellite, etc. All would be correct and meaningful, although probably quite tricky to find.
  2. There is no standard categorisation, as other users have rightly pointed out. I'm intending to broadly split up the existing selection of techniques into the hierarchy below
greenhouse gas removal
  • biological
  • chemical
hydrological geoengineering
  • river
  • sea ice
  • glacial
solar radiation management
  • space
  • atmosphere
  • terrestrial/ocean

This work is not novel, but is a new categorisation structure. The alternatives are:

  1. Put every single technique on a new page (even though it doesn't have an established name, and will be hard to find with arbitrary names)
  2. Put every single technique on one page - which would be enormous and almost unusable.

I think the splitting system I've devised is logical and uses established academic disciplines (i.e. hydrology) to group the work. I stress this work is supervised, and in the absence of an alternative workable system, I suggest it stays. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep now that it's been moved. Easily meets notability guidelines.Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to point out that there are lots of other geoeng projects proposed for the arctic that aren't hydrological. where are these supposed to go? in fact, virtually every geoeng technique can be used for the arctic. BTW can the tags come off now?Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are supposed to go in an article about arctic geoengineering, so please focus on improving the current article. The tags can stay up to five days, so please don't worry about it and let the process work itself out. Concentrate on improving the current article by adding more sources. Non-hydrological geoengineering projects can certainly be added to an article focused on the arctic, and we no longer have to worry about the problematic wording of "hydrological geoengineering". We've crossed that bridge, so let's try making it to the next one. Don't look back. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well written, well sourced article. New name solves neologisim issue. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. SriMesh | talk 05:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fascinating and thoroughly referenced article. Lithoderm 05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721653,00.html , http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20081001gd.html ) Vmenkov (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G3, blatant misinformation. Pagrashtak 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in video gaming[edit]

2012 in video gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of video games allegedly coming out in 2012. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:08, 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 delete. Wizardman 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Houston 5A Baseball[edit]

Houston 5A Baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I ran across this article while finding un-Wikied page mentions of an article I'd just written (Brad Lincoln). The article appears to be about a website devoted to high school baseball in the area of Houston, Texas. It seems like a nice enough site, but the article is written in what seems like a very promotional tone, and it's entirely unreferenced. I tried to find media mentions of the site so I could source it and address that issue, but didn't come up with anything usable, and as such I think it fails WP:N, and it should probably be deleted. Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--there's nothing encyclopedic about this article: not the tone, not the content. Without notability found elsewhere, to delete is to take the appropriate action. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is about a website about Houston high school baseball. The website may be notable locally, but not enough to justify its own article. Mandsford (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford + no overall notability. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 21:20, 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 delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 04:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of war[edit]

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

Contested prod with two {{prod2}} tags removed. Original research about a video game for which there is no assertion of notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:55, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank E. Johnson[edit]

Frank E. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of either person meeting WP:BIO. Insufficient citations mean both entire articles may be WP:BLP problems. Closeapple (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also appears to be promotion for the same film:

Julianne Michelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete The subject may be notable, but the article in its current state does nothing to prove it. It is also in violation of WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Edit: Revised to keep. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frank E. Johnson per the now improved article. SPAM, Coatrack and POV have been removed, the article expanded and sourced, and award nominations have been confirmed. I have tagged it for RESCUE as there is plenty online for expansion and further improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Julianne Michelle as well as I have just given it a sandblasting to renove SPAM, Coatrack, POV, and have added references and sources to show her nominations and win. SHe's notable. The original article is now tagged for rescue. Needs expansion and improvement. Deletion is no longer an option. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Sourcing and notability addressed and spam issues cleaned off. Good job on the rewrite! -- Banjeboi 06:38, 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon's Rainbow[edit]

Shannon's Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:MOVIE. No evidence of having a distributor yet, let alone major coverage. (Nominating related articles Frank E. Johnson and Julianne Michelle in a separate AfD because those two are more obvious.) Closeapple (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My nomination. IMDb detail for Shannon's Rainbow is not clear about if it even has a distributor, only production companies that have only worked on a few minor projects. Movie's official website says it's in "post-production". Appears to have a few notable actors in non-starring roles, but no proof this pre-release film itself is notable. Maybe OK after it's released, if ever, but not right now. --Closeapple (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete keep seems like it's getting close, but still a future film. Look at the trouble the Watchmen movie is in...that's clearly notable, but if this gets held up for some reason, is it? Change per improvements, though several of the sources are tangential. JJL (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and per nom: a single local newspaper report is not sufficient to sho this is in any way notable. IMBD listing only lists that it is in production, and does not confer notability either Ohconfucius (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have sourced the article. It now meets WP:NFF through WP:GNG. Has nore than sufficiant coverage for a film in post-production. Not at all WP:Crystal. As for "ditribution of an unreleased film... ignore IMDB, as the official website says "SummitWorks Films In Assoction with Supernova Media Presents".Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems quite NPOV and well sourced. -- Banjeboi 06:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears notable enough, inclusion of actors such as Louis Gossett Jr., Daryl Hannah, and Michael Madsen indicate this is hardly someone's basement hobby project. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say delete per WP:CRYSTAL, but seems to have garnered enough 3rd party attention - and references. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It appears the pass the wikipedia guidelines. Wow, I didn't know that there are such complicated and wordy rules about creating an article. I thought any article could be made if the film had started production and at least one official source is cited. I'll be more carful if I create another article in making sure the project is notable. Anonymous9498 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan since the named article had been moved during the course of the AfD, but closing admin's script only deleted the redirect. --slakr\ talk / 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I closed the first listing of this discussion as null and void. The discussion got way off topic, and was more concerned with blocking and sock-puppetry and general bad faith. THis discussion is getting a fresh start. To view the previous discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family_(2nd_nomination_-_voided). The nomination for deleting this article was based on lack of notability. The nominator felt that the references provided in the article were not directly relative to this article's subject, but rather more generally to the time and place that this family lives/has lived. I have no opinion in the matter. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Extremely Strong Keep (from article's author Exxess).
In direct and unequivocal refutation, the article on nobility clearly states:
'The term originally referred to those who were "KNOWN" or "NOTABLE"...'


See above. The following has been the basis of a deletion nomination -- Quoting Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Notability fallacies -- Google test -- Examples: * Delete Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. – GoogleGirl 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)"

The article has surmountable problems; but, given the documented and referenced antiquity of the family as nobility in verifiable sources makes the family per se inherently notable, in my opinion. -- Exxess (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no idea why notability is even being debated, as it's clearly established in books that are not published online. The family is ancient. Quoting above: "Yes, the the name of the family gives a few hits, ..." Not all verifiable sources should be presumed to exist online, nor should that be the sole criteria. I don't think a deletion nomination is justified on notability claims. There is no reasoning of principles; no argument is required to prove fundamental rules, and this is becoming an unnecessary justification of WP:RS and {{Cite book}}. The family is notable. The deletion nomination was made in haste. I don't think it can be sustained on notability claims, unless there is a criteria for notability that is secret. -- Exxess (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło as a family as listed in the article's reference section:

Jerzy Zdrada, "JAROSŁAW DĄBROWSKI: 1836 -- 1871" (Kraków, POLSKA: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1973), pages 9-10 (This book is not available online. Go to a library to read it for verification purposes. I obtained my copy at UCLA in Los Angeles.):
Quoting page 9:
"Rodzina Dąbrowskich wywodziła się z Mazowsza, najprawdopodobniej ze wsi Dąbrówka pod Piasecznem w ziemi warszawskiej. Notują ją herbarze szlacheckie od XV wieku, ale była to zawsze szlachta dość uboga, w niektórych tylko okresach dochodząca do pewnej zamożności. Nigdy też nie dostąpili Dąbrowscy ważniejszych urzędów i godności, zadowalając się w latach istnienia Rzeczypospolitej komornictwami, skarbnikostwem, wojskostwem, miecznikostwem czy stolnikostwem. Nie brak też było w rodzinie duchownych. Rozrastającemu się rodowi Żądło-Dąbrowskich szybko zrobiło się ciasno na ubogim Mazowszu. W ciągu XVI i XVII wieku zaczęto się przenosić, głównie dzięki małżeństwom, w inne zakątki Rzeczypospolitej. Tym też sposobem jedna z gałęzi rodu Dąbrowskich w końcu XVIII wieku zakorzeniła się na Wołyniu."
Rough translation in English directly from the article.
"The family Dąbrowski originated from Mazowsza, most likely from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka below Piaseczno in the lands of Warszawa. They were always nobility, belonging to the szlachta odwieczna or immemorial nobility, and in the armorials of Poland, documentation from the 15th century is used to note them. Members of meager means (dość uboga) always existed in this noble family, and wealth came to other members (Szlachta zamożna/bene natus possessionatus et dominus) in certain periods. The Żądło-Dąbrowski's never obtained very important offices or dignities, but in the years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's existence (First Rzeczpospolita, or Rzeczpospolita szlachecka – Nobles' Commonwealth/Republic), they served in office as chamberlains (komornictwami/princeps nobilitatis - formerly the Judge in boundary disputes), treasurers (skarbnikostwem), seneschal (wojskostwem/tribunus), sword-bearers (miecznikostwem), and pantlers (stolnikostwem). Nor were they absent from the clergy. Mainly due to marriages, the family began expanding to other regions of the Commonwealth. One particular branch of this family at the end of the XVIII-century domiciled/settled in Volhynia/Wołyniu (currently part of Ukraine)."
On concerns regarding academia, Jerzy Zdrada is a professor at the University of Jagielloński. He authored the above passage.[19] [20]
everything provided above exists in the article. -- Exxess (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as listing admin) above comment has been redacted by hiding some of the text; in edit mode this text is visible. All parties are requested to maintain civility and stay on-topic, which is this article and its subject's notability. Refrain from importing bad faith assumptions and tangent issues. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfying notability concerns regarding information regarding this particular family as a family, the following is widely available online: click here -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

I don't think many understand there are many unrelated people with the surname Dąbrowski. The Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family is one particular family. -- Exxess (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section:

Adam Józef Feliks Boniecki-Fredro, herbu Bończa; "Herbarz Polski - Część I.; Wiadomości Historyczno-Genealogiczne O Rodach Szlacheckich." (Warszawa, POLSKA: Skład główny Gebethner i Wolff w Warszawie, 1901), Volume IV, pages 147-148. (rough English translation):
"Dąbrowski, bearing the Polish Coat-of-Arms/Herb Radwan took their surname from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka under Piaseczno in the lands of Warszawa, where other members of the family settled predominantly in the lands of Różan. The original surname/przydomek they used was "Żądło" (the Sting), prior to establishing the fixed surname/cognomen Dąbrowski derived from their patrimony/inheritance Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka."
I think once instance of notability is established here. The family is directly addressed. -- Exxess (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section, given one is to understand the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family emerged later in history as a branch of the Radwan gens/clan (They were Radwan/Radwanice first.):

Janusz Bieniak, "Knight Clans in Medieval Poland," in Antoni Gąsiorowski (ed.), The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages: Anthologies, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich - Wydawnictwo; Wrocław, POLSKA; 1984, page 154.
"In Poland, the Radwanice were noted relatively early (1274) as the descendants of Radwan, a knight [more properly a "rycerz" {German "ritter"}] active a few decades earlier. ..."
Is this genealogy or history? The family is notable. -- Exxess (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section, given one is to understand the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family emerged later in history from the Radwan gens/clan prior to becoming Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan. This is receding far into history, and that's notable in itself.

Kasper Niesiecki S.J. (1682-1744) in his "Herbarz Polski" (with increased legal proofs and additions by Jan Nepomucen Bobrowicz [1805-1881] in the Leipzig editions, 1839-1846) writes:
"It [Radwan coat of arms] was awarded during the reign of King Boleslaw Smialy (1058-1079) on the occasion of a battle with Ruthenia; a captain named Radwan had been sent out on a foray with part of the army. He happened upon the enemy camp in such close quarters that they could neither protect themselves from a skirmish with the Ruthenians, nor fight with them, inasmuch as their numbers were so much smaller. But they all agreed it was better to fall dead on the spot than to encourage the enemy by fleeing. So with all their heart they sprang toward the Ruthenians, whose knights were daunted by this attack; but when they saw the small numbers against them, the Ruthenians grew bold, and not only took away their banner, but dispersed them as well. Captain Radwan, wishing to encourage his men to fight once more, rushed to a nearby church, where he seized the church’s banner; he then gathered his men and courageously attacked the enemy. The Ruthenians took this to mean a new army with fresh troops had joined the battle, and began to retreat and flee. So Radwan’s banner carried the day, and for this he received that church’s banner for his shield, as well as other gifts.[35] Paprocki, however, gives this as occurring during the rule of Bolesław Chrobry [992-1025] in 1021. He writes that Radwan was a royal chancellor, which information he is supposed to have taken from ancient royal grants. I conclude from this that either this clan sign is more ancient than the time of Bolesław Śmiały [1058-1079] and originated in the time of Bolesław Krzywousty [1102-1138], to whom some authors ascribe its conferment on that aforementioned Radwan; or else that before the time of Bolesław Śmiały [1058-1079] the Radwans used some other arms in their seal: for instance, that Radwan whom Paprocki gives as Bishop of Poznań in 1138. Długosz, in 'Vitae Episcop. Posnan. [Lives of the Bishops of Poznań]' does not include him under Radwan arms, but Sreniawa; there I, too, will speak of him."
Is this genealogy? Or is this history? This deletion nomination is supposed to be about notability. Problems like "peacock" language can be fixed with editing. -- Exxess (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there may be some notable family members, but that doesn't mean there should be a full article on the family. Tavix (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the family is notable, the article should exist. And justify that line of reasoning in the face of the Kennedy family article. -- Exxess (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not very difficult. Look at the article, and you'll see dozens of blue wikilinks, each pointing to an article on a notable Kennedy family member. But that sort of comparison is a red herring, per {{WP:WAX]]. As I said before (right below), we have one or two notable people in the Dabrowski article. That they go back a long time isn't in itself so notable, since every family does (though not always in a documented fashion, granted)--but not every family produces very many notable individuals, and let's face it, a family is really only notable in as much as its individual members lead notable lives. In comparison with the Kennedy family, the Dabrowski family simply cuts a very small figure. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability -- 'Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...'
The family is notable. If matters of degree and magnitude are a concern, the article can state, "a minor noble family. I personally think minor noble familes of Poland are important as a subject in and of themselves, as they formed a highly patriotic element of Polish history, reflected in historical sources time and time again. -- Exxess (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see a very notable person, Jarosław Dąbrowski, who already has his article, and maybe one or two others. Then, there's a lot of historical background to names, status, etc., but much of it simply does not pertain, and does not attribute notability to the family as a whole. The section on Conrad, 1863, and Pilsudski is tenuous at best--if I understand it correctly, the Pilsudski connection, for instance, is that he was of impoverished gentry and an expert on the 1863 uprising which Jaroslaw D. had called for. That's establishing notability by proxy. Also, the famous family scions after emigration to the US, there is no claim of notability nor proof of it; the lead paragraph of that section again seems to want to establish notability for the family as a whole by making them part of a larger historical movement. I have to agree with the nominator: the family as a whole is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The family was related to Joseph Conrad by marriage, and Joseph Conrad's father and Jaroslaw Dabrowski planned an uprising that led to Joseph Conrad's father being exiled to Russia. What's tenuous about that? Marriage is a close tie.
Jerzy Zdrada's book, JAROSLAW DABROWSKI: 1836-1871, available worldwide, states on page 10:
"Przez żonę Piotra, Marię z Korzeniowskich, byli Dąbrowscy spowinowaceni ze znanym pisarzem JÓZEFEM KORZENIOWSKIM."
That's JOSEPH CONRAD. -- Exxess (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The family was part of a larger historical movement. Emigration to the U.S.A. in the face of Russian oppression, which specifically targeted the Polish nobility because it was the patriotic element that could rise up. And in the U.S.A., they found themselves at the bottom of the social ladder. -- Exxess (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that applies to thousands of other families. And the article actually says nothing about where they were at in the US. It gives two photographs and links to some birth certificates, that's it--and those people are not notable in their own right. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Correct. I agree. I think there are surmountable problems in the article, but in my mind, given the reference works provided, which cover the family per se in significant detail, and their documented and verifiable antiquity, the family itself is inherently notable. That should not mean every single detail in the artice must be notable. -- Exxess (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the family is notable. The name appears in widely-published, verifiable sources. An article on the family would point others to those sources, or those sources might lead to a Google search, which would lead to Wikipedia, a useful cross-reference. Given the concerns raised above, perhaps the article should weed out the non-notables, be more or less a brief mention of the family, with a section pointing to the Wikipedia articles on the notables. I do believe that serves an Encyclopedic purpose. -- Exxess (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think WP is designed to work in the way you describe, and it seems to me that if the article were to be pared down, like a list or a dab page, you'd have very little left. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability -- 'Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...' That being said, I think the family is worthy of notice by objective, verifiable standards. One should be able to click on Jarosław Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski's surname and be taken to an Encyclopedic article regarding his social/familial background. The same applies to the other notable in the family, Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski h. Radwan (should be Żądło-Dąbrowski to be precise.) The family does have notability claims, as they are noted in historical reference works dating back to the 11th century, if one understands the family emerged from the Radwan gens/clan to become a sept within that gens/clan distinguished by the surname Żądło-Dąbrowski. -- Exxess (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - noble families are notable, especially those, that can trace their roots to the uradel. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are two clearly notable members of the family: The 19th century nationalist general Jarosław Dąbrowski, who already has an article, and Stefan Zygmunt Dąbrowski, the 20th century rector of Adam Mickiewicz University, who ought to have one. That's not enough to support this article, a clear violation of NOT genealogy. A very large percentage of the population of Poland was at one time nobility. DGG (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Highly debateable. I don't think there is such a clear-cut distinction between genealogy and history, particularly a history extending to the 11th century, per verifiable sources. The Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family emerged from the Radwan gens/clan. -- Exxess (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If genealogy is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, why does the article on the Kennedy family exist? That is explicitly genealogical. Read it. It states, "John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis had 4 children:," and then goes on to list those children. I hope the admin that is monitoring this deletion debate will take note of the blatant contradictions. The Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski is demonstrably notable, and it's incorrect to state "a clear violation of NOT genealogy" given the article on the Kennedy family, which is out-and-out genealogical. -- Exxess (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to insufficient, misleading quasi-citations hot-linked to advertisements by Amazon.com, WorldCat.org, and a blog at akson.sgh.waw.pl, with nothing to read at any of these specific webpages. Sufficient time has already been given to deal with peacock terms such as, that the family: "long served Poland in the struggle for Polish freedom and the right to exist as a sovereign nation". There are no links to prove any of this. --Poeticbent talk 06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting -- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:
"Surmountable problems -- Poorly written article -- Examples: -- * Delete It's not referenced properly – Lazy1 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
There are two common arguments concerning the current status of the writing of an article that are not generally considered to be reasons for deletion. These arguments comprise what are considered to be surmountable problems. The first is that the article is poorly written, and the second is has not been edited properly or recently." -- Exxess (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference sources in the form of books are available offline. User Petri Krohn has made the same observation, stating in the article history, "The given references are printed books, do not expect to be able to read them on worldcat.org or amazon.com!" -- Exxess (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link you mention at akson.sgh.waw.pl has the following info. in it:
"Dąbrowski I -- Dąbrowa -- Piaseczno -- Radwan -- Żądło"
That is a reference to support this statement from the article:
"From Mazowsza, Poland, the old szlachta/noble family Żądło Dąbrowski bearing the Polish Coat-of-Arms/Herb Radwan took their surname from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka under Piaseczno"
You cited that as not in citation given -- READ! The reference cannot be made any clearer or more obvious. If one is referred to a page number in a book, the precise sentence(s) are not exactly spelled out. One at times has to read the page. Instead of a book page to read, you were given a web page. -- Exxess (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this deletion nomination about notability, or is this about content? The family is notable. Edit the content. -- Exxess (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "peacock" language, it's right here. I have absolutely no idea why links are required when the books are available offline. That's the purpose of the links. To point to the books. -- Exxess (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerzy Zdrada, "JAROSŁAW DĄBROWSKI: 1836 -- 1871" (Kraków, POLSKA: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1973), pages 9-10 (This book is not available online. Go to a library to read it for verification purposes. I obtained my copy at UCLA in Los Angeles.):
Quoting page 9:
"Rodzina Dąbrowskich wywodziła się z Mazowsza, najprawdopodobniej ze wsi Dąbrówka pod Piasecznem w ziemi warszawskiej. Notują ją herbarze szlacheckie od XV wieku, ale była to zawsze szlachta dość uboga, w niektórych tylko okresach dochodząca do pewnej zamożności. Nigdy też nie dostąpili Dąbrowscy ważniejszych urzędów i godności, zadowalając się w latach istnienia Rzeczypospolitej komornictwami, skarbnikostwem, wojskostwem, miecznikostwem czy stolnikostwem. Nie brak też było w rodzinie duchownych. Rozrastającemu się rodowi Żądło-Dąbrowskich szybko zrobiło się ciasno na ubogim Mazowszu. W ciągu XVI i XVII wieku zaczęto się przenosić, głównie dzięki małżeństwom, w inne zakątki Rzeczypospolitej. Tym też sposobem jedna z gałęzi rodu Dąbrowskich w końcu XVIII wieku zakorzeniła się na Wołyniu."
Rough translation in English directly from the article.
"The family Dąbrowski originated from Mazowsza, most likely from the village/patrimony Dąbrówki/Dąbrówka below Piaseczno in the lands of Warszawa. They were always nobility, belonging to the szlachta odwieczna or immemorial nobility, and in the armorials of Poland, documentation from the 15th century is used to note them. Members of meager means (dość uboga) always existed in this noble family, and wealth came to other members (Szlachta zamożna/bene natus possessionatus et dominus) in certain periods. The Żądło-Dąbrowski's never obtained very important offices or dignities, but in the years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's existence (First Rzeczpospolita, or Rzeczpospolita szlachecka – Nobles' Commonwealth/Republic), they served in office as chamberlains (komornictwami/princeps nobilitatis - formerly the Judge in boundary disputes), treasurers (skarbnikostwem), seneschal (wojskostwem/tribunus), sword-bearers (miecznikostwem), and pantlers (stolnikostwem). Nor were they absent from the clergy. Mainly due to marriages, the family began expanding to other regions of the Commonwealth. One particular branch of this family at the end of the XVIII-century domiciled/settled in Volhynia/Wołyniu (currently part of Ukraine)."
Comment: The entire point of this article was if one goes to the Radwan coat of arms article, one sees a list of 284 surnames under the picture of the Radwan coat-of-arms. One should be able to click any of those surnames and be taken to an article about any particular family on that list, in my opinion. That serves the purpose of an online Encyclopedia. Those families listed are noted within Wikipedia itself. They have self-established notability, so to speak, and they are a justifiable matter of inquiry. Is that genealogy? Or is that history? I read the reasons for the Delete votes, which state this is a simple matter, but it's not, if one thinks it through. There are lists of Polish coats of arms on Wikipedia, and one can click on links to individual articles explicating those arms. I say the same thing should apply with the list of surnames in the Polish coat-of-arms articles.
This particular family, Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski, is notable and meets the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability in almost checklist fashion. It's so apparently obvious to me, I find this entire deletion nomination self-contradictory in the extreme, as far as notability is concerned. They were notable enough that I found information on them in libraries in the first place. The Wikipedia-is-not-genealogy objection cannot even be sustained in the face of the Kennedy family article, which is blatantly genealogical.
Regarding the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski article, fix the content in the article, fix the problems, but I remain unconvinced the family is not notable. The deletion nomination makes no sense on those grounds. I think the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion needed to be consulted first. How many times does it need to be said? Wikipedia:Notability -- 'The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ...' Given the several academic sources provided above, whose authors obviously took note of the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family, it's difficult to fathom how anyone can seriously sustain that the family is not notable. Maybe the family is only mildly notable, but notable they are, nonetheless. -- Exxess (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the face of the evidence, when considered, the deletion nomination is ill-conceived. The nominator based his determination of notability on Google hits. The family is ancient, and no attempt was made to verify the offline sources provided, said sources demonstrating notability. -- Exxess (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far, this is basically what is being said in this debate, from what I'm reading.
Quoting: Wikipedia:Inherent notability --
'3. I don't like it. An article about a subject is sourced with reliable sources, yet people argue for deletion based on the notion that the subject is "inherently not notable". This is no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTINTERESTING, and/or WP:IDONTKNOWIT and is subject to the same criticisms applicable to the first class of misuse.
Whether some topics are or are not inherently notable is, on Wikipedia, irrelevant. The standard way of demonstrating notability involves showing that others have deemed it worthy of being written about. Sources themselves do not establish notability, but they prove notability.'
The article was admittedly nominated for deletion based on this: "Yes, the name of the family gives a few [G]hits..."
I think the admitted "Google-hits argument" demonstrates the capriciousness of this deletion nomination. The nominator thought a consensus would be quickly reached, and the article dismissed; but, what I'm seeing is:
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions -- "Repeated nominations -- If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.
If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article."
I don't think editors should have to deal with territorial gatekeepers, cited in Arbitration Requests, when it comes to English Wikipedia Poland.
This particular article has surmountable problems.
-- Exxess (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to become burdensome having to explain the social background of Stefan Tytus Dąbrowski h. Radwan, Jarosław Żądło-Dąbrowski h. Radwan, Teofil Żądło-Dąbrowski h. Radwan (Jarosław's brother) in three separate articles, filled with redundant information. There needs to be a small article for the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family itself, toned down from this version. Given those three family members, it seems clear this family was highly patriotic and notable. -- Exxess (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family member, and somewhat of a scoundrel, Victor Dombrowsky (spelled that way by Italians), cited as related to generale Jaroslaw Dombrowsky, is noted in a contemporary Italian article written by Adriano Sofri and published by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore on their Web Site Panorama Online stating, "Il caso Sofri: Dopotutto 15 ottobre 1998" (The Sofri Case: Everything After October 15, 1998), where the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski's living in Warszawa are directly addressed in the header of the article as "una nobile famiglia di Varsavia" (one noble family of Warsaw). The family is notable. -- Exxess (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My sentiment after reading through (twice) is that it is an article created by a single-purpose account for the glorification of the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło clan by throwing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink at the topic (the "origin" of the name is a dissertation in and of itself!) and practicing everyone is notable merely by blood or association with truly notable individuals. Associations do not make one notable. In principle, I have no objection to articles on one or two truly notable individuals, but that does not translate to the entire clan being notable, nor does it justify the over the top treatment accorded in the article. PetersV       TALK 21:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the intent... Quoting myself, again.
QUOTE: "I've dedicated the time to researching this particular noble Polish family, which was a result of reading about Jarosław Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło in James H. Billington's book FIRE IN THE MINDS OF MEN: ORIGINS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY FAITH. This peculiar Dąbrowski keeps making appearances in the historical record in many other works, as does his brother (not discussed in my Wikipedia article). I myself personally would like to see Wikipedia entries and links for each remaining family under the Radwan Coat-of-Arms, as well as all the other noble Polish families under the remaining Polish Coat-of-Arms appearing in Wikipedia. To be precise, the szlachta were the Polish nation (until the time of the Partitions), to the exclusion of the other estates in Poland, lawfully speaking, which explains the szlachta's legal franchises, rights, and privileges, despite great differences in wealth and social standing amongst the szlachta, peasants sometimes in command of greater wealth than particular members of the szlachta, but peasants without the same legal franchises, rights, and privileges. Also, I think this particular article discussing the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family is essentially more than a mere discussion of which szlachta were related to each other. The significance is in this fact using Stefan Tytus Zygmunt Dąbrowski herbu Radwan as an example -- Dąbrowski's family was a fundamental influence on his life, which included growing up in an atmosphere of patriotism in the environs of Warsaw at the end of the nineteenth century, emphasis from the above on FAMILY, FUNDAMENTAL INFLUENCE, ATMOSPHERE OF PATRIOTISM. In my mind, this is so patently obvious, hence this article demonstrating just that -- FAMILY (nobility), FUNDAMENTAL INFLUENCE (szlachta leading the charge for Polish independence, sovereignty, honor, and freedom, not always, but often), and ATMOSPHERE OF PATRIOTISM." -- Exxess (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"Aaah, the old canard, the apotheosis of the szlachta versus the truly righteous and deserving, but neglected, peasants. Myself, I don't see any apotheosis in this particular article, but I do see revealed the motives for the wanting of a speedy deletion now coming to light, as I suspected. Regarding the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family, I quote: "Members of meager means (dość uboga) always existed in this noble family..." That to me does not sound at all like any apotheosis. This article is an explication of the social milieu reflected in a peculiar patriotic noble Polish family. How that disparages peasants or peasant patriotism I fail to see. Read the article clearly. Apollo Nałęcz Korzeniowski, a Polish nobleman, and Jarosław Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło, a Polish nobleman, wanted Polish independence and sovereignty, accompanied by social revolution, meaning the emancipation of the peasants. I dispute your statement suggesting impoverished nobles who possessed Coat-of-Arms were peasants, strictly speaking. In law they were not. Norman Davies goes on about this, how despite degradation, the petty nobleman did not lose noble status or their legal rights. SEE pages 229-30 of his GOD'S PLAYGROUND: A HISTORY OF POLAND, VOLUME I, THE ORIGINS TO 1795. -- Exxess (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"
"Regarding Jan Kiliński, I for one would like to see a Wikipedia article on the Kiliński family, beginning with their origins to the present day. Too many confuse the social estates with socio-economic classes and wealth, and each social estate (Crown, clergy, nobleman, burgher, Jew, and peasant) has a history worth exploring, but the fact of the matter is, mobility between the estates was difficult, and wealth counted less than law, heredity, and custom. Attempts to understand Polish history outside this context, instead relying on ideology and idealism, are a detriment to the truth of the matter. -- Exxess (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"
-- Exxess (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. I don't see any third-party reliable sources that actually discuss the family as such. We shouldn't be constructing an original-research history of a family from sources that only discuss its individual members. At the very least, I would expect that if the family were notable as a family, at least one published history book would contain the phrase "the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family", but I cannot find any such book. --Delirium (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check here. I think this qualifies as a published history book that contains the phrase "the Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło family" as absolutely direct as possible, in Polish, of course:
Adam Józef Feliks Boniecki-Fredro, herbu Bończa; "Herbarz Polski - Część I.; Wiadomości Historyczno-Genealogiczne O Rodach Szlacheckich." (Warszawa, POLSKA: Skład główny Gebethner i Wolff w Warszawie, 1901), Volume IV, pages 147-148.
You will find several others. Check and verify the article's reference section.
Again, in my mind, this is a debate about inherent notability being not notabile.
I thought this qualified as historically significant and notable and direct. The year 1274 is very early. This is a direct statement about the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family before they began using the patrynomic surname Dąbrowski (from their estate). Before this they were part of the Radwan gens/clan, and their surname was technically Żądło. The family is directly addressed here, yet again:
Janusz Bieniak, "Knight Clans in Medieval Poland," in Antoni Gąsiorowski (ed.), The Polish Nobility in the Middle Ages: Anthologies, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich - Wydawnictwo; Wrocław, POLSKA; 1984, page 154.
"In Poland, the Radwanice were noted relatively early (1274) as the descendants of Radwan, a knight [more properly a "rycerz" {German "ritter"}] active a few decades earlier. ..." -- Exxess (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DGG said it best - WP is not a genealogy, and having one or two notable members doesn't make the entire family notable. Nobility by itself isn't a guarantee of notability. Graymornings(talk) 02:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on nobility CLEARY STATES: 'The term originally referred to those who were "KNOWN" or "NOTABLE"...' -- Exxess (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well, I'm personally fond of the dissertation on the origin of the name, given the Devil is in the details. Maybe information of that type could've been merged into the Szlachta article, or a new article created addressing old Polish szlachta/noble families in general. This is what was being attempted in the article -- an explication of the social milieu reflected in a peculiar patriotic noble Polish family, with all the attendant rises and falls in fortune. Too broad for an Encyclopedia article, and maybe a better topic for a novel or a monograph on the family... -- Exxess (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—for the reasons so eloquently stated above. Indeed, nobility does not automatically translate into notability. And a notable individual's membership in a group (e.g., a family) does not automatically make that group notable. Nihil novi (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am appealing to have this entire deletion nomination invalidated for the following reason. The user above, linking to nobility, nonetheless, says nobility does not automatically translate into notability. In direct and unequivocal refutation, the article on nobility clearly states:
'The term originally referred to those who were "KNOWN" or "NOTABLE"...'
As I've stated, the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family is widely-published and directly addressed in many verifiable third-party sources as being noble -- sources I have made great effort to provide. I will appeal this deletion nomination. The subject of the article is inherently notable by definition, particularly a family with a lineage documented to antiquity (immemorial nobility). The deletion nomination makes no sense on those grounds, and is self-contradictory in the extreme, something I stated in the first deletion attempt, which failed. At worst, the article has surmountable problems, but the subject itself is inherently notable. Call it a CliffsNote or a footnote, but it's a note and notable, nonetheless. -- Exxess (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the notablity of the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family is nearly equivalent to the Chołodecki family's notability. The Chołodecki article is a pleasure to read and is very informative, providing much insight into a segment of Polish society. -- Exxess (talk) 19:40, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veljko Milković[edit]

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

This person has not received notice outside his own little parochial community of true believing proponents. He is not notable neither as an author nor an inventor. It is likely that the entire article is set-up mainly as a soapbox. Previous AfD claimed independent sources, but they do not contain any usuable information on the person and certainly don't justify an entire article devoted to him (people who just do Google searches and don't actually read the sources shouldn't be commenting that sources exist!). Also, there were obviously some shill !votes at that AfD made by his supporters. There may be room for mere mention of him in other locations (our future Serbian perpetual motion enthusiasts article, for example). However, we should delete as a violation of biographical notability ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost all sources are considering him as an inventor or describing his inventions - over 21,000 results in Google search [21], also all references and independent sources listed in Wikipedia are about him, his work, inventions etc [22]. Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condicio sine qua non - I agree we should look through the independent sources we can find - here is the list of some independent sources I have found, so please first read all of them before any further conclusion or doubt (links are translated in English by Google Translate):
  • Danas - a newspaper article about his eco-house [23]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his eco-house building concept [24]
  • Planeta magazine - an article about healthy and sick houses mentioning Milkovic’s eco house concept and the presentation of that concept in Milano and Tokio [25]
  • Politika - a newspaper article about Milkovic’s solar sod (eco house) [26]
  • 24 sata - a newspaper article about about Milkovic’s solar sod [27]
  • Blic - a newspaper article about the famouse inventors and discoveries from Novi Sad and Milkovic gravitational machine [28]
  • Glas Javnosti - a newspaper article about Milkovic’s impulse gravity machines [29]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his invention – mechanical oscillator [30]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his invention (hand water pump with a pendulum) [31]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his invention (hand water pump with a pendulum) [32]
  • Vecernje Novosti - a newspaper article about his invention (two-stage mechanical oscillator) [33]
  • Vecernje Novosti - a newspaper article about his invention (two-stage mechanical oscillator) [34]
  • Vecernje Novosti - a newspaper article about his machine, patents, academician title [35]
  • Ilustrovana Politika - a newspaper article about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress [36]
  • 24 sata - a newspaper article about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress [37]
  • Gradjanski list - a newspaper article about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress [38]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his eco-house, his early research, inventions, exploration of Petrovaradin fortress, award [39]
  • University of Novi Sad and Dnevnik - an announcement about the cultural evening on the eco architecture [40] [41]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his public lecture on archaeological discoveries on Petrovaradin fortress [42]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his archaeological research of Middle Danube basin [43]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his archaeological research and touristical potentials of Middle Danube basin [44]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his award “November charter of the city of Novi Sad” [45]
  • Danas - a newspaper article about his award “November charter of the city of Novi Sad” [46]
  • Glas Javnosti - a newspaper article about his award “November charter of the city of Novi Sad” [47]
  • Chamber of Commerce of Vojvodina - about his presentation of inventions [48]
  • A movie about Milkovic [49]
  • Blic - a newspaper article about the movie where Milkovic had the main role [50]
  • Gradjanski list - a newspaper article about the movie where Milkovic had the main role [51]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about the movie where Milkovic had the main role [52]
  • Dnevnik - a newspaper article about his book in Esperanto [53]
  • Milkovic invention described in a book written by American writer [54]
  • Milkovic’s books in the Library of Congress, USA [55] [56] [57] [58]
  • Magyar Szó - a newspaper article in Hungarian about his eco-house [59]
  • Magyar Szó - a newspaper article in Hungarian about his invention (big hammer) [60]
  • Magyar Szó - a paper in Hungarian about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress [61]
  • Magyar Szó - a newspaper article in Hungarian about his exploration of Petrovaradin fortress [62]
  • Magyar Szó - a newspaper article in Hungarian about his public lecture on Petrovaradin fortress and archaelogical findings [63]
To be fair over 35 third party sources are more than enough we conclude he is pretty much notable. Ternit (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not a problem of sources (Serbian perpetual motion enthusiasts sometimes write about his "inventions"), it's a question of reliable sources. He has received little to no attention outside his town, and most of the sources from his town are credulous. For example, 11 of your sources come from the Dnevnik newspaper. Read the first six paragraphs of this credulous and rather amusing article (which merely credulously repeats his own claims here) and you'll see that it Dnevnik cannot be considered a reliable for facts about him. A reliable source is something indepedent with a reputation for fact checking. Many of the articles are about his house as well, and not him. How are we to create a balanced, verifiable article from unreliable sources? Phil153 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreliable sources??!? I don't know if you looked at the above list but I listed over 35 sources and almost all of these sources have its own Wikipedia article where you can check who they are. Dnevnik is one of the oldest daily and I didn't list 11 equal sources; Dnevnik wrote 11 times on 7 different topics. I don't know what you have against Dnevnik, but it looks you didn't read other articles from Dnevnik. The article you mentioned is a reportage covering all what he was researching by that time. So the fact is there are over 35 reliable third-party sources on internet (probably there are more in printed versions) and it cannot be claimed they are unreliable sources just because of your interpretation of a part of one article (one of 35+ sources!). Every biography contains the details on what some person did or achieved, I don't know what you expect to read in the newspaper articles - what did he eat, how does he look like? It is normal the biography describes what some person did, made, succeeded... and his eco-house is something what he did and if the newspaper or institution writes about that it is the part of author's biography. Constantly repeating "perpetual motion" as it is the main and single topic (usually inappropriate) in this article shows us you didn't or don't want to look at other facts (for example; his simple invention with a pendulum and lever works and does useful job like a hand water pump with a pendulum and only the claim and description of machine characteristics that it produces more energy could be considered as a first assumption that one perpetuum mobile could exist - again this claim doesn't mean this invention doesn't work and that is useless) and this tell us you cannot judge clearly and independently here. The article was very well edited and now shortly and independenlty presents his life and achievements with the third-party sources. Ternit (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you have against Dnevnik: this says all that needs to be said about Dnevnik as far as RS go. The fact they're the oldest newspaper doesn't bode well for the other sources from the same city. Phil153 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you explain what is the article about and what's that what is inappropriate there instead of just posting the links to it without any argument? I can read it reports on his eco-house, Wikipedia, his early research, inventions, exploration of Petrovaradin fortress, awards... (if you didn't maybe understand something, no problem I can re-translate you again) Are you going to try to persuade us that Dnevnik (the significant daily) is not reliable source; are we going to reject, for example, this info about the city award [64] just because Dnevnik reported on that?? Does it mean we will say there was no award?? Even if we would not look at the newspapers from his town there are still enough third party sources on the above list reporting on the subject of this article. Please don't post such bad arguments. Ternit (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable pseudoscientist, who has received no mainstream coverage, making it impossible to create a balanced, sourced article on him. HrafnTalkStalk 01:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Notable pseudoscientist/inventor, who received multiple awards and is covered by multiple independent valid sources. Nikola (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one paragraph in the whole text of the article is about the topic that is usually classified as the pseudoscience, everything else is not - confirmed and applied inventions [65] [66] in many areas with notable awards[67] [68] and public attention, so we cannot look at this article as a pure pseudoscience topic. Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal: the only non-trivial third-party sources cited in the article are for his pseudoscientific activities. Therefore, per WP:DUE, it is reasonable to consider him to be primarily a pseudoscientist. HrafnTalkStalk 04:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. For example, [69] is non-trivial third-party source, and it talks about his passive house, exploration of Petrovaradin fortress and whatnot. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your disagreement is without foundation -- that article likewise talks about his pseudoscientific perpetual motion 'inventions'. That it appears to give them credibility is further reason to question this source's credibility. HrafnTalkStalk 09:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, among the WP:SELFPUB material that Nikola reintroduced (which I reverted), I found this article (translation here), that appears to be describing Milković's work on perpetual motion. Can you get any more blatantly pseudoscientific? And given that, as far as I can tell from the translation, the source is taking these claims seriously, it does not appear to be particularly reliable. HrafnTalkStalk 05:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not taking these claims seriously, it is neutral towards them. "And this knocking - Milkovic claims to have proven - contains more energy than the one needed..." I agree this is stupid - I disagree that it makes him non-notable. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking a single, ambiguous word "knock" (which, in the context of talking about a "hammer" could mean the word in its mechanical, as opposed to its figurative, meaning), to indicate that the entire article is neutral is an extreme stretch -- and a clear indication of why a good translation is needed before we can accept any of the Serbian sources as a reliable source. Apparently-credulous reports in a small, foreign-language news source is hardly the basis for a quality article. HrafnTalkStalk 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I note that the previous AfD hinged on their being independent reliable sources... and yet, almost two years later, no one has bothered to actually add any independant reliable sources to the article. That tells me one of two things... either 1) someone has looked into the sources mentioned at the first AfD and has determined that they are not reliable after all, or 2) no one cared enough about this article to fix it. Either way, I think the fact that it is still poorly sourced argues strongly against a keep this second time around. Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that it is poorly sourced because someone went ahead and deleted all the valid sources. Nikola (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring to the sources you just introduced, they were removed as self-published (per WP:SELFPUB) -- from www.veljkomilkovic.com HrafnTalkStalk 04:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not introduced, but reintroduced them, some are self-published, some are not. Please, do remove self-published ones, do not remove those that are not. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vsmith (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely wrong - in order not to be mentioned just English and Serbian independent sources, there are 5 third-party references, for example, in Hungarian language [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ringspam, no proper references for the claims made since 2006 Mion (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I must point out that between August 14 and September 7 I edited this article quite extensively: see diff: [75] and "Edit summary". I judged a number of references inadequate. Quite a few were links to the homepage, a number were not in English and could therefore not be verified, a number were general promotional stories. A number that I had removed were replaced by another editor (himself?). I left it at that time, not knowing how to deal with it otherwise. ---VanBurenen (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just reverted all your edits. Your removal of all references from the article can not be described as anything else but simple vandalism. Just the fact that you can not verify the references doesn't mean that no one can, for example I can verify them with ease. And how can you judge a reference inadequate if you don't even know the language it is written in? Nikola (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also removed deemed inadequate or irrelevant English language references, In the end not "all" references were removed. The non-English references I removed just because they were not verifyable for the average reader. That you can read them does not make them relevant. --VanBurenen (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article represents now the translation from Serbian article [76] and there are more than 40 independent sources confirming that he is the inventor, researcher, author; very famous one, with many awards, applied inventions (not just pseudoscience) so we don't talk here just about that issue. As I can see after many editing we got very good and short article and it deserves to be kept as the translation from Serbian Wikipedia. Руно (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC) — Руно (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You claim the English version to be a translation from the Serbian. However, the English language version appears to be the oldest. All the others seem to have been created in the last few months in which effort you yourself play a large part. I suggest that the Serbian article was a translation of the English version. The way editors on the Serbian wikipedia judge articles may be different than here, and they may be more inclined to keep an article when it concerns a local "hero".
    You claim he is "very famous". Apparently amongst some friends. I suggest that that fact is exaggerated.
    You claim he has many awards. Many people get a certificate of attendance after finishing a course. Some collect these for fun. Just claiming that he has awards without knowing the relevance of these awards is rather pointless.
    You claim he has other inventions. Apparently for a toilet seat, another non-proven item. Thousands of people have patented inventions. That does not make them relevant.
    --VanBurenen (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is said it presents now the translation since the both articles are almost identical and every claim in Serbian version is covered with the one or more third-party source. So if something was wrong there it would be problematic and would go through discussion, but the list of independent sources were valid and confirmed all the claims in the article. Other your objections are irrelevant. The inventor is famous and notable outside "his town" (I mean outside his continent)[77]. Ternit (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability, nor independent sources to demonstrate notability. If the previous AFD is any indication, we're about to be inundated with a horde of Serbian irredentist perpetual motion advocates. Skinwalker (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the Serbian article[78] meets all criteria with a list of independent sources confirming all quotes than why we are discussing if he is the notable inventor, author or not? Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Things stated in above are simply wrong. This guy did receive notice "outside of his own little parochial community" and passes criteria of WP:BIO. The independent sources used in his article are fully valid. Nikola (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article sourced almost exclusively to http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/, therefore a serious lack of independent reliable sources that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Milkovic is an Serbian inventor it is logic that Serbian article should be the main one and the most relevant for looking for the independent sources; I can read Serbian text and I see that every sentance is covered with very strong reference. There are 9 leading Serbian newspapers with the articles about him and his inventions in the reference list [79] that were published since 1999 - 2008 (the last one October 20 [80] - there were 6 newspaper articles just in the last 3 months, one on the front page of the one of leading newspapers Vecernje Novosti [81], Politika the oldest daily in the Balkans [82], Blic with the highest circulation daily in Serbia [83] and others [84], [85]) etc. Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was editing this article and trying to add relevant third-party sources and independent references since the first discussion started. I found that the books of Veljko Milkovic are listed in the Library of Congress Catalog [86] [87] [88] [89] so it is not true he is not the author. Since the Library of Congress is not taking every printed book in the world we can see the significance here since they have Milkovic's books in their catalog. There is no better reference than the Library of Congress since the Library of Congress is the most credible institution in the world. Also I have just found and added the new independent sources to the article; a book written by an American where Veljko Milkovic is mentioned and where one of his inventions is described [90] and the movie about Milkovic as an inventor [91]. So it is absolutely not true there are no independent sources. Ternit (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — Ternit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please stop canvassing. It's not very difficult to translate your messages to other editors.[92][93][94] Skinwalker (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you understood but I have a discussion with the other editors related to the arguments on Serbian wikipedia and there are no aggresive canvassing as you stated. I am exposing the references and arguments needed for this debate and we should concentrate on that subject. Ternit (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the Serbian-article sources are going to be used to establish notability in this article, then I think we first need the following:
    1. Translations, per WP:V#Non-English sources, to allow us to see what information they verify, and whether this constitutes "significant coverage" (per WP:NOTE)
    2. Some details of the reliability of these sources, as (i) Milković appears to be notable in a fairly WP:FRINGE area and (ii) most editors on the English wikipedia will not be familiar with which Serbian sources are reliable,and which aren't.
Lacking this, all we've got to go on are the English sources cited in the article -- which really do not substantiate any notability. HrafnTalkStalk 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are mostly Serbian newspapers. Wikipedia usually has articles about these newspapers, that you could peruse, and you could also see the previous AfD where some of what you ask for is detailed. You can use Google Translate to translate the articles, and if something remains unclear, I'd gladly translate it. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While taking a more detailed look at the material Nikola attempted to reintroduce into the article (mostly WP:SELFPUB), I found this gem: this source (Google translation here) states that Milković is famous because Wikipedia says so. Well, if it's in Wikipedia, it must be true, mustn't it? ;D HrafnTalkStalk 05:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's hilarious, and well worth reading. It also documents the harm we cause by keeping articles about advocates of fringe or debunked science in the encyclopedia absent significant mention in reliable third party sources. Phil153 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wikipedia was something new back then, but read it a bit more carefully - they do not say that he is famous just because he is in Wikipedia. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't tell us what the translation says?? It would be fair when you would tell what this article is about not just to choose few sentances and make the conclusion. Just 2 of 10 paragraph of this article is about Wikipedia (I cannot read anywhere it says he is famouse because of Wikipedia, so please don't state such assumptions) and 8 others are about his eco-house, his inventions, patents, history of his research, expolartion of Petrovaradin fortress, books, award etc. Newspaper daily Dnevnik is not self-published source. Ternit (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The complete lack of reliable sources means we can't say anything about him that's verifiable, and he doesn't fit any notability guidelines that I can see. In addition, there are clearly a number of perpetual motion advocates on Wikipedia pushing for his inclusion (who are even willing to canvass), yet they have been unable to to reliably source anything in the article in the 1.5 years since the same single purpose accounts last voted "keep". Right now there is no indication that a reliable article can ever be written on the subject from third party sources. The page can always be created again in the unlikely event that reliable sources surface. Phil153 (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not repeat falsehoods. Reliable third-party sources do exist and are used in the article. Nikola (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not accuse me of "repeating falsehoods". Before I voted I looked at every single reference on that page and the ones in the previous AfD, including the ones that have been added recently. The only reliable source that mentions him is in relation to a minor award. There is nothing from reliable sources that can be used to build even a short article about this person (to say nothing of his notability). Phil153 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as an example of what we're dealing with here, here is one of the references currently listed on the page in relation to his awards: http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/SertifikatiEng.html Phil153 (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unawareness of how the things on Wikipedia work should not be mistaken for encyclopedic irrelevance. That gem proves only the first. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that was meant to be a reply in my section or the one above, but if it applies to my link, that page was used as the reference [5] for his "numerous awards". His own site is hardly a reliable source. Phil153 (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An inventor (at least 22 approved patented inventions[1]), wrote 12 books, and is someone whom you can write a not-so-short article about, referencing almost every sentence from independent and notable sources. I would suggest also having look at the previous vote. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I took a look at these 'patents' -- they appear to be more an indictment of the Serbian Patent Office than a recommendation for Milković -- they appear to be mostly, or entirely, pseudoscientific perpetual motion devices (generally adding a pendulum to a simple mechanical device like a pump, etc). HrafnTalkStalk 09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I don't get quite what is pseudoscientific about these devices. Don't they work or finish useful job? I also hope there is no try of implication that simpleness makes an invention less of an invention. But, shall we come that far to question an internationally acknowledged institution, I would rather discredit the one who put the discussion in that direction. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 09:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't think his hemorrhoid seat[95] violates the first law. Perhaps it induces regular motion? :P Skinwalker (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that that patent doesn't get mentioned on his patent page. HrafnTalkStalk 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a misplaced argument: By at least one invention (Electric Dynamo With Pendulum and load-stones) I cannot see the goal is achievement of "perpetual motion". That an invention is using pendulum to make something last, doesn't mean it falls to the field of pseudoscience nor that it doesn't work nor even that it is useless. Next question: how many inventions (as products) are made to work eternally? 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which one is that "Electric Dynamo With Pendulum and load-stones"? Can you give a link to that, please. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, that somebody uses a pendulum doesn't mean he wants to tackle the topic of perpetuum mobile. Of course the one I mention is here, accessed via this page. The paper is excerpt from a magazine where all (recent) inventions have been listed. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link does not clarify anything about what you said before. But I noticed that you are already distancing yourself from the article. You asked: "...how many inventions (as products) are made to work eternally...". That is exactly what this Veljko is doing. His claim to fame is making "patented" products that produce more energy than is put in: such products would indeed work eternally, and are examples of perpetual motion. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh but it does explain everything I said, unless you point a part that it doesn't (so please feel that free). And I do believe I couldn't make my point clearer (I mean... I repeated it at least five times here). If you want to dispute something I don't defend, you'd better find somebody else (perhaps the Milković himself and have a duel as two scientists). So yes, the reason why I don't enter that waters is that it would be an original research, a speculation. That's exactly what was done by mentioning air and joints friction. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want prove that something does not exist. I am not getting into nonsense like that. Calling Milković a scientist is a bit of an exaggertion. Please mention any scientific study he has done, or scientific research he has consulted. By the way, friction in joints and resistance while moving in air is not original research. It is knowledge found in any elementary physics book. I am sorry if you do not read that or have no access to that. --VanBurenen (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somehow you succeed to draw conclusions that don't have actual connection with anything that was said. :) I particularly don't try to prove anything here, and especially not something that doesn't exist. You are who just make lame statements like that one and provide no real background. Another example was insisting that I said things I didn't. Hereby I will also use the opportunity to answer this one: "you are already distancing yourself from the article". My position now is the same as on the start of the discussion. What you call my distancing may be just your revelation of what was actually said. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the friction thing, you just succeeded to miss the point again. Talking about the invention that possesses magnets, and has a specific construction and taking only two frictions (again, no exact numbers) into consideration is but utterly lame speculation. Why? Well, to provide any valuable analysis of that matter, you'd have to take all elements into consideration. And that can do neither of us. So, basically, I say that anybody who juts mentions cheap theorems (no exact numbers/calculations, no exact bounds to the subject) in situation when we don't have some exact model is just wasting the time and filling up the space with ... well lets skip the name. This page is simply not meant for discussion whether a device actually works (I mean, do that and you do original research) but whether this man is relevant for this project according to the sources that we have. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong - here is the document from the University of Novi Sad, Serbia stating that Milkovic wrote at least 2 scientific papers (studies)[96]. Also here is the article from one scientific magazine (university professors are talking about healthy and sick house building) stating that Milkovic participated with his eco-house project on 2 international seminars [97] in Milano, 1995 and Tokio, 1996 [98]. One more document from the Secretariat for Science and Technological Development, Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Serbia with the list of 4 scientific papers Milkovic wrote [99]. Another document from the Secretariat for Science and Technological Development with the list of 3 more papers Milkovic wrote [100] - you can read the text in English here: Krnjetin S., Nikolić A., Milković V.: An example of a selfheating eart shelterd house with the 80% reduction of energy comsumption, The 7th International conference on indoor air quality and climate, IAIAS, Nagoya, Japan, 1996. So I have found 9 papers he wrote and this is the strong reference he participated in the scientific researches and wrote the scientific studies (together with the university professors and researchers). Ternit (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least a couple of these documents (including the one you just attempted to add into the article) are nothing more than CVs of other people (Milković's co-authors?), and hardly constitute RSes. HrafnTalkStalk 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what do you want to say that Milkovic didn't write those scientific studies?? Those documents are listed on the site of the official institution and state administration, so it represents the valid document. I gave the third-party and independent source but it seems you doubt on its validity. Ternit (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lacking reliable third-party notice of these papers (which were after all mere conference papers that he was a co-author on, not papers published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal), I see no reason the article should mention them at all. A co-auther's CV is NOT a "third-party and independent source". That this CV is on said co-author's university website is irrelevant -- and most certainly does not make the CV an "official" university document. Your argument is thoroughly tendentious. HrafnTalkStalk 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you missed the point; the question was if he was a scientist or if he has ever written some study or participated in the research projects. The papers above are the documents from the official institution, there cannot be more official than a University archive and state administration office for science and technology. But let's see one more time if it is true what is stated that these scientific papers have ever been issued. Let's check in the offical state library if some of these papers were published in some book or in the collection of the papers; 2. Бјељац, Ж., Кавгић, П., Милковић, В. (1995): Енергетски, пољопривредни и еколошки аспекти коришћења равничарских водних ресурса, У Зборнику радова научног скупа са међународним учешћем Eкo конференција-заштита животне средине градова и приградских насељa, Еколошки покрет града Новог Сада свеска 2 (стр.121-124). Нови Сад. [101] - type Ekoloski pokret in Publisher, 7. Milković V., Halaši T., Halaši R. Crevar M., MOTIVACIJA U EKOLOŠKOM OBRAZOVANJU I U DRUGIM PREDMETIMA PRIRODNIH NAUKA POMOĆU PRONALAZAKA, EKO-KONFERENCIJA’03, (24-27. septembar 2003, Novi Sad) Zaštitita životne sredine, gradova i prigradskih naselja, Monografija, II, Ekološki pokret grada Novog Sada, str. 123-128. (R22/1,2=3) M 3[102] - type Ekoloski pokret in Publisher. Also if you translate one of sentances you can read Krnjetin S., Nikolić A., Milković V.: Analiza mogućnosti izgradnje samogrejnih ekoloških kuća u Novom Sadu i okolini, Jednogodišnji istraživački projekat, Fond za zaštitu životne sredine grada Novog Sada, Uprava za zaštitu životne sredine, Novi Sad, 1998. str. 41 - it says one year long research project about possibilities of building eco-houses. Ternit (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patents do not prove or in any other way support the actual working of an invention. They only prevent someone else making and commercially exploring the patented device. --VanBurenen (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable." (Patent) How is an invention that doesn't work "useful"? HrafnTalkStalk 09:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I start a pendulum of an invention by a simple push, and I can listen radio for next XX hours. It sounds useful to me. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 10:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are giving incomplete/incorrect information: any pendulum has only a limited time that is will oscillate. Friction in joints and air-resistance will do that. After a while it needs to be "activated" again by a push. That you can "listen to a radio" for hours without repeatedly activating this pendulum is utter nonsense. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's at least a misunderstanding: Actually I did mention it will work for a limited time, and I do consider it useful yet. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are talking utter nonsense. First you claim to be able to listen for hours, now it is a limited time. I say that you are stretching the truth. And that you find is useful is utter POV and irrelevant. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just totally worng: my first statement was "XX hours" (not just "hours") which is equal to "limited time". 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. The xx is so that you can fill in any value that is convenient, depending on the direction of the discussion. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when are completely non notable patents evidence of notability? Even in the US, which likely has much stricter patents laws than Serbia (they won't patent claimed perpetual motion machines, for example), anybody can get a patent for all kinds of improbable or crackpot devices. I don't see how authorship of completely non notable books qualifies for notability either. If you could link a policy it would help, because my reading of WP:Notability supports neither point. Phil153 (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say the focus should be put on perpetual motion, but on the actual achievements. His work did achieve some awards on the fields of ecology and energetic. To this shall be also added the achievement in exploration of Petrovaradin Fortress. How many inventors can offer an equal portfolio? 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 12:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then surely we can find some reliable sources which document this? The only independently sourced mention of any award is in his local paper for a rather non notable award he received from his local town. Surely there must be press reports if any of his other awards were notable? At present the claims of many awards in the article sourced to http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/SertifikatiEng.html, all of which looking pretty dodgy to me. I'm all for keeping the article if someone can give reliable sources for his notability, but none have made it into the article in 1.5 years since the last nomination. Phil153 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Up to now all comment and references in support of this person were about all the patents he had on his pendulum. Now Mihajlo want the focus to shift to what he calls "awards" but appear to be no more than locally distributed certificates of appreciation. And he mapped fortress. I can assure you, there are many thousands of people that have achieved more than that. --VanBurenen (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, these ones are just everything but a straight response to my comment. Hence, no answer (let the judges read). Still, please do concentrate on the exact arguments and not on my name or weasel words like I can assure you, there are many thousands. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 13:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But those "weasel words" were an answer to your "weasel question". I thought that was clear. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Probable bad faith nom - nominator appears to be on a WP:POINT making deleion campaign of some kind. Artw (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shooting the messenger is the easy way out of judging an article on its merits. Doubt about this article was already expressed earlier here Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --VanBurenen (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possible We will see if we will get further misunderstandings for which I don't believe they have root in my English language. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 11:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I tend to second bad faith. Above we already see false quotations and giving weasel words (and wanting exact facts in exchange) in form of cloudy statements. 本 Mihajlo [ talk ] 13:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Numerous above arguments, as well as the two year gap with no significant improvements, suggest there isn't enough reliable material to constitute reliable sources for his notability. The fact that a serbian coterie has assembled to protect the article is further proof of non-notability; if he were truly notable, any one editor of any nationality could provide counterarguments, instead of needing to rely on vote-stacking. ThuranX (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If any one editor of any nationality could provide counterarguments I suggest and invite all first to read all references mentioned here - you can use translation tools to translate the content of references. Just repeating he is not notable and that there are no independent sources (while the references are exposed during this discussion) will not give us anything. Ternit (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of the reliably published third-party sources about Milković that would allow him to pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and Comment): Actually, no comment to posts arguing about verifications...
[103] --Descartes777 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC) — Descartes777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. That there are sources which use this set of words together is not doubted. But what has not been demonstrated is that there are any reliable sources which provide depth of coverage about these words as a collective term. Just because you take any two words, put them in quotes and google it, does not mean that the 4.1 million ghits shows that the term itself is notable. This article is a dicdef, a howto, an essay. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion story[edit]

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

Neologism; no evidence of widespread use. References cited are either generic links to magazine sites (and therefore useless for our purposes), or simply examples of what the author claims are pieces that fit the definition. Fails WP:NEO. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is not a neologism and, in any case, this would not be a reason to delete as the title can be changed. The phrase seems to get lots of usage and so there would be little difficulty improving this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Where is the evidence that we can verify that it is in widespread use? And what would the title be changed to? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added citations to two books on fashion writing. Where is the evidence of your work on the topic, per WP:BEFORE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 2008-12-26 12:05:45
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: [it provides no more than a definition and examples and] WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. HrafnTalkStalk 17:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [Clarified for the comprehensionally-challenged HrafnTalkStalk 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC) ][reply]
  • Comment I have started a rewrite to demonstrate the potential of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little better, but the new links still don't seem to tell what a "fashion story" is. I guess my point is that a fashion story is simply a story about fashion, just as a sports story is a story about sports, but neither term is deserving of a separate article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And you know that it is undeserving because you are clairvoyant? You are supposed to look for sources yourself in making these determinations, not make guesses based solely upon subjective opinion. Policy is clear that sources determine these decisions, not subjective judgements. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I know that it is undeserving because the term is not in widespread use, at least not from sources that can be verified, as I have said previously. You're also demanding proof of a negative - that something doesn't exist. Additionally, your comments are starting to drift into the area of personal attacks, which is not allowed. (Of course, as an admin, you should know that.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly good stub, sources adequate to what is being claimed. Still should be expanded such that it cannot be confused with a dictdef. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see how this can become an encyclopedic article. Do we have an article on encyclopedic article yet? --Crusio (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G, as I said above, I cannot fathom how an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject of "fashion story", hence my delete vote. Based on what you say just before, you seem to have ideas about that, so why don't you go ahead, expand this into an encyclopedic article (or something that looks like it might become one) and I'll be happy to admit that I lacked in imagination and will change my vote to keep. Until that happens, I maintain my "delete" vote, though. --Crusio (talk) 10:42, 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creepmime[edit]

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

Band made two albums on a small label. A few shows opening for Cynic is the biggest thing they've done. I can't find any significant coverage anywhere, not even on the Dutch sites. Their two albums (Shadows (Creepmime album) and Chiaroscuro (album)) are also listed, above. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Drmies (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They did two albums, so the whole thing rests on whether the label is notable. Have you been able to find something on them? I've found what appear to be at least two labels by that name (one notable, the other not). I currently haven't got access to newspaper sources.- Mgm|(talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MGM and others, Mascot Records (http://www.mascotrecords.com) is not notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia (yet?). They were a small Dutch label, but these days they also have a US branch (maybe that's why you found two?) whose biggest names (as far as I'm concerned) are Walter Trout, Pat Travers (I used to love him), and Tony Macalpine. I think their biggest name overseas is Pestilence, a Dutch death metal band. Now, problem is (for me, not for WP policy), even if the label squeaks by, the band really does not--there isn't a whole lot to say but "they existed and made two albums." So, if you want to go by the law, and if you consider Mascot notable enough (go judge for yourself on the website, which will direct you to the US or the Europe department), then they get to stay. But I wouldn't want to source the article, cause it'll be all blogs (and not even that many), ezines (if I'm lucky), and a mention or two elsewhere (I may be exaggerating).... Drmies (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note--I am not convinced that when Creepmime recorded these albums this record company was already notable (or important). Unfortunately they don't have an entry on WP or the Dutch pop encyclopedia (http://www.popinstituut.nl), so I can't prove that--but then, isn't the absence of evidence in this case the evidence of absence? Keep in mind that their last album was released in 1995, and I think that that was long before the label went international. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the label needed to be relevant at the time it signed the band. If it's notable now and the band is still with them (or was with the label while it was notable) then that's enough. - Mgm|(talk) 15:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I've shown it is an important independent lable, I think the burden of proof for saying it wasn't then must surely lie with you. --JD554 (talk) 10:02, 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 Happy Holidays 02:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--JD, the label is surely notable now, no doubt about it. Was it back in the early 90s? Neither you nor I know (there is simply no information available about where the label was at 13 years ago, and I've looked all over the place), but perhaps MGM is right, and then it doesn't matter. So, if there is broad consensus, as there seems to be, that the label's current notability is enough to render Creepmime notable, then I'll gladly stop wasting everyone's time and withdraw the nomination. I've already edited the article to where it reflects only verifiable information, which comes from one single source (the Dutch encyclopedia from Muziek Centrum Nederland), and Creepmime will live on eternally--but as a stub. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability doesn't travel backwards in time. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one says it does. A band has to be signed by a notable label, which apparently this band is. Nowhere does time even enter the picture (WP:MUSIC doesn't mention it at all). "Singed" means "being under contract with a label", not the actual act of signing. - Mgm|(talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So--what if the band dissolved long before the label became anything at all? But MGM, my real concern is that in the end we'll keep an article that says nothing more than "this band existed, they made two records, and those guys (and this girl) were in it." I can't find anything that talks about who they were, what they did, how they were notable, or barely even what they sounded like. We'll have a band that meets one of the criteria, a band about which no one can say anything. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about a compromise where we merge in the two album articles to the main article and leave it at that. Certainly the songs on the albums are verifiable right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per ChildofMidnight. JamesBurns (talk) 06:55, 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, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to merge of the albums, sure--I am still not convinced that the band should have an article, but this would be something already. Again, I restate that the article, with or without the albums, is not going to get any better than this--eternally unsourced. Oh, I don't know if those titles can be verified other than by metal blogs, but that can be checked out. Thanks CoM, Drmies (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your expertise in this subject area. Let us know what you uncover once you've merged the albums and had a chance to verify the album information. If only it were Tina Turner or Flock of Seagulls I could be more helpful. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ChildofM, I followed your advice and hope I did it right--my first merge! Joepie! I'll keep at it, to try and add some solidity to band and albums (though I have little hope--where's Blackmetalbaz when you need him?). So in the meantime, dear administrator, I think I should withdraw this nomination so we can all get back to more pressing matters. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 21:23, 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 No consensus to delete. Sources have been added since the AfD started and generally high schools are considered notable if their existence can be verified. RMHED (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Semera[edit]

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

Unnotable school. Article nothing but a repeat of student publicity materials per an earlier version (including earliest version having the same promotional words). Fails WP:N. There is no such thing as "automatic notability" for schools in any guideline nor policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete high schools may be notable, but there are no sources to indicate the level and size, or even verify the existence, of this school. JJL (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain As I reminded the author, there needs to be some sort of source. There is no explicit guideline that every actual secondary school is notable & I've never said there is, though I think there ought to be. it's just that every one whose actual existence can be proven that has been brought here for the last 18 months has been kept, on the basis that in practice notability can be found. Be aware of the very difficult cultural bias in finding sources or the area involved. DGG (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, the author's only sources have been some school newsletters, some school directory sites (no better than IMDB style listings), and the school's official website is apparently a wordpress blog. I don't think its an issue of cultural bias here...but a lack of any notability, even in Malayasia -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite(is that a valid one?), otherwise Delete. It has zero citations (those citations aren't inline, they are just websites, it's hard to figure out what citation cites stuff), and doesn't establish notability. ムーカオズルール(Talk to Moo) 05:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the school's existence can't be verified then delete the article content and speedy delete as empty. But if the information can be verifed, I think well established high schools are notable. Why would this one be different? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a "well established high school" notable? The issue is, does it actually meet WP:N, not just "its a high school" (maybe). Just because it is a high school does not make it notable. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, so how is it notable? Existence along is not a valid reason to have a Wikipedia article. Right now, its existance is marginally verifiable of sorts, though its "official" website is a wordpress blog and the article is at its "best" after nearly a year and seems likely to primarily be a copy of the school promotional materials with mild copyediting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rome is not built in one day. Every mile starts in a step. Well, if you think this article is unsourced/unreliable/fake, just let time prove it. I'll try to improve it. Sorry for being harsh, but I have a kind of feeling that you guys are just trying to "attack" this article until it gets deleted. If you think this article should be deleted because of XXX, then, what do you think of:

Reliable? Well-linked? Notable? What do you think? If these articles are getting deleted, I think you're really trying to eliminate all the articles about schools in Malaysia. Are you?--Mark Chung (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I see that we are defining a new metaphysical concept of reality. Something only exists if its presence can be verified on the Internet. Forget that there is a large, physical school with teachers and students bustling around being educated; unless it it has a definitive web presence it might be the figment of an over-excited imagination. TerriersFan (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its existance is irrelevant. Lots of things exist without being notable. It isn't notable. That is the issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have carried out a comprehensive search of documents at the local library you are not in a position to say that. Malaysian schools traditionally have a poor internet presence and to avoid systemic bias we need to await a search for local sources. Invariably, sources to support the notability of high schools are available if sufficient in-depth searching is carried out. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am and no, invariably sources do not support the notability of high schools. This is a false argument frequently used in such AfDs that are never backedup. Local newspapers alone are NOT evidence of notability. If the school has not received significant coverage, it is not notable. If that significant coverage can NOT be demonstrated when questioned, it is not notable. The onus is on those claiming keep to actually show that such sources DO exist and to produce them, not just claim "well, its a high school, so of course its notable." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not show notability. Extremepro (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Userfy: This school does exist at shown here [105]. Article needs citations and serious cleanup, but generally, all high schools are considered notable. See WP:HS. There is almost always sufficient material available to show a high school's notability, but the current article state is serious lacking. --Chasingsol(talk) 12:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's neither a guideline nor a policy (not even a well accepted essay). There is no official guideline stating that all high schools are considered notable, nor should they be. Most high schools are not, in fact, notable. The sports being reported in the local news is not notability. High School articles are subject to WP:N same as all articles (and maybe WP:ORG if one wanted to go with a secondary guide). This article fails both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collectonian, thank you for the response to my comment. I am familiar with Wikipedia policies regarding notability requirements. I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, hence my 'Weak Keep'. As I stated, the article is seriously lacking at this time and requires citations and cleanup. In the past, the vast majority of high school articles nominated for AfD have been kept to allow the authors time to provide sufficient evidence of notability. If the article does not improve, then I would be inclined to vote for deletion in the future, but at this time I believe it should be kept or moved to user space. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 15:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - links in teh article establish notability. Artw (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do forum postings and standard directory listings that include every school in existance establish a drop of notability for this school? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least two of them are from www.moe.gov.my, the official Malaysia's Educational Department portal/website. --Mark Chung (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not third party sources and do not establish notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "third party sources"? --Mark Chung (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In simplified terms, someone outside the subject writing about the subject. If a man writes about himself or his spouse writes about him we don't expect the writing to be objective, although it still might be. But if someone independent writes about him then we find that writing more objective and neutral. If you can find some newpapers writing about the school and activities there in a meaningful way that would go a long way to helping others see the value. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think there is. Since it's holiday now, I'll go to the school to check it out when the school's open. It'll take a couple of days before the school's reopened. --Mark Chung (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to check over Wikipedia:Citation templates for whatever sources you do find to see what information from those sources we hope to get in way of documentation. For instance for a book we hope to get a page number whereas that isn't so critical with an online source if we have the weblink. But even with online sources we want to see more than just the link. We you find sourcing fill in as much as you can. -- Banjeboi 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. I'm quite concerned about the WP:Bitey-ness here and would feel more comfortable if some experienced in that region could offer some insight. A school of that capacity and length of existence is quite likely to have stumbled into some notability and may not know what lever to pull at wikipedia to sort that out. I don't see this as a hoax as much as newbies needing help. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Chung has been editing since January, so no biting going on (though its becoming clearer that despite being here nearly a year, it isn't as well versed in Wikipedia guidelines and policies that I originally presumed). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right about me for being a year. You're also right about me being not well versed in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. These are ridiculously too long for me. I didn't even know where to find them before! But now I do. In User:Collectonian/Links. I treat everything in common sense. I only read Wikipedia guidelines and policies when needed, like now. --Mark Chung (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I almost forgot. Shouldn't users be judged based on their experience, rather than their age? --Mark Chung (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? No one is judging you based on your age, but on your perceived experience editing at Wikipedia, or lack there of. Minors are sometimes judged by their age, depending on the situation, but otherwise few people know each others ages here. That said, now that I've seen your user page (and only just now know your age), you may wish to read the guidelines and policies regarding minors. It's generally discouraged from mionors giving their ages or other personal identifier info in their user pages. At least now your reactions make more sense... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grah! I'm not talking the age in real life (by the way, don't always trust userboxes because people can fake their age and other personal info - who knows?) but in Wikipedia, which means I'm 11 months and 22 days old now. Hey! This is off-topic! We'd better stop talking about these anymore. --Mark Chung (talk) 07:21, 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, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:ORG - the article has no reliable independent third party references which demonstrate notability (forum posts are not considered to be reliable sources), and none have been provided above. There is not a consensus on high schools being notable, so WP:ORG needs to be met. Nick-D (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a school article, or a educational institution. Thus, WP:ORG doesn't appply here. Mark Chung (talk)
That's not correct: WP:ORG is the closest there is to a relevant guideline. The article also doesn't meet the general notability standards at WP:N due to the lack of independent reliable sources which demonstrate notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not all schools are notable. This one is questionable due to the quality of the sources in the article. I so far have not been able to find a listing of it in the Malay Ministry of Education website, so even its existence or official endorsement cannot be substantiated. Unless this fundmental problem can be addressed, the article should be deleted unless the sources are up to scratch. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to find it in there, I provided it. The PDF file is from the Ministry of Education website. Mark Chung (talk)
  • Keep not all schools are notable. All established secondary schools with a real existence are, as I think is shown by repeated consensus here, and the sourcing, though far from the desirable, is enough to show that. The apparent lack of consensus on the guidelines page is because opinion is so divided that no position, whether extreme or compromise, has ever gotten sufficient agreement there. fortunately, Afd is not thus subject to blocking by minorities, there needs to be a consensus to delete. DGG (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike out your previous vote. Mark Chung (talk)
What previous vote? DGG said "uncertain" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In general secondary schools will have notability due to sports team coverage and other local coverage. We seem to agree that WP:V is met. I don't see how a reasonable person can believe there aren't significant numbers of secondary sources about a high school. Given the nature of the HS, it isn't shocking that the Internets doesn't have that coverage. So Keep as (very) likely notable. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 20:51, 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 No consensus to delete, default to Keep. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Pick[edit]

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

subject of local interest only. This is not "Columbus, Ohio-pedia! Pepe Machao (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per earlier AfD nomination and overall notability. This is not a wikipedia only for people known by the general public but for everyone with notability. Heather Pick has notability. Thats my final word.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The sources I linked in the last AFD show that she was notable for more than just being a news anchor. Her story garnered enough attention from other news agencies to show notability. Other issues can be fixed with cleanup. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment- in addition to the articles I linked in the previous AFD, Pixelface also linked several other articles, which go further to show notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:16, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment Clicking on "view AFD" in the log takes you to the first AFD (which was closed "no consensus"). This might have discouraged some from commenting. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the article reads like a memorial, while I feel there is insufficient proof as to her notability. Not one of the sources cited are independent of the subject, AFAICT. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newspaper articles (including the one I list below) seem to be independent. Hobit (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as she only received some level of notability in her geographical area, and then only for a relatively short time. Had she received national recognition, this vote might be different. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a local exception to the GNG I'm missing?
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG per the sources given in the previous AFD. Juzhong (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per previous AfD, sources meeting GNG, and in the interest of countering anti-Ohio bias. :-)John Z (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Meets GNG hands down. You can add [106] to the list too. Hobit (talk) 20:56, 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. One (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Daftary[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO1E and no significant evidence she was truly notable before her death, news stories afterwards do not ascertain genuine notability either. Any awards won are relatively minor and all things considered, fails WP:BIO. J. F. Mam J. Jason Dee (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage, per notability and the fact that it has been in the news in many countries such as mine on the other side of the world.--Judo112 (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I take this AfD nominator really hasnt thought it over before nominating it. She had established notability and fame.Speedy keep it.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sky news even have a tribute page on its front for this "unknown" model as the nomination calls her. As earlier stated she has established notability.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:1E, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Extensive news coverage regarding the person's death is not a valid reason to keep an article. The person should have significant notability besides a single event and you won't find a single hint of that prior to her death. LeaveSleaves talk 18:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are pointing out the exact reasons to why Sahar is notable Leavesleaves. She got this Extensive news coverage,as you put it because of the simple fact that she was notable in the modeling and entertainment business before the suicide. The extensive coverage points out that she was notable, atleast to me. Just because a model isnt world famous like Naomi Campbell or Tyra Banks, doesnt mean that they arent notable.--Judo112 (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her win in Face of Asia 2007, one of asias most popular pageants/competitions points to atleast a minimum of notability enough to Keep this article. But as it has been established she had more than a minimum of notability because of other factors sutch as the short-film which she starred in, and extensive news coverage as a fact of her popularity in the modeling industry in the UK. Case closed.--Judo112 (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you say that her notability and/or popularity stems from her death, or more specifically her manner of death and not her career? And if she was in fact notable prior to her death, could you provide the sources that prove such notability, sources from before her death? LeaveSleaves talk 05:38, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that "Face of Asia" is really notable in its own right--if you search for "Face of Asia" and cut out keywords related to this individual, you get almost no hits that would establish notability for the competition and thus for the person. It's really the other way around: a Google search reveals the competition as notable because Sahar Daftary died. She herself, this is tragic of course, but there is nothing besides the one single event that got her in the news to make her notable. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like WP:BLP1E to me. The depth of coverage of the person (rather than focussing on the event of her death) suggests to me that WP:N is not met. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doing a news search I turned up enough references to the "Face of Asia" contest to believe it is notable. So she's got both the contest win and the suicide coverage (which was so extensive I'd argue due to the contest win). Meets WP:N, isn't a single event. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with Hobit her overall notability points out that she is infact notable. As i have stated before her extensive news coverage points out that she was notable for her Face of Asia win. Basically she isnt famous of just a one time event. I say Strong Keep after reading the discussions.--Judo112 (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When i searched on Face of Asia pageant i found 19 900 000 pages and Sahar Daftary gave 171,000 hits. Also the Delete voters are using tentative words sutch as "I'm not convinced" pointing out that they arent sure if their Delete decisions are correct.--Judo112 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you omit the duplicates it is around 250 hits, not 171 000. WWGB (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WWGB now however their is 171.000 pages on her, and her death is part of her life. I also saw that the articles your referred to also pointed out her notability anyway..so i still say keep.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Her death is a part of her life"? That's an interesting line. And by the way, if you have so many loads of sources available why don't you improve the article to reflect this? At present it reads like her life was part of her death. LeaveSleaves talk 13:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its time for you to read, Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im only pointing out my view on this matter. If you have an opinion express it in a more constructive manour, I agree however on some points. But as i said, those are things that can be changed and are not reason enough for deletion.Peace out.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed your "strong keep" above from bold to italics so no one would think you were !voting a second time here. No offense intended! Hobit (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Hobit. Its a keeper. I also does not change my opinion in this matter (as of this discussion).--MarkusBJoke (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:ENTERTAINER apply here, then atleast 80% of the contestants in Miss World,Miss Universe and all those sort of former pageant contestant articles should be deleted. A Miss World 2008 or lets say Miss Earth 2008 contestants similar death for example would not generate the same amount of worldwide press. All those girls only have their national pageant win as a reference( some are even regular people only appointed the national title without effort) for notability and still all the contestants have articles, Sahar won her Big final pageant and she is the one up for deletion? Strange. Another fact is that a former Miss Universe top 10 placer committed suicide sometime back and that didnt generate any press, while Sahar Daftary has recieved worldwide press.--Judo112 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sahars well documented death, and her win at the Face of Asia competition plus notability in the fashion industry plus a role in a internet commercial and that she was a working model at the time makes her notable(and even her death and FOA win alone makes her notable for more than a one time event). Even in accordance with WP:ENTERTAINER. She also cancelled a fashion show appearance the day before her death, that fact also proves that she was in fact a working model at the time of death.--Judo112 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good example is Egla Harxhi, to point out the difference.--Judo112 (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the references that establish notability. She was known for more than one event, meets WP:N.--Jmundo (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deon Taylor Enterprises[edit]

Deon Taylor Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability; blatant advertisement written by subject. Should also include Deon Taylor in this nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:20, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both--they're ads, and the one single reference in Deon Taylor mentions him in one sentence only (and I found nothing else). That's not enough. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 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 and rename to Paturis Park murders. One (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paturis Park[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Searches on the web turn up the fact that the park isn't notable, just the murders - which are news items, probably deserve mention in an article about LGBT culture in Brazil (or something similar), but the park itself isn't notable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:08, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename to Paturis Park murders. Plenty of reliable third party sources: [107], [108], [109], [110], etc. Google it. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 17:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't matter why it's notable, just that it is. No strong objection to a move per DGG. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - note that above I argue that the *murders* are notable, not the park itself. It's a news story, to be sure, but as Discíclope says above, WP:NOTNEWS. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd let it close myself unless there is a rush of some sort. The move seems likely, but I generally recommend following process unless there is a good reason not to. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 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.

116.50.78.71 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. One (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitesh[edit]

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

This is just about an Indian name. No way it can develop into an article. Salih (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is it keep per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Special_cases? My understanding is that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) is only a guideline for naming convention; not for creating articles for "given names". Salih (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Read: First name only Example: Peter It is best to make it a disambiguation page in such cases. If information is added about the etymology of the name that takes more than a short introductory paragraph, it is better to make separate "description" and "disambiguation" pages, for instance: John (name) and John - in this case John (disambiguation) redirects to the latter of these pages. Jean only has a disambiguation page, but the introduction of this page links to John (name) for the etymology.
Does this not speak of how to maintain the pages titled after first names? If you click John do you not read about this English male name? Does this policy not speak of how differentiate, maintain and add information of etymology? Did you overlook the category mentioned above that contains 100s of such first name articles? Does this policy say these types of articles are discouraged?
What else you need to realize? I cannot do more spoon feeding than this. --GPPande 19:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool down. Please don't bombard with questions! If the name is notable enough it will surely survive the afd. Salih (talk) 14:00, 30 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 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails to demonstrate how/why this name is notable. Perhaps could be speedied per db-nn? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why would this be less notable than James (name) or Andrew? --Soman (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Common indian name, with many prominent Indian athletes named Hitesh, that would call for expansion of this disambig in due time.Pectoretalk 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't quite see the reason for keeping this. Punkmorten (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Surely an article can cover etymology, famous namesakes, etc. - Richfife (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--"This is just about an Indian name" is not a valid argument for deletion, WP:BIAS.--Jmundo (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. One (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social centered design[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. Sources are nearly useless. One is merely a blog entry and therefore not a reliable source; I have a feeling it's by the author of this article and therefore promoting his concept. The other two (also blog entries, it appears) don't even mention the phrase at all, as best as I can find. This article looks to be promotional in nature, and a Google search on the term (without quotation marks) turns up only the first blog, all other returns do not mention this as a complete phrase. This would appear to be a neologism. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's full of the corporate 'action words' style writing seen in upperclassmen collegiate writings about 'instituting a new actualization of the realization process vis-a-vis the motivation of the subgroups to yield a new paradigm' shit. Sink it. Nom is right, it's either self-promotional or an experiment into how much bullshit wording can be crammed into a thimble. ThuranX (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Major cleanup is needed, but a notable academic concept: International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics, Google books and Google Scholar --Jmundo (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)--Jmundo (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as it's only borderline WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--Just gave the article a cleanup and provided sources. --Jmundo (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: In the one link provided, it seems to be about "human-centered design" instead of "social-centered design." Are those terms the same? The link provided doesn't appear to mention social centered design, at least not that I can find. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I eliminated the source to clear any confusion. --Jmundo (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no idea what it's even about; am inclined to agree with ThuranX that it's just a bunch of buzzwords thrown together. I assume it's about designing the interfaces for stuff like facebook, but that's really not clear in the article. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to user centered design if the current article is right. Scaldi (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went to post a comment on Scaldi's talk page and found he's been blocked for sockpuppetry. We might like to discount his comment. - Mgm|(talk) 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that's part of the problem — no one really knows for sure if it's right or just buzzwords. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that academic references are available to establish notability of the subject. The problem with the buzzwords can be deal with editing. --Jmundo (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the phrase in a couple of references is not enough to establish the notability. Salih (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 pages in the above academic reference goes beyond "mentioning the phrase"--Jmundo (talk) 17:52, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Contrary to Jmundo's assertions, the phrase "social centered design" (itself a misquote of the phrase in the book he/she references) has no currency whatsoever in academia, as far as I can tell. A comprehensive research database search, for example, gives 1022 hits for "user centered design" and... zero for either "social centered design" or "socially centered design." So, neologism, at best. Jlg4104 (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*And to clarify, since I'm anticipating Jmundo may still object-- Academic and technical writers group words together in technical-sounding combinations all the time, in a process called "nominalization," i.e., making a big multi-word noun that shrinks an otherwise longer phrase. I used Academic Search Complete with all databases turned on, and as I said, nothing came up, which means that despite the happenstance appearance of the phrase in a couple academic sources, it's not (yet) part of any discipline's conceptual vocabulary. Jlg4104 (talk) 05:10, 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 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edifice Information Management[edit]

Edifice Information Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a self-promotion article. No sources, no notability, and not much appears in a Google Search (but they've managed to make it appear as if they get google results via Linked In, etc.). Also, this is an orphan article. Timneu22 (talk) 00:09, 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.

Javier Saade[edit]

The result was Delete. There were valid comments on both sides of the debate. I was quite taken by Jmundo's comments and considered long and hard. In the end it wasn't the majority of delete !votes that convinced, but the consistent argument from the deleters that Javier Saade wasn't shown to be notable, and that other than promotional material from GEM (copied onto various sites) there was nothing significant about him on the sources given, nor on a search I conducted myself. Notability was asserted in the article by implication that he was the guiding force behind a major financial institution, however this was not proved. Sources from GEM showed that he was one of a number of senior figures. It is also noteworthy that his company does not have an article on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails notability criteria - I cannot find multiple non-trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources to support notability. In addition, the references provided in the article merely mention his name in passing or are not independent of the subject. Prod was contested by anon editor with no reason given. Somno (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The combination of being managing director of the GEM group and being a founder of Air America Radio means that some people will be interested in reading an article about him. Arid Zkwelty (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Following reasoning by Somno. It's important to note that he is not "the" managing director -- nearly all the employees listed at GEM are "managing directors" of something (or better) [112]. As for being a "founder" of Air America Radio ... in several minutes' search I didn't find anything indicating he was more than an "Executive Vice President" -- in a hugely long list of "associated" people [http:/(blacklisted Wiki link)/focus/f-news/1467631/posts] -- in a company that's filed for Chapter 11 [113]. He's simply listed in the Radio Daze article as an "investor". There isn't evidence he's done anything notable, except to invest money and hold titles. Piano non troppo (talk) 15:21, 20 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 02:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The piece seems to meet the basic criteria need for entry. There are several good references and the person is notable due to his achievements. I feel certain that such information will be of interest to a certain block of people. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what do the sources actually say about this subject? Is the coverage substantial? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the "several good references", and are you able to add them to the article? The independent references currently in the article are not about Saade and simply mention his name once (the reference from the website of the company he works for is not independent and cannot be used to support notability). I see nothing special in his achievements that justifies an encyclopedia article, especially considering the lack of sources. Somno (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I'm not convinced that the sources establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--no notability established, although plenty asserted, per Piano. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Managing director of an important company is notable, and this is, based on its size. The refs are adequate for the purpose. We tend to have a cultural bias with respect to the commercial world. DGG (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Piano non troppo pointed out earlier, the company (which doesn't have an article on Wikipedia hence there's no merge or redirect target) has several directors and managing directors. Saade is just one of them. He's not the director, he's not a founder -- he's just someone in the hierarchy. The refs aren't adequate for establishing notability, because none are actually about him at all. Somno (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. An investment site. He's the second author on what looks like a white paper to encourage investment. (There's a charge or login to read it.) Marketing staff at any level may be assigned to write such. In Google, there is no reference to the article, except Wiki and the site itself. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Journal of Private Equity is a peer reviewed journal with an advisory board and the editor is a professor at the University of Chigaco.--Jmundo (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Piano summed it up quite well. Trusilver 07:52, 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. withdraw by nom; tags placed (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the mother of god Mary and avva abram in Ain Shams[edit]

Church of the mother of god Mary and avva abram in Ain Shams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article was prodded and seconded, but the prods were reverted by the article creator. I'm bouncing it to you guys under the original prod rationales. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:08, 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 no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Brookes[edit]

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

Journalist and Author, unreferenced, doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, no references found by searching Richard Hock (talk) 17:24, 15 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, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would consider dropping this entry since being a writer occasionally for a popular magazine does not make one an authority or notable. Notability is this case should be if she is 1. an authority in her field, 2. if the writer is well written in many similar magazines works or 3. if the individual has had numerous interviews. Also the concern I have is the lack of good independent references. Although the magazine to which the author writes is well known, so are Fate, Let's Live, American National Biography, American Fitness and Health. Writing for any of the magazines would not warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Being a Senior Editor would be worthy of inclusion. Royalhistorian (talk) 06:57, 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 02:23, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 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 keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Blue[edit]

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

Previously deleted in 2006, still not notable, still has yet to sign with a label, releases their music on their own. There are lots of references, but none of them seems to actually prove notability. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:13, 20 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, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Borderline notable, & WP:BAND seems a wee bit over-vigilant to me. Could do with a dose of NPOV ("insightful" lyrics etc.) Franciscrot (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – I agree that they seem to be borderline notable. In addition to what's already been found, I found an article by an Amercian music critic who called the band's song "You Won't Get Much Sleep" one of her top favorite songs of 2007. [Nason, Sarah (January 5, 2008). "The year in music: Pop dominated music charts and news, but indie sounds ruled '07", The Charleston Gazette, p. C3.] Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:12, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Déjà vu Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Note the band have released material on a signed and official record label which is recognised and chart eligible. This band have undertaken UK and Europe tours, which is accepted by Wikipedia as notable. The band in debate have also placed in the finals of 2 major music competitions (WP:BAND #9), been part of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network (WP:BAND #12) and had an inclusion on a compilation album (WP:BAND #10). All of which fill the Wikipedia acceptance criteria.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kawa Kon[edit]

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

No reliable third-party coverage to demonstrate notability, nor can it be presumed since the convention has yet to occur. Only sources are the convention's website and the website of another convention for which it is in a naming dispute with. Original creator is disputing the proposed deletion on the talk page, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Farix (Talk) 01:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I am the original creator of the article, and also attended Anime St. Louis 2008 prior to the split (which I did not find out about until a phone call around three nights ago from a family member in St. Louis, as I am living in Georgia). I think that both the convention and the domain name dispute are notable enough for inclusion in a separate article unless there is a way either 1) to include this information within a section of the Anime St. Louis article or 2) ship this to the Anime Wikia and let it simmer there until the convention actually occurs, then bring it back to Wikipedia due to notability. --Toussaint (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then where is the third party coverage? Nothing is presumed notable without third party coverage per WP:NOTE. Simply existing doesn't make a never-been-held-before convention notable. --Farix (Talk) 13:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it fails WP:N. Alternatively, I'd settle for a merge to Anime St. Louis. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:47, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:N with lack of third party coverage. You'd expect it would at least get gNews hits, but I see none. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 17:15, 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 Blanked by user. De facto SNOW, implemented as G7. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haefely emc[edit]

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

Created in a promotional tone by a single purpose account, possibly a borderline case of WP:CSD#G11. No sources are found in the article or on Google to prove that this is a notable company per WP:ORG - although, being founded in 1903, it may well be notable, which is why I'm bringing this here.  Sandstein  09:11, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I agree with nominator. I can find no coverage whatsoever of this company anywhere, and notability isn't even really asserted in the article. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 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 03:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shlemmer Algaze Associates[edit]

Shlemmer Algaze Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written by the subject;this is blatant advertising. Violates WP:NOT. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:11, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I cannot find any evidence of notability. DGG makes a good point, and honestly, I'm a bit surprised that nothing turned up. If a better searcher than me comes up with something, that'd be a different story, but until then, I am not convinced. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:SPAM (I tried to make it a little bit less NPOV, but even still); appears to fail WP:CORP; only gHits are company directories. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 17:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is spam, even with the attempt to remove POV by Bsimmons Also fails WP:CORP. -- 68.183.55.64 (talk) 01:01, 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 and salt. One (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of panarabism[edit]

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

This is essentially a remake of previous deleted material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Jewish Arabism, created by banned sockpuppeter MarthaFiles (talk · contribs). User:DGG found this article sufficiently different from the original to be speedy deleted, but it has the same massive WP:SOAP issues as the old one, and various other similar fork articles that keeps on popping up at wikipedia, see Racism within Arabism, User:Pan_arabism, Intolerance in arabism, etc. Soman (talk) 14:12, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please disregard. Obvious SPA sock. This was the editor's first edit. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. though one might edit some of the details, by in large it's all positive Diletodo (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Panarabism is a notable subject. Criticism of panarabism too. The article is well sourced. It does not matter who created it and why. No valid justifications for deletion was provided here.Biophys (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SOAP is justification enough, no matter how it's sourced. =Axlq 04:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you explain please why this article qualifies as WP:SOAP? Biophys (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Shawn's comment immediately below. =Axlq 07:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd call it WP:ATP, WP:COAT and WP:ESSAY, too. The article makes no pretense whatsoever of being NPOV. The author(s) summon an impressive knowledge of events, large and small, from around the world to paint a sweeping portrait of Arab violence and racism. I suspect one could do this for just about any race or group -- sew together a compendium of awful words and deeds and call that encyclopedic. But is that what we do here? That said, many of these references could well find their way into pertinent articles. But it's just an attack page, in my view. Shawn in Montreal (talk)
    • Reply. Flatly telling: "this is an attack page" is only another way to tell: "I do not like it". Sure, this article is POVish. But how can we distinguish a legitimate criticism/debate from am "attack"? Many articles in WP look biased, for example Lynching in the United States. Certainly, it paints Americans in a very bad light. Should we delete it? No. Same thing is here.Biophys (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument above is more an argument to delete, not keep. Calling it an attack page isn't the same as saying "I don't like it," it's a recognition of what it is. Lynching in the United States isn't a valid comparison because that article doesn't cherry-pick its references to promote a one-sided point of view. That's why it shouldn't be deleted. It isn't the same thing here; in fact, cherry picking facts to collect in an article separate from Pan-Arabism constitutes a policy violation known as a POV fork. That simple fact should be obvious to everyone. We already have an article on Pan-Arabism. whatever can be salvaged from this article should be merged there. =Axlq 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it's at all the same as the Lynching in the US story. A better parallel would be an article that skims the globe, combining major and minor events -- lynching, apartheid, the KKK, the Holocaust, etc., along with local news items on violence from white youths/skinheads -- into an anti-white polemic entitled "Criticism of white people", or something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Biophys, who is an experienced wikipedian, should know better than to defend the rantings of a banning sock/meatpuppeteer. This is not a pov issue, but a seemingly random collection of quotes and links, all with the purpose of portraying arabs as generally bad people. Does Biophys consider that the passage "In 2006 Arab "Youths" Kick Man to Death on Crowded Bus in Antwerp Belgium" constitutes an encyclopedic presentation of criticism of Pan-Arab nationalism? --Soman (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you point out, the article is a largely word for word recreation of a previous version from a banned sock. Why could this not have been speedied? I think DGG erred in declining it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree DGG erred in declining the speedy. It should be deleted on {{db-disparage}} grounds, as I suggest above. =Axlq 19:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that article is biased, just as a lot of other articles here. But this is not a valid reason for deletion. Fix it.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, this is not a cleanup issue. This is not just biased, the entire article is created with the sole purpose of projecting Arabs as bad people. The methodology of gathering material solely stems from that intention, and there is no structure that can be reformed into a legitimate article. The article presents criticism against Arabs in general (sometimes remotely touching on the issue of pan-Arab nationalism), and isn't an encyclopediatic article discussing existing scholarily criticism of pan-Arab nationalisms. --Soman (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soapy fork. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted. Created by serial hoaxer, sockpuppeteer and petty annoyance GMTV Chart Show (talk · contribs), deleted as vandalism. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting (Tina Moore song)[edit]

Waiting (Tina Moore song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Don't meet the WP:CRYSTAL criteria and fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Renanx3 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Technically, I could argue that this song meets WP:MUSIC, as it is being covered by multiple artists. If it had been released, I would argue to keep it based on that argument. Right now, neither version appears to be notable, and it's crystalline.—Kww(talk) 23:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coment. I know you already agreed with me, but I would like to clarify one little thing: in the article is not shown any source that Lewis and U2/Coldplay will really cover this, whether reliable or not, so I think that it does not meets WP:MUSIC. Renanx3 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, or redir to Tina Moore which has very little content as it is. --triwbe (talk) 15:49, 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.
  1. ^ http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Patenti.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_30&oldid=1081103497"